Iran-United States Claims Tribunal Research Articles

The Iranian Forum Clause decisions of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

IN November 1982, the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) decided a number of cases which turned on the scope of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as set forth in the Claims Settlement Declaration,1 one of the agreements resulting from the settlement of the American hostage crisis.2 Although the Tribunal's grant of jurisdiction is broad, article II of the Declaration excludes, inter alia ,3 ‘claims arising under a binding contract between the parties specifically providing that any disputes thereunder shall be within the sole jurisdiction of the competent Iranian courts, in response to the Majlis position’.4 Because the scope and effect of this exclusionary clause was likely to be an issue in a large number of cases, the Tribunal selected nine test cases in order to provide guidance for future decisions.5 These cases presented a total of nineteen choice of forum clauses representative of the principal types of such clauses. The United States and Iran adopted fundamentally different approaches to article II's exclusionary clause. 6The United States took the position 7that the exclusionary clause should be narrowly construed; a claim would be excluded only if the particular choice of forum clause clearly met the specific requirements of the exclusionary clause.8 Furthermore, the choice of forum clause had to be ‘binding’. In other words, the choice of forum clause had to be enforceable against the contracting party before a claim would be excluded. The Tribunal, the United States argued, thus should decide whether the changes that had taken place in Iran were fundamental enough to preclude a reasonable expectation of relief.9 The Iranians, on the other hand, argued that the exclusionary clause should be given a broad construction. Accordingly, a claim would be beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal whenever it was based …

Iran-United States Claims Tribunal: Award in Case concerning Phelps Dodge Corp. and Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Iran (Treaty of Amity; Expropriation; OPIC Insurance Settlement; Standard for Compensation)

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Iran-United States Claims Tribunal: Interlocutory Award in Case Concerning Sedco, Inc. and National Iranian Oil Company and Iran

Iran-United States Claims Tribunal: Interlocutory Award in Case Concerning Sedco, Inc. and National Iranian Oil Company and Iran

Applying the UNCITRAL Rules: The Experience of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

Applying the UNCITRAL Rules: The Experience of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

Decision of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Phillips Petroleum Company, Iran v. Islamic Republic Of Iran, National Iranian Oil Company

State responsibility — Nature and kinds of — For revocation of, or interference with, concessions or concessionary contracts — Purported nullification of contract by Iran — Whether engaging State responsbility — lran — United States Claims Settlement Declaration, 1981 — The law and practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal Disputes — Arbitration — Procedure — Competence — Contractual claim — Purported annulment of contract — Whether affecting jurisdiction — Iran-United States Claims Settlement Declaration, 1981, Article II(1) — The law and practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

Amoco Iran Oil Co. v. Islamic Republic Of Iran, National Iranian Oil Company, Iranian Offshore Oil Company and Iranian Oil Company

State responsibility — Nature and kinds of — For revocation of, or interference with, concessions or concessionary contracts — Purported nullification of contract by Iran — Whether engaging State responsibility — Iran — United States Claims Settlement Declaration, 1981 — The law and practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal 490Disputes — Arbitration — Procedure — Competence — Contractual claim — Purported annulment of contract — Iran-United States Claims Settlement Declaration, 1981, Article II(1) — The law and practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

Grimm, Claimantv. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Respondent

Treaties — Interpretation of — Principles and rules of interpretation — Iran-United States Claims Settlement Declaration, 1981, Article 11(1) — Scope of jurisdiction of tribunal — Restrictive interpretation — Intention of parties — Principle of ejusdem generis — The law and practice of the Iran — United States Claims Tribunal650Disputes — Arbitration — Procedure — Competence — Jurisdiction of tribunal — Scope of — Restrictive interpretation — Intention of parties — Exclusion of claims — Whether failure to protect aliens a measure affecting property rights — Iran-United States Claims Settlement Declaration, 1981 — Article II(1) — Principle of eiusdem generis — The law and practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

Hoffland Honey Co., Claimantv. National Iranian Oil Co., Respondent

628Disputes — Arbitration — Procedure — Competence — Whether conduct attributable to respondent — Whether arising out of a measure affecting property rights — Iran-United States Claims Settlement Declaration, 1981 — Article II(1) — Whether conduct wrongful as a matter of law — Proximate cause of injury — Whether a political claim — The law and practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

Rexnord Inc., Claimantv. The Islamic Republic of Iran, Tchacosh Company and Iran Siporex Industrial and Manufacturing Works, Limited, Respondents

Disputes — Arbitration — Procedure — Refusal by arbitrator to sign award — Release of reasons thereof — Whether a violation of tribunal’s rule of confidentiality of deliberations — The law and practice of the Iran — United States Claims TribunalDisputes — Arbitration — Procedure — Competence — Interpretation of arbitration agreement — Whether respondent companies entities controlled by Iran — Whether claimant a United States national — Evidence thereof — Ownership of claim — Refusal of arbitrator to sign award — Release of reasons thereof — Whether a violation of tribunal's rule of confidentiality of deliberations — Iran-United States Claims Settlement Declaration, 1981 — The law and practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

RayGo Wagner Equipment Company, Claimantv. Iran Express Terminal Corporation, Respondent

