Interpretative Arbitral Award in Iranian and International Law with a Focus on the Iran - United States Claims Tribunal

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

2 Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Mazandaran University, Babolsar, Iran

10.22091/ijicl.2025.11914.1121

Abstract

Despite the explicit mention of the possibility of issuing an interpretative award by the legislator in the International Commercial Arbitration Law (Article 32), this matter is subject to discrepancies in domestic arbitration. However, its existence can be inferred from instances such as Article 9 of the 2022 Arbitration Fee Regulation. The absence of a comprehensive definition for an interpretative award has consistently been a source of confusion and misuse of this concept in place of other similar concepts, such as review. This issue, coupled with the numerous benefits of interpretative awards, further emphasizes the importance of accurately understanding this institution. An interpretative award should be defined within the framework of rules such as res judicata and functus officio. It should also be noted that an interpretative award is based on ambiguity arising from the manner of drafting or interpretation by the parties and is therefore completely different from the concepts of a supplementary award and a corrective award. In international law, the interpretative award has been referred to in various documents, such as the 1976 UNCITRAL law (which is the basis of the arbitration agreement between Iran and the United States). International experiences demonstrate the importance of recognizing the true request, which should be formed considering criteria such as: the existence of real ambiguity, the purpose of clarification (not change in the award), the connection of the interpretation to the scope and concepts, and its basis on previous events. Also, a complete request should include items such as: quoting the ambiguous phrase, explaining the ambiguity, and stating the disagreement of the parties. The records of arbitrations between Iran and the United States also confirm that the lack of attention to these matters has been the reason for the failure of all related requests.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Iranian Journal of International and Comparative Law

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 16 February 2025

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics