Iranian Journal of International and Comparative Law

This article aims to address theoretical and practical issues arising from the author’s "lived experience" in dealing with the developments and intricacies of international arbitration, with a particular focus on experiences related to the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. These discussions are presented in two parts. The first part consists of general observations that emphasize, on the one hand, the unique importance of the Tribunal in contributing to the maintenance of international peace and security through the peaceful resolution of disputes between two predominantly adversarial states. The Tribunal is referred to as a symbolic institution embodying the "ideal of arbitration for peace." On the other hand, this section highlights the hybrid and multifaceted nature of the Tribunal and its manifestations, noting that the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal is a multifunctional institution. It simultaneously serves as an international commercial arbitration tribunal, an international investment arbitration tribunal, a tribunal with jurisdiction over contractual disputes between two states, and a public international law tribunal. This multifaceted nature allows its awards to be examined from various perspectives. The second part primarily examines the Tribunal’s jurisprudence from the perspective of the interaction between distinct legal cultures involved in international arbitration and the mutual influence of their legal backgrounds on the arbitration process. This selection is made with consideration of the judicial issues prevalent in Iran and seeks to highlight the Tribunal’s unparalleled role in deepening the legal knowledge and practical skills of Iranian lawyers in dealing with international claims. In this regard, issues such as the non-requirement of power of attorney for legal representatives, the admissibility of written witness testimony (affidavit) by the parties, the submission of written witness testimony and oral testimony by individuals with a personal interest in the case or a master-servant relationship with the parties, the ability to cross-examine witnesses during hearings regarding the content and veracity of their testimony, and the standard applied by the Tribunal for meeting the burden of proof and the burden of production are all examined in light of the Tribunal’s various rulings.

The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (IUSCT), throughout its operation, has successfully resolved a significant number of claims and disputes—including claims by nationals against the state and state-to-state disputes—within the sensitive legal and complex political milieus between Iran and the United States. Nevertheless, the Tribunal’s role in the international arena extends beyond this inter-state dimension: its awards and decisions, as widely acknowledged, have played a significant role in the development of law on a global scale, particularly in international arbitration, international investment, and international commercial law. A structured, analytical, and methodological study of the Tribunal’s impact on the development of law in the international arena necessitates an examination of its awards and decisions across various legal fields. These include contract law, international commercial law, and international law—particularly international investment law. The first step in such a study is to assess the status of the Tribunal’s awards and decisions in the international arena, particularly their precedential value, in order to ascertain the reasons for and mechanisms behind their influence on the development of law globally. This article, while clarifying that the awards and judgments of international courts and tribunals—including the IUSCT—are not generally binding precedent, seeks to demonstrate that these decisions may nevertheless serve as persuasive authority relied upon by other arbitral and judicial bodies on both procedural and substantive matters. The criteria for evaluating the nature and extent of this persuasive value are analyzed in this study. It is argued that the Tribunal’s rulings, as decisions rendered on diverse subject matters within the legal framework applicable to various other international commercial or investment disputes—and issued by an international claims tribunal with established external credibility and consistent internal jurisprudence— carry significant persuasive precedential value in the international arena.

The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, established in 1981 as an arbitral body to resolve disputes between the Governments of Iran and the United States—as well as claims by their nationals against these States—has, by virtue of its mandate, played a pivotal role in the development of international law generally and the law of state responsibility in particular. In the absence of an international convention codifying the principles and rules of state responsibility, the Tribunal has drawn upon international judicial and arbitral precedents, as well as the United Nations International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, to elucidate customary international law in key areas. These include the structure and function of the state, attribution of conduct, unlawful expulsions, nationalization and expropriation of property, compensation standards, and state succession in wrongful acts. Through its jurisprudence, the Tribunal has affirmed the customary nature of these rules and clarified ambiguities in their application.

The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (IUSCT) stands as one of the most significant international arbitral institutions, having adjudicated a wide array of disputes over several consecutive decades. It has generated a rich body of jurisprudence that warrants comprehensive analysis from various perspectives. One such dimension is its influence on international arbitration practices, which merits in-depth examination. This article aims to explore the impact of the IUSCT on the practices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) concerning state responsibility. To this end, the study employs a descriptive-analytical methodology, drawing on library-based data to achieve its objectives. The findings of the research indicate that the IUSCT has significantly influenced the arbitration practices of ICSID and the PCA in matters pertaining to state responsibility. For instance, the PCA, in cases such as Paushok v. Russia and Allard v. Barbados, which were conducted under international arbitration rules and UNCITRAL rules, has relied on the jurisprudence of the IUSCT to expand the scope of state responsibility in ensuring fair and equitable resolution of disputes with foreign investor companies. Similarly, ICSID, in cases like Santa Elena v. Costa Rica, has drawn on precedents from the IUSCT to develop the concept of state responsibility in matters involving compensation for expropriation of foreign investor companies and the determination of fair compensation amounts.

In the case of “Iran’s Foreign Military Sales” (Case B-1), which encompasses six claims and a counterclaim, proceedings have continued for over four decades. A focal point in the process of filing numerous applications and the rulings issued in this case has consistently been the issue of evidence and the burden of proof. This qualitative research aims to address the fundamental question of the approaches taken by the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal  regarding evidence and the burden of proof, as well as the implications of these approaches on the adjudication of Case B-1. The findings indicate that the Tribunal, in each case, has adhered not only to general legal principles - such as ‘actori incumbit onus probandi’ -but also to the unique circumstances and specific conditions of each case, such as the accessibility of evidence, in determining the allocation of the burden of proof. As the parties strive to substantiate the credibility of their evidence before the Tribunal using general principles of international law, which are potentially recognized as applicable law by the Tribunal, they also seek to undermine the credibility of the opposing party’s evidence through various arguments. It is essential for Iran to enhance its precision in referencing the submitted documents and to clarify the technical dimensions, as well as to ensure compliance with the Tribunal’s standards in future rulings, in order to achieve its objectives in other ongoing cases.

bodies in history. The arbitrators of this institution have referred to general principles of law, citing Article 5 of the Claims Settlement Declaration, in various cases for decision-making. Among the general principles of law, if not the most important, undoubtedly one of the most important principles is the principle of good faith. This principle plays a significant role in ensuring justice and fair adjudication. The present study, using library and documentary sources and a descriptive-analytical method, examines the role and status of the principle of good faith in the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. The research findings show that the tribunal, recognizing the importance and role of the principle of good faith in ensuring justice and fair adjudication, has referred to and established a bridge between the two legal systems of Iran and the United States in various procedural and substantive instances. The principle of good faith has played an important role in the tribunal.

Notwithstanding the explicit provision for interpretive awards under Article 32 of Iran’s Law on International Commercial Arbitration, their application in domestic arbitration remains contentious. However, their existence may be inferred from instruments such as Article 9 of the 2022 Arbitration Fee Regulations. The absence of a comprehensive definition for interpretive awards has perpetuated conceptual confusion and facilitated their misuse as substitutes for revision procedures—a problematic tendency that, when considered alongside the significant benefits of properly utilized interpretive awards, underscores the critical importance of precisely understanding this legal mechanism. Interpretive awards must be conceptualized within established legal frameworks including res judicata and functus officio. Crucially, such awards address only those ambiguities arising from either drafting deficiencies or divergent party interpretations, rendering them fundamentally distinct from supplementary or corrective awards. In international law, interpretive awards appear in various instruments including the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules (which govern the Iran-U.S. arbitration agreement). International practice demonstrates that valid interpretation requests must satisfy specific criteria: (1) demonstration of genuine ambiguity; (2) pursuit of clarification rather than substantive modification; (3) direct relevance to the award’s scope; and (4) grounding in established factual circumstances. Proper requests should additionally include: (a) the ambiguous text; (b) explanation of the ambiguity; and (c) the parties’ conflicting interpretations. The jurisprudence of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal confirms that failure to meet these requirements has resulted in uniform rejection of interpretation requests.

