Shifting the Burden of Proof in the Practice of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal

Abstract

When an adjudication body is called upon to resolve a dispute, its function is to weigh the adduced evidence and decide whether a claim has been made out on that evidence or not. The adjudication body will come to a conclusion from the evidence that has been presented, and in some cases from evidence which has not been presented, but which would have been expected to be forthcoming. International tribunals, such as the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (IUSCT), may also draw adverse inferences from the silence of a party in circumstances where such silence is inconsistent with the position taken by that party in the arbitration. This article briefly discusses issues such as the burden of proof, who must shoulder the burden of proof, and an alternative allocation for burden of proof in the practice of the international adjudication bodies (mainly the Tribunal itself ).