General Observations on the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and Its Contribution to the Development of International Arbitral Procedure

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Arbitrator of the Iran-United States Disputes Tribunal, former professor at the Universities of Tilburg (Netherlands), Hull (England) and Shahid Beheshti (Iran).

10.22091/ijicl.2025.12449.1140

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to discuss the theoretical and practical developments and nuances surrounding international arbitration in light of the "lived experience" of the author with the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. Part one highlights the Tribunal role as an institution symbolizing the "ideal of arbitration for peace." The integrated and multifaceted nature of the Tribunal and the various elements demonstrating this aspect have been outlined, whereby it is underlined that the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal simultaneously functions as an international commercial arbitration tribunal, an international investment arbitration tribunal, an arbitral tribunal with jurisdiction over contractual claims between the Two States, as well as a public international law Tribunal; a phenomenon which allows for analysis of the Tribunal’s decisions from multiple angles.

The second part is mainly looked at from the perspective of the encounter of different legal cultures of the parties in international arbitral proceedings and its effect on the process of decision-making. The choice of this topic, of course, has been made with a view to the issues affecting legal practices in Iran, and tries to underline the unique role of the Tribunal in deepening the legal knowledge and practical skills of Iranian lawyers in dealing with international claims. In this regard, issues such as lack of need for provision of a power of attorney by the parties' attorneys, the possibility to present a written witness testimony (affidavit) by the parties, the ability to provide a written testimony by a person having a personal interest in the case and the possibility for oral testimony by such a person, or a by a person having a relationship with a party, at the hearings, the ability to question or “cross-examine” the witnesses of the other party in the hearing regarding the content and accuracy of his/her testimony.

Keywords

Main Subjects