The resignation of an arbitrator constitutes one of the grounds for the termination of an arbitrator’s mandate, as provided for in most national arbitration laws and institutional arbitration rules. However, the legal dimensions and implications of such resignation- including its effects on the parties’ rights and the arbitral proceedings- may vary depending on the arbitrator’s motives for resigning and the justifiability (or lack thereof) of those motives. For instance, the acceptance of a resignation, the method of appointing a substitute arbitrator, the possibility of continuing proceedings before a truncated tribunal (i.e., without replacing the resigning arbitrator), and even the arbitrator’s potential civil liability may be subject to differing legal determinations based on whether the resignation is deemed justified. Domestic and international arbitration laws and rules have addressed arbitrator resignations through divergent approaches, often focusing solely on the replacement of the arbitrator while neglecting broader legal and ethical challenges. These challenges include the permissibility of resignation, its acceptance, its impact on the continuation of proceedings, and the prevention of its abuse. The unique characteristics of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal have rendered the issue of arbitrator resignation particularly significant within its framework. Notable in this regard are the Tribunal’s jurisprudence and its modifications to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules- aimed at mitigating procedural delays arising from resignations. One of the most consequential procedural rules derived from the Tribunal’s experience is the addition of Paragraph 5 to Article 13 of the UNCITRAL Rules, which imposes an obligation on the resigning arbitrator to continue participating in proceedings (post-resignation) in cases where they have already taken part in the merits hearing. This provision, known as the Mosk Rule, has introduced a distinctive mechanism to safeguard procedural integrity. This article examines the rationale behind the Mosk Rule, its legal effects in light of general principles governing arbitrator resignation and replacement, its implications on the parties’ rights, the imperative of ensuring fair and equitable proceedings, and the preservation of arbitration’s legitimacy and credibility. Furthermore, the study proposes measures to deter unjustified resignations and mitigate their adverse impact on arbitral proceedings.

The principle of full compensation for damages is an accepted tenet in law, requiring that all damages incurred by the injured party be compensated. This study examines the methods of contractual compensation in the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. First, the concept of the principle of contractual compensation and its conditions are discussed in various conventions and international legal documents. Given that the Tribunal represents one of the largest case- specific international arbitrations, its opinions and rulings can significantly influence or, at the very least, elucidate the practical aspects of arbitration within the realm of international law. This paper presents the rulings of the Tribunal, with a focus on decisions related to contract termination, reasonable compensation, and outstanding invoices. The findings indicate that in most cases, the Tribunal has awarded interest for damages and has followed a monetary approach to compensation.

The principle of res judicata serves as a fundamental pillar of adjudication within legal frameworks, prohibiting a judicial body from re-adjudicating a dispute that has already been resolved and for which a judicial decision has been rendered. This paper explores the jurisprudence of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, critically analyzing the Tribunal’s reasoning and approach to res judicata. A descriptive-analytical analysis, alongside a meticulous examination of the Tribunal’s rulings, reveal inconsistencies in its application of res judicata. At times, the Tribunal has raised the threshold for its application compared to similar courts and Tribunals, whereas at other instances, it has broadened its scope. Over time, the Tribunal has not remained consistent with its prior findings regarding res judicata, occasionally excluding certain disputes from its ambit based on insufficiently robust arguments. Furthermore, when applying this principle, the Tribunal has expanded its scope and asserted authority over all aspects of the ruling articulated in the operative part of the judgment. Consequently, a notable inconsistency exists within the Tribunal’s rulings regarding the application of pertaining to the principle of res judicata.

