Res Judicata In The Precedent Of Iran - United States Claims Tribunal

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Law faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1.      Bin Cheng, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (Stevens & Sons Limited: The London Institute of World Affairs 1953).

2.      German Derbushev, Res Judicata and Arbitral Awards (LL.M Thesis, Central European University 2019).

3.      Mohamed Shahabuddeen, Precedent in the World Court (Vol 13, Cambridge University Press 2007).

4.      Nasser Katouzian, The Res Judicata Effect in Civil Litigation (11th edn, Mizan Legal Foundation 2020). [in Persian]

5.      Peter R Barnett, Res Judicata, Estoppel, and Foreign Judgments: The Preclusive Effects of Foreign Judgments in Private International Law (Oxford University Press 2001) para 1.12.

6.      Reports of International Arbitral Awards: Recueil des Sentences Arbitrales, Mixed Claims Commission (United States and Germany) (1 November 1923 – 30 October 1939) Volume VII (2006) pp 1-391.

7.      Silja Schaffstein, The Doctrine of Res Judicata Before International Arbitral Tribunals (Diss, Queen Mary University of London 2012).

8.      Yuval Shany, The Competing Jurisdictions of International Courts and Tribunals (Oxford University Press 2004).

1.      A Jacomy-Millette, 'Review of “Daoudi, Riad, La représentation en droit international public, Paris, Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence” (1980) 12 Études internationales 812–813.

2.      Audrey Sheppard, 'The Scope and Res Judicata Effect of Arbitral Awards' in Arbitral Procedure at the Dawn of the New Millennium (Reports of the International Colloquium of CEPANI, Bruylant 2005).

3.      Frits Kalshoven, Pieter Jan Kuyper, and Johan G. Lammers, 'International Law—General' in Recueil des Cours (1977) Vol IV (Tome 157 of the Collection).

4.      Hamid Reza Aloumi Yazdi, 'Establishing Implicit Obligations in International Treaties: Revisiting Two Awards of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, Award in Case B/1 (Claim 4) and Award in Case A/15 (2-A)' (2011) 13 Public Law Research 197. [in Persian]

5.      Michael Ottolenghi, 'A14, and B61 Islamic Republic of Iran v United States: Case Nos A3, A8, A9, Iran-US Claims Tribunal Partial Award Concerning US Duty, Under Algiers Accords, to Compensate Iran for Blocking Exports of Property' (2010) 104 American Journal of International Law 474-480.

6.      Mohsen Mohebi, 'The Legal Nature of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal from the Perspective of International Law' (1994) 13 International Legal Journal 95. [in Persian]

1.      Declaration of the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria (General Declaration, 19 January 1981).

2.      Declaration of the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria Concerning the Settlement of Claims by the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Claims Settlement Declaration, 19 January 1981).

3.      IUSCT, Tribunal Rules of Procedure (3 May 1983).

4.      League of Nations, Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice (16 December 1920).

5.      North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

6.      United Nations, Statute of the International Court of Justice (18 April 1946).

1.      Franco-Venezuelan Mixed Claims Commission, Compagnie Générale de l’Orénoque (1905) reprinted in Jackson Harvey Ralston, Report of French-Venezuelan Mixed Claims Commission of 1902 (No 533, U.S. Government Printing Office 1906) 244–355.

2.      ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro) (26 February 2007).

3.      ICJ, Asylum, Colombia v Peru, Merits, Judgment [1950] ICJ Rep 266, ICJ Case No 194 (ICJ 1950).

4.      ICJ, Haya de la Torre Case, Colombia v Peru, Merits, Judgment [1951] ICJ Rep 71, ICJ Case No 191 (ICJ 1951).

5.      ICJ, Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea Intervening) (Judgment, 10 October 2002) para 318.

6.      ICSID, Apotex v United States, ICSID Case No Arb(AF)/12/1 (25 August 2014).

7.      ICSID, Waste Management, Inc. v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No Arb(AF)/00/3 (26 June 2002).

8.      IUSCT, Award No 130, Case No A28 (19 December 2000).

9.      IUSCT, Award No 529-A15 (II: A and II: B), Case No A15 (II: A and II: B), Full Tribunal, Partial Award (6 May 1992).

10.   IUSCT, Award No 601, Cases No A3, A8, A9, A14, A21 & B61, Doc No 916, Partial Award (July 2009).

11.   IUSCT, Decision No 132-A33-Ft, Case No A32 (9 September 2004).

12.   PCA, Decision of the PCA between the United Kingdom and France (14 March 1978) (2006) XVIII Reports of International Arbitral Awards 295.

13.   PCIJ, Interpretation of Judgments Nos 7 & 8 (The Chorzow Factory) (Germany v Poland) Judgment (16 December 1927) PCIJ Rep Series A No 11, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anzilotti.

14.   WTO, India—Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector (Complaints by the European Communities and the United States, WT/DS146/R and WT/DS175/R), Report of the Panel.

Iranian Journal of International and Comparative Law
Volume 2, Issue 2
December 2024
Pages 147-166

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics