Iran–United States Claims Tribunal

The Iran - United States Claims Tribunal, short IUSCT (in German, mutatis mutandis: Iranian- American Court of demand ) is employed on 1 July 1981 arbitration. The IUSCT has its seat in The Hague, Netherlands.

  • 2.1 I. appointment of arbitrator
  • 2.2 II referee exchange
  • 2.3 III. Challenge of an arbitrator
  • 2.4 IV chambers and "Full Tribunal "
  • 2.5 V. tasks
  • 2.6 VI. Seat of the Tribunal
  • 2.7 VII status of the Tribunal, its members and employees
  • 3.1 1 tasks of the Full Tribunal
  • 3.2 second work of the Boards
  • 3.3 3 Classification and assignment of cases

History and Background

Iranian expansion

During the 1960s and 1970s Iran, under the leadership of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi tried to break away from the strong economic dependence on oil resources. Man sought after technologies, equipment, services and consultants from abroad.

Here, they put great value on the involvement of Western and especially U.S. companies and consultants. With the quadrupling of oil prices at the end of 1973 also increased investments in Iran. The government recruited and employed more and more foreign technicians and consultants to the acquired factories and equipment to maintain and train Iranian personnel build.

Mostly now flowed money in the Iranian military. To a large extent were computer techniques acquired roads and port facilities to factories and steel mills.

Reversal of the revolution

However, the resentment grew among the population, as the late 1970s, up to 45,000 U.S. citizens assisted projects worth several billion dollars in Iran. This ultimately leads to strengthening religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini and the deposition of the Shah. Later, many of the contracts were signed with U.S. companies ended ( in various ways ) and confiscated their assets, as with the proclamation of the Islamist Republic of Iran the revolution gained the upper hand.

Procedure with assets

As Iranian protestors on 4 November 1979, the U.S. embassy in Tehran stormed and took the staff hostage, the protests against the United States reached its peak.

The then Finance Minister and Foreign Minister ( and later the first President of the Islamic Republic of Iran ) Abdol -Hassan Bani- Sadr threatened that Iran was considering withdrawing all state assets into U.S. banks and reject all claims of American citizens, after which President Jimmy Carter was part of the U.S. to freeze Iranian accounts.

Agreement on IUSCT

After negotiations between the two sides under the mediation of Algeria, it came on 19 January 1981 on the Algiers Accords (comparison of Algiers ). This consists among other things of a general declaration ( GD), the Claims Settlement Declaration and procedures. In the comparison of Algiers agreement was reached to negotiate next release of the hostages and release of the accounts and the creation of an arbitral tribunal claims by U.S. citizens against Iran, actions of Iranian nationals against the United States as well as actions of the two governments against each other. As a part of the agreement, approximately one billion U.S. dollars withheld as " Security Account " to the American plaintiffs awarded pay arbitration awards can.

On 1 July 1981, the court first met and officially began operations.

Design and Structure

The Iran - United States Claims Tribunal ( IUSCT ) has been used in accordance with Article II, Section 1 of the Algiers Accords by CSD.

I. appointment of arbitrators

Article III, Section 2 CSD ​​provides that the appointment of the members of the Court have to be in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade law ( UNCITRAL AR).

The Court shall consist of nine or any number divisible by three the number of members. Ultimately, it remained in the number of nine members. Three arbitrators shall be appointed by the Government of Iran, three more of the Government of the United States. The last three arbitrators are to be appointed by the already appointed six Iranian and American arbitrators. In the event that no agreement can be reached, the remaining judges of the Appointing Authority shall be appointed.

On October 19, 1981 use the first president of IUSCT, Gunnar K. Lagergren, made use of his power under Article III, paragraph 1 sentence 4 of the CSD and formed three chambers of three arbitrators. The composition of the chambers was decided by lot.

Second referee exchange

An arbitrator change is already often happened in the history of the tribunal, be it that a judge has left the tribunal itself or be it against him that a rejection of the request (challenge ) has been filed. The procedure for the replacement of an arbitrator is governed by the Tribunal Rules of Procedure ( TRP). Article 13, paragraph 1 TRP refers to the Arts. 6-9 TRP. These have been taken verbatim ( with the same part numbers ) of the UNCITRAL AR. From these standards and taking account of Article III, Section 2 CSD ​​different modes of procedure arise depending on whether it is in the outgoing arbitrator by one of the government of one of the parties (ie Iran or the United States of America) is, or whether the judge was a so-called neutral judge who was appointed by the two parties.

1 Replacement of an arbitrator appointed by the Government to replace a referee appointed by the Government is accomplished easily. After the referee has resigned, the competent government appoints a successor. In the event that the government refuses to replace a retired referee, according to Article 7, paragraph 2 TRP requested by the other government is a successor by the Appointing Authority (currently the former Chief Justice of the Dutch Supreme Court Pim Haak ) ordered. Such a case is, however, not occurred in the history of the tribunal.

2 Replacement of a "neutral" arbitrator If a "neutral" arbitrator from his office, his successor in accordance with Article 7, Section 1 of TRP is appointed by the six judges of the two governments. Can not these agree on a successor, would refer to Article 7, paragraph 3 TRP to in Article 6 TRP regulated procedures regarding the provision of a successor by the Appointing Authority.

III. Challenge of an arbitrator

With regard to the challenge of an arbitrator the reasons are set out in the UNCITRAL AR. An arbitrator may, therefore, be rejected in cases where there are doubts on his impartiality exist. The TRP also still include an extension to the UNCITRAL AR: An arbitrator may also reject even if he himself has doubts about his impartiality in a particular case. So the Iranian referee Parviz Moin Ansari had rejected in a particular case even because of past relationships with one of the parties. The Iranian government named in his place one of the Legal Assistants as an ad hoc referee for the continuation of the case.

On September 3, 1984, an incident which also led to a formal proposal for rejection occurred. The Iranian referee Mahmood Kashani and Shafie Shafeiei were palpably against the then Chairman of the 3rd chamber, Nils Mangard and threatened him with further violence, he should not leave the Tribunal. This rejection is not directly related to a specific present case the Tribunal. However, the rejection of the request of the Americans would have had certain success, the two Iranian referee had not been withdrawn and replaced by their government. The application was therefore not pursued. He has, however, never formally withdrawn.

Also currently running a rejection of the request. This is directed against the Appointing Authority, Pim Haak. What are the immediate background to the application and which party has asked this, but I could not be reported at this time.

IV chambers and "Full Tribunal "

Briefly listed above with DI the first president of IUSCT, Gunnar K. Lagergren, of its power under Article III, paragraph 1 sentence 4 of the CSD has used and formed three chambers of three arbitrators. Each chamber should be made by an Iranian, an American and a referee of a "third country", where the " neutral" judge has chaired the chamber. The current board composition is represent as follows

V. tasks

The division of tasks between the Full Tribunal and the individual chambers was carried out by the Presidential Orders No.. 1 of 19 October 1981 and no. 8 of 24 March 1982. Further details on this below.

VI. Seat of the Tribunal

Pursuant to Article VI, Section 1 of the CSD is the seat of the Tribunal " The Hague or another between Iran and the United States agreed place ." Since spring 1982, the IUSCT has its own premises in the parkway 13, NL 2685 JH The Hague, based after it was allowed to first use the premises of the Peace Palace, which is also home to the International Court of Justice and the Permanent Court of Arbitration. However, can still be seen all the major meetings were held in the Peace Palace.

VII status of the Tribunal, its members and employees

A formal agreement on the status of the immunity and privileges of the Tribunal, its members and employees is not yet available to the present. However, an exchange of letters between the President of IUSCT and the Government of the Netherlands led to an agreement. On 4 March 1988, the Government of the Netherlands issued a document out to certify that, that the tribunal members, and the General Secretary (but not his representative ) have the status of ambassadors of the Netherlands. The "Special Assistants and other employees of the categories 9 and 10 " enjoy the same status as embassy staff in the Netherlands. The tribunal itself is treated as the Netherlands embassies.

Tasks

First tasks of the Full Tribunal

Based on this Presidential orders, the Full Tribunal is generally i hear all disputes the meaning of Article II, Section 3, Section 4 and VI CSD responsible. Pursuant to Article VI, Section 4 CSD the Full Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to the interpretation or application of the CSD. Article VI, Section 3 CSD refers to Articles 16 and 17 of the DG and thus the matter to the full Tribunal on questions of interpretation or implementation of the provisions of GD.

The Full Tribunal is also active when a Chamber has been no majority decision, or if the Board finds in each question to any results and to answer these places before the Full Tribunal. Then remanded the case for processing to the initial competent chamber.

Second work of the Boards

The chambers are responsible for claims and counterclaims under Article II, Section 1 of CSD. These are particular actions of the two states against each other from purchase and service contracts, Article II, Section 2 CSD ​​.

3 Classification and assignment of cases

The disputes were divided as follows:

A) "A " cases In the so-called "A " cases are cases that deal with the interpretation and fulfillment or application of GD and CSD. These cases are marked with the letter A and are continuously numbered, starting with number 1 "A " cases will be settled exclusively before the Full Tribunal.

B ) "B " cases actions by a government against the other, arising from sale or service contracts, so-called "B " cases, cause the letter B vornweg and are also numbered starting with 1. The " B " cases within the jurisdiction of the full tribunal.

C ) Private Claims Under Article III, Section 3 CSD complaints from citizens of a State against the government of the other state ( private claims) will be distributed according to their dispute. Lawsuits involving claims under 250,000.00 U.S. dollars are referred to as so-called small claims. They are numbered consecutively, starting with the number 10,001. As a so-called large claims complaints are referred to with a value of about 250,000.00 U.S. dollars.

Results

Until 31 December 2003, a total of 3935 cases (19 " A " cases, 72 "B " cases, 960 cases large and small cases in 2884 ) were completed.

The United States was awarded by a IUSCT 2,166,998,515.43 U.S. Dollar and Iran 1,013,716,179.13 U.S. Dollar.

All private claims are settled. There remain only several "A" and "B " cases.

The still needed time to completion of all claims is assessed differently. The Deputy Secretary - General of the IUSCT, Maurizio Brunetti, considers that a period " from 2 months to 2 decades " possible. The processing of cases is within 2 months while entirely feasible, however, show the past that the parties, particularly Iran, the procedure greatly delay.

The Iranian Legal Advisor Piran does not dare to make a prediction. He notes that the processing of private claims, although " very quickly " went ahead (these were completed in