The Precedential Value of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal’s Awards and Decisions in the Development of International Law

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Judge, Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (The Hague), Former Justice of the Supreme Court of Iran, Adjunct Professor of Faculty of Law at Shahid Beheshti University

Abstract

The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (IUSCT), throughout its operation, has successfully resolved a significant number of claims and disputes—including claims by nationals against the state and state-to-state disputes—within the sensitive legal and complex political milieus between Iran and the United States. Nevertheless, the Tribunal’s role in the international arena extends beyond this inter-state dimension: its awards and decisions, as widely acknowledged, have played a significant role in the development of law on a global scale, particularly in international arbitration, international investment, and international commercial law. A structured, analytical, and methodological study of the Tribunal’s impact on the development of law in the international arena necessitates an examination of its awards and decisions across various legal fields. These include contract law, international commercial law, and international law—particularly international investment law. The first step in such a study is to assess the status of the Tribunal’s awards and decisions in the international arena, particularly their precedential value, in order to ascertain the reasons for and mechanisms behind their influence on the development of law globally. This article, while clarifying that the awards and judgments of international courts and tribunals—including the IUSCT—are not generally binding precedent, seeks to demonstrate that these decisions may nevertheless serve as persuasive authority relied upon by other arbitral and judicial bodies on both procedural and substantive matters. The criteria for evaluating the nature and extent of this persuasive value are analyzed in this study. It is argued that the Tribunal’s rulings, as decisions rendered on diverse subject matters within the legal framework applicable to various other international commercial or investment disputes—and issued by an international claims tribunal with established external credibility and consistent internal jurisprudence— carry significant persuasive precedential value in the international arena.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Aldrich George H, The Jurisprudence of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal: An Analysis of the Decisions of the Tribunal (OUP 1996).
  2. Caron David D and Lee M Caplan, The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules: A Commentary (OUP 2013).
  3. Caron David D and John R Crook, The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and the Process of International Claims Resolution (Brill 2021).
  4. Garner Bryan A and others, The Law of Judicial Precedent (Thomson Reuters 2016).
  5. Khalilian S K, The Law of International Arbitration: A Jurisprudential Study on the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (Pacific Arbitration Network 2003).
  6. Lillich Richard B, *The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, 1981–1983* (University Press of Virginia 1984).
  7. Lillich Richard B, Daniel B Magraw and David J Bederman, The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal: Its Contribution to the Law of State Responsibility (Transnational Publishers 1998).
  8. MacCormick Neil, Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory (Clarendon Press 1994) (online edn, Oxford Academic 2012).
  9. Mohebbi Mohsen, The International Law Character of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (Kluwer Law International 1999).
  10. Pellonpää Matti and David D Caron, The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules as Interpreted and Applied: Selected Problems in Light of the Practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (Finnish Lawyers’ Publishing Company 1994).
  11. Shahabuddeen Mohamed, Precedent in the World Court (CUP 1996).
  12. Stewart David and Mark D Davis, The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules in Practice: The Experience of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (Kluwer Law International 1992).

Nelson Timothy G, ‘History Ain’t Changed: Why Investor-State Arbitration Will Survive the “New Revolution”’ in Michael Waibel, Asha Kaushal, Kyo-Hwa Liz Chung and Claire Balchin (eds), The Backlash against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality (Kluwer Law International 2010) 555–575.

  1. Zander Michael, ‘Binding Precedent – The Doctrine of Stare Decisis’ in The Law-Making Process(6th edn, CUP 2004) 215–264.
  1. Abedian Mir-Hossein and Reza Eftekhar, ‘Reasonableness: A Guiding Light—A Probe into the World Court’s Landmark Judgment on Substantive Standards of Investment Protection and Its Takeaways for Investment Treaty Tribunals’ (2024) 40(3)Arbitration International 307–336.
  2. Abedian Mir-Hossein, ‘Revision of Arbitral Awards: Inherent Authority of Arbitral Tribunal to Revise its Award – A Reflection on the Jurisprudence of Iran-United States Claims Tribunal’ (2017) 1 Iranian Yearbook of Arbitration 155-208.
  3. Devaney JG, ‘The Role of Precedent in the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice: A Constructive Interpretation’ (2022) 35(3)Leiden Journal of International Law 641–659.
  4. Gibson Christopher S and Christopher R Drahozal, ‘Iran-United States Claims Tribunal Precedent in Investor-State Arbitration’ (2006) 23(6)Journal of International Arbitration 521–540.
  5. Lewis Sebastian, ‘Precedent and the Rule of Law’ (2021) 41(4) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 873–898.
  1. Amoco International Finance Corp v Iran, Case No 310-56-3, Award (14 July 1987) 15 Iran-US CTR 189.
  2. CMI International, Inc v Ministry of Roads and Transportation, Case No 245, Award 99-245-2 (27 December 1983) 4 Iran-US CTR 267.
  3. Mobil Oil Iran, Inc v Iran, Award, Iran-US Claims Tribunal, Case No 153.
  4. Phillips Petroleum Co Iran v Iran, Case No 459-39-2, Award (29 June 1989) 21 Iran-US CTR 79.
  5. Rand Investments Ltd and Others v Republic of Serbia, ICSID Case No ARB/18/8, Award (29 June 2023).
  6. SGS Société Générale de Surveillance SA v Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No ARB/02/6, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction (29 January 2004).
  7. Starrett Housing Corp v Iran, Case No ITL 32-24-1, Award (19 December 1983) 4 Iran-US CTR 122.
  8. Tippetts, Abbet, McCarthy, Stratton v TAMS-AFFA Consulting Engineers of Iran, Case No 14-7-2, Award (29 June 1984) 6 Iran-US CTR 219.
  9. Tulip Real Estate and Development Netherlands BV v Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/11/28, Decision on Bifurcated Jurisdictional Issue (5 March 2013).
  10. Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Iran v United States) [1989] ICJ Rep, Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen.
  1. Algiers Declarations (General Declaration and Claims Settlement Declaration, 19 January 1981).
  2. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (1976).
  3. UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, as amended 2006).
Iranian Journal of International and Comparative Law
Volume 2, Issue 2
December 2024
Pages 21-36

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics