The emergence of blockchain technology and smart contracts has fundamentally transformed contract law. As self-executing, computer-based protocols that operate automatically without intermediaries, smart contracts offer advantages such as speed and reduced costs, yet they pose serious challenges for dispute resolution. The central question is how traditional dispute resolution institutions can remain effective when contractual obligations are performed automatically and irreversibly through code. This descriptive-analytical study adopts a comparative approach, examining the legal systems of Iran and England. Findings indicate that English law, drawing on the flexibility of common law, the Arbitration Act 2025, and the UKJT Digital Dispute Resolution Rules, has established an effective framework for smart contract disputes. In contrast, the Iranian legal system suffers from a clear legislative vacuum and lacks coherent judicial practice; existing laws fail to address the self-executing nature of these contracts. The article concludes by drawing on England's experiences, offering recommendations for reforming Iranian law and designing a dispute resolution model tailored to smart contracts.