When arbitration is mentioned, the concept of its finality immediately comes to mind, and the possibility of appealing arbitration awards is generally dismissed. This characteristic has made arbitration an increasingly attractive method for resolving international commercial disputes due to its expedited and cost-effective nature. However, in certain arbitration regimes, including the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (the IUSCT, the Tribunal), the possibility of appeal under specific conditions is anticipated. This research aims to assess the feasibility of appealing arbitration awards and analyze the associated limitations, with a focus on the jurisprudence of the IUSCT. In this context, the concept of appeal in international arbitration and its distinction from analogous concepts will be examined, and the unique position of appeals in the IUSCT will be analyzed. The findings, gathered through a descriptive-analytical methodology, indicate that, in specific cases, the IUSCT provide unique avenues for appealing awards.

The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal is an international body established based on agreements reached in the Algiers Accords, tasked with resolving legal disputes between the parties and their nationals. The Tribunal’s contribution in reducing conflicts and the volume of cases handled demonstrates its effectiveness in peacefully settling disputes and implementing beneficial arbitration practices. However, controversies exist regarding the enforcement of the Tribunal’s awards, particularly as paragraph 7 of the General Declaration stipulates the establishment of a Security Account by Iran to secure the enforcement of financial judgments against the country, while no specific provisions are made for other awards. This situation has led to Iran’s objections regarding the absence of a similar mechanism for the enforcement of awards in its favor, deeming the recognition and enforcement framework of the New York Convention inadequate in this context. The present study aims to analyze the enforcement mechanism of the Tribunal’s awards through a descriptive-analytical method, focusing on the applicability of the recognition and enforcement framework of the 1958 New York Convention. The central research question is: What mechanism governs the recognition and enforcement of awards issued in favor of Iranian parties? The fundamental hypothesis posits that, according to existing practices, the New York Convention is applicable to the enforcement of these awards. Research findings indicate that the New York Convention possesses the necessary capacity for the enforcement of the Tribunal’s awards. Furthermore, the Tribunal’s dual nature, addressing claims from two states as well as claims from nationals of one state against another, does not create an obstacle in this regard.

Iran’s Law on International Commercial Arbitration (LICA), inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Arbitration, was enacted in 1997 with the aim of modernizing the country’s approach to international commercial disputes. Employing a descriptive- analytical methodology, this paper analyzes LICA’s strengths and weaknesses with a focus on the Iranian Constitution which- as the country’s Supreme Law - has seemingly eclipsed the arbitration process. Specifically, this research zeroes in on the potential conflict between Article 139 of the Constitution, which mandates parliamentary approval for foreign disputes involving state assets, and the inherently expeditious nature of arbitration. This study argues that these constitutional formalities - while safeguarding national interests - should be reduced as they may hamper the efficiency and expeditiousness typically associated with arbitration. The author proposes that - as arbitration is intertwined with less formality - the Guardian Council can invoke its constitutional powers to curtail these formalities and create an environment conducive to a standard arbitration process. This analysis maintains that the Iranian Constitution does not necessarily supersede arbitration provisions, and proposes that the Council has the authority to streamline arbitral procedures within the legal framework of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The two-volume book *Selected Articles on International Law, Adjudication, and Arbitration* by Dr. Seyed Jamal Seifi, a distinguished international arbitrator and former judge at the Iran- United States Claims Tribunal, compiles articles published over three decades in Iranian legal journals. Volume 1, published in 2023, contains twelve articles divided into three sections: Arbitration (4 articles), the International Court of Justice (4 articles), and the Substance of International Law (4 articles). Volume 2, published in 2024, includes eight older articles from 1994 to 2011, organized into two sections: International Arbitration and Adjudication (4 articles) and the Substance of International Law (4 articles). The articles reflect Dr. Seifi’s dual expertise in international arbitration and public international law, addressing topics such as the evolution of arbitration, the role of the International Court of Justice, and contemporary issues in international law, including state sovereignty, investment arbitration, and the legal regime of the Caspian Sea. The review highlights the enduring relevance of these articles, particularly in light of recent developments in international law, and underscores their contribution to enriching Iran’s legal scholarship. The collection serves as a valuable resource for understanding the intersection of international arbitration, adjudication, and public international law.