The settlement of administrative disputes, as one of the fundamental pillars of administrative law, plays a crucial role in ensuring justice, promoting accountability, and strengthening the legitimacy of governance. The effectiveness of dispute resolution mechanisms not only enhances public trust and reduces administrative grievances but also contributes to the consolidation of social capital and the reinforcement of the legal order. In the Iranian legal system, institutions such as the Administrative Justice Court, quasi-judicial commissions, and internal mechanisms within executive bodies constitute the core framework for resolving administrative disputes, with a particular emphasis on judicial and quasi-judicial approaches. In Iraq, given the legal structure and the unique political experiences following 2003, administrative boards, tribunals, and oversight bodies seek to strike a balance between administrative efficiency and the protection of citizens’ rights. Using a descriptive–analytical method, this study concludes that strengthening administrative dispute resolution institutions, ensuring transparency in adjudicatory processes, and guaranteeing citizens’ access to administrative justice can significantly enhance the legitimacy of governance in both Iran and Iraq. Furthermore, designing participatory and non-adversarial mechanisms such as mediation and administrative arbitration, alongside effective judicial oversight, are key factors in reducing conflicts and improving the efficiency of governance systems.