The individual in international law — Nationality — Nationality of corporations — Evidence — Iran — United States Claims Settlement Declaration, 1981 — The law and practice of the Iran — United States Claims Tribunal688Disputes — Arbitration — Procedure — Competence — Iran-United States Claims Settlement Declaration, 1981 — Alleged agreements between United States company and Iranian corporation — Jurisdiction over claim arising therefrom — Evidence of nationality — Whether Iranian company an entity controlled by Government of Iran within meaning of Article VII(3) — Whether agreements validly concluded and binding upon Iranian company — The law and practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall, Claimant v. The Islamic Republic of Iran and Civil Engineering Directorate, National Iranian Navy, respondents

Disputes — Arbitration — Procedure — Iran-United States Claims Tribunal — Award on agreed terms — Procedure — Award made without prejudice to respondents’ position in future cases — The law and procedure of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

Re Judge N. Mangård

Disputes — Arbitration — In general — Appointment and withdrawal of arbitrators — Challenge to appointment — Alleged lack of neutrality — Claim by State party unilaterally to disqualify arbitrator — Rights of State party to arbitration agreement unilaterally to disqualify arbitrator — Whether constituting a challenge under challenge procedure of UNCITRAL Rules — Iran–United States Claims Tribunal — Jurisdiction

Halliburton Company, Imco Services (U.K.) Ltd., Claimants v. Doreen/Imco, The Islamic Republic of Iran, respondents

566 Disputes — Arbitration — Procedure — Competence — Iran-United States Claims Settlement Declaration — Forum selection clause — Contracts containing provisions for settlement of disputes by Iranian courts — Cases arising therefrom outside the jurisdiction of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal — Interpretation — Whether Tribunal entitled to consider enforceability of forum selection clauses — The law and practice of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal

Dresser Industries, Inc., Claimant v. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, The National Iranian Oil Company, respondents

Disputes — Arbitration — Procedure — Competence — Iran-United States Claims Settlement Declaration — Forum selection clause — Contracts containing provisions for settlement of disputes by Iranian courts — Cases arising therefrom outside the jurisdiction of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal — Interpretation — Arbitration clause — Arbitration in Iran — Arbitration proceedings subject to control by Iranian courts — Whether sufficient to exclude jurisdiction of Tribunal — The law and practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

Howard, Needles, Tammen and Bergendoff (HNTB), Claimant v. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, The Ministry of Roads and Transportation, Bank Tejarat, Respondents

573 Disputes — Arbitration — Procedure — Competence — Iran — United States Claims Settlement Declaration — Forum selection clause — Contracts containing provisions for settlement of disputes by Iranian courts — Cases arising therefrom outside the jurisdiction of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal — Interpretation — Choice of law clause — Whether choice of Iranian law equivalent to submission to the sole jurisdiction of the Iranian courts — The law and practice of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal

Gibbs and Hill, Inc., Claimant v. Iran Power Generation and Transmission Company (tavanir) of the Ministry of Energy of the Government of Iran, Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) of the Ministry of Energy of the Government of Iran, Ministry of Energy of the Government of Iran, Iranians' Bank, Bank Tejarat East Taleghani, The International Bank of Iran And Japan,

Disputes — Arbitration — Procedure — Competence — Iran–United States Claims Settlement Declaration — Forum selection clause — Contracts containing provisions for settlement of disputes by Iranian courts — Cases arising therefrom outside the jurisdiction of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal — Interpretation — Choice of law clause in contract — Whether choice of Iranian law bringing contract within forum selection clause — Whether clause providing for settlement of disputes under Iranian arbitration laws within scope of forum selection clause — The law and practice of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal

Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation, Aeronutronic Overseas Services Inc., Claimants v. The Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran, The Ground Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran, The Ministry of National Defence of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Bank Markazi and the Government of Iran, Respondents

Disputes — Arbitration — Procedure — Competence — Iran-United States Claims Settlement Declaration — Forum selection clause — Contracts containing provisions for settlement of disputes by Iranian courts — Cases arising therefrom outside the jurisdiction of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal — Interpretation — Clause providing for settlement of some contractual disputes by Iranian courts — Whether sufficient to exclude the jurisdiction of the Tribunal — The law and practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

Zokor International, Inc., Claimant v. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Société du Chemin de Fer Urbain de téhéran et de sa Banlieue (metro), respondents

598Disputes — Arbitration — Procedure — Competence — Iran-United States Claims Settlement Declaration — Forum selection clause — Contracts containing provisions for settlement of disputes by Iranian courts — Cases arising therefrom outside the jurisdiction of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal — Interpretation — Clause conferring jurisdiction over some contractual disputes upon the courts of Iran — Whether sufficient to exclude jurisdiction of the Tribunal — Ambiguity in clause — The law and practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

T.C.S.B., Inc., Claimant v. Iran, Respondents

Disputes — Arbitration — Procedure — Competence — Iran-United States Claims Settlement Declaration — Forum selection clause — Contracts containing provisions for settlement of disputes by Iranian courts — Cases arising therefrom outside the jurisdiction of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal — Interpretation — Reference to arbitration — Whether equivalent to submission to Iranian courts — Enforceability of forum selection clauses — Whether Tribunal entitled to consider enforceability — The law and practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal