The Role of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in the Development of the Law of State Responsibility

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Professor of International law, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

2 International Law Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Allameh Tabatabae'i University

Abstract

The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, established in 1981 as an arbitral body to resolve disputes between the Governments of Iran and the United States—as well as claims by their nationals against these States—has, by virtue of its mandate, played a pivotal role in the development of international law generally and the law of state responsibility in particular. In the absence of an international convention codifying the principles and rules of state responsibility, the Tribunal has drawn upon international judicial and arbitral precedents, as well as the United Nations International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, to elucidate customary international law in key areas. These include the structure and function of the state, attribution of conduct, unlawful expulsions, nationalization and expropriation of property, compensation standards, and state succession in wrongful acts. Through its jurisprudence, the Tribunal has affirmed the customary nature of these rules and clarified ambiguities in their application.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

James Crawford, The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries (CUP 2002).
Richard Lillich (ed), Iran-United States Claims Tribunal 1981–1983 (University Press of Virginia 1984).
Seyed Jamal Seifi, International Responsibility Law: Discourses on State Responsibility (2nd edn, Shahre Danesh Publications 2022).
Seyed Ghasem Zamani, The Judicial Policy of the International Court of Justice Regarding the Principle of the Prohibition of the Use of Force, in Proceedings of the Conference on the Role of the International Court of Justice in the Continuity and Development of International Law (Iranian Association for United Nations Studies 2010).
Seyed Ghasem Zamani and Zohreh Shafiei, ‘The International Responsibility of the United States Arising from the Violation of the Treaty of Amity in Light of the International Court of Justice’s Judgment of 30 March 2023’ (2024) 73 International Law Journal [in Persian].
Ali Ghasemi, ‘The International Responsibility of States for the Expulsion of Aliens with Emphasis on the Practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal’ (2014) 68 Judicial Law Perspectives Quarterly [in Persian].
Homayoun Mafi, ‘An Analysis of the Performance of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal’ (2008) 10(24) Public Law Research Quarterly [in Persian].
Nasser Ali Mansourian, ‘The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal: A Manifestation of the Clash of Two Civilizations in the Legal Arena’ (2001) 3(5) Journal of Legal and Political Research [in Persian].
Emily F Ariz, ‘Does the Lack of Binding Precedent in International Arbitration Affect Transparency in Arbitral Proceedings?’ (2021) 29(1) University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review356.
Damien Charlotin, ‘A Data Analysis of the Iran-US Claims Tribunal’s Jurisprudence: Lessons for International Dispute-Settlement Today’ (2019) 1(2) ITA in Review.
Marija Dordeska, ‘The Process of International Law-Making: The Relationship between the International Court of Justice and the International Law Commission’ (2015) 15(1) International and Comparative Law Review.
Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, ‘Arbitral Precedent: Dream, Necessity or Excuse?’ (2007) 23(3) Arbitration International.
Sylwia Stryjkowska, ‘The International Legal Issue of Attribution of Conduct to a State – The Case Law of the International Courts and Tribunals’ (2018) Adam Mickiewicz University Law ReviewDOI:10.14746/ppuam.2018.8.10.
Alfred Haber v. the Islamic Republic of Iran, IUSCT (1989).
Alfred L.W. Short v. Islamic Republic of Iran, IUSCT (1987).
Call-Main Foods Inc. v. Iran, IUSCT (1983).
Case A/18: Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America, IUSCT (1984).
International Technical Products v. the Islamic Republic of Iran, IUSCT (1985).
Jack Rankin v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, IUSCT (1987).
Nasser Esphanian v. Bank Tejarat, the Islamic Republic of Iran, IUSCT (1983).
Golpira v. the Islamic Republic of Iran, IUSCT (1983).
Oil Field of Texas v. the Islamic Republic of Iran, IUSCT (1986).
Phillips Petroleum v. Islamic Republic of Iran, IUSCT (1989).
Starret Housing v. the Islamic Republic of Iran, IUSCT (1983).
Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthy, Stratton v. Tama-Affa Consulting Engineers of Iran, IUSCT (1984).
Unidyne Corporation v. the Islamic Republic of Iran, IUSCT (1993).
Mohsen Novintan, Evaluation of Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal (IUSCT) Expropriation and Compensation in Individual Claims; A Two-Way Road or a Narrow Dirt Lane? (LLM Thesis, International & European Trade & Business Law, 2024) DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.20383.33446.
Tu Liwen, Why Binding Precedent Does Not Belong in Arbitration (Working Paper, 7 April 2024) https://ssrn.com/abstract=4887774 accessed 10 May 2024.
Iranian Journal of International and Comparative Law
Volume 2, Issue 2
December 2024
Pages 37-45

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics