Search Results

This chapter summarizes the decisions of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal on two special types of cases: disputes between Iran and the United States as to the interpretation of or compliance with the terms of the Algiers Declarations; and the large Iranian contractual claim against the United States Department of Defense. Jurisdiction over these cases was reserved to the Full Tribunal. In addition, Article 6, Paragraph 4 of the Claims Settlement Declaration gave the Tribunal jurisdiction over ‘any question concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement’ when requested by either Government. While the other official claims were eventually distributed among the Chambers, Case No. B1 was reserved to the Full Tribunal because of the magnitude of the claims included within that statement of claim.

It is generally acknowledged that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of May 23, 1969 codified the relevant law. Despite this definitive guidance, when the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal first faced a question of treaty interpretation, it made no reference whatsoever to the Vienna Convention. The issue in that case was whether the Algiers Declarations gave the Tribunal jurisdiction over claims by the Government of Iran against nationals of the United States. Iran had asked the Tribunal to interpret the Declarations and had contended that the provisions of General Principle B of the General Declaration expressing ‘the purpose of both parties…to terminate all litigation as between the government of each party and the nationals of the other’ indicated that such jurisdiction existed despite the fact that the Claims Settlement Declaration, in Article 2, specified the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in a way that clearly excluded such jurisdiction.

The Algiers Declarations make no direct reference to interim measures that the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal might order, but Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the Claims Settlement Declaration makes an indirect reference by providing that the Tribunal ‘shall conduct its business in accordance with the arbitration rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) except to the extent modified by the parties or by the Tribunal to ensure that this agreement can be carried out’. The relevant provision of the UNCITRAL Rules – which is unchanged in the Tribunal Rules – is Article 26. When the Tribunal first addressed a request for interim measures of protection, it based the measures it ordered, not on Article 26, but on its ‘inherent powers’. The Tribunal did not refer to Article 26 in requesting Iran to stay proceedings against E-Systems in an Iranian court that involved the same contract and many of the same issues as E-System’s claims before the Tribunal.

Relatively few issues concerning currency arose in cases decided by the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal. While many contracts between American claimants and Iran provided for payments in Iranian rials, the 1981 Algiers Declarations established a security account in U.S. dollars for the payment of all claims against Iran. Consequently, as Awards by the Tribunal against Iran were all to be paid in dollars, with a few exceptions, the awarded amounts were stated in dollars. Thus, the principal currency question facing the Tribunal was the choice of the exchange rate for debts due in rials. Awards to Iranian parties were either in dollars or rials, depending upon the debt. While one might have expected Iranian foreign exchange controls, which were put into effect in late 1978, to be a frequent source of dispute, in fact the issue was not often addressed.

Claims arising out of contractual relationships constituted a substantial part of the total claims presented to the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal. Included were contracts between agencies of the two governments, contracts between private persons and a government agency, and contracts between private persons where one government became liable for the debts of one of the parties by virtue of the Algiers Declarations and the exercise by that government of control over that party. The great variety of contracts, parties, and circumstances gave the Tribunal the opportunity to address many contractual issues. The effects of the Iranian Revolution on contractual relationships ensured that the Tribunal would deal extensively with the concepts of force majeure and the termination of contracts because of frustration or impossibility of performance.

The Algiers Declarations make no reference to rules of evidence, except as may be implicit in the general directive of Article 5 of the Claims Settlement Declaration that the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal ‘shall decide all cases on the basis of respect for law’. The Tribunal Rules, however, deal with the question of evidence in Article 24. While any party could request an opposing party to produce relevant, identified evidence, and the Tribunal could order such production, there was no means of enforcement available except for the Tribunal to draw adverse inferences from a failure to produce evidence that was evidently in the possession of that party. For all of these reasons, the Tribunal was inclined to accept as adequate proof of claims and defenses evidence that fell far short of what one might normally consider the best evidence, particularly when the Tribunal was satisfied that it was the best evidence available to the party.