International Commercial Arbitration

Arbitration, as a method of pacific settlement of disputes, is mentioned in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, by which parties to any dispute endeavor to find a solution to eliminate their conflict. Yet, article 33 does not include other forms of arbitrations that the United Nations System deals with. International arbitrations are generally referred to as interstate arbitration, international commercial arbitration, and international investment arbitration. Although these arbitration-based methods of international dispute settlement are different, they all observe the same goal: the settlement of disputes by peaceful means and preventing the parties from resorting to adverse behavior. Due to their common goal, it calls the role of the United Nations in promulgating international arbitrations among its member States into question: Has the UN had any bold involvement in promoting and strengthening international arbitrations in the abovementioned fields? It seems that the influence of the UN on interstate arbitration is undeniable because of its main goal and principles; however, this article depicts that the UN policy regarding international arbitrations adheres to the forming and developing international commercial arbitration and international investment arbitration rather than inter-state arbitration. The UN also plays a mediocre role in developing thematic-oriented international arbitrations.

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.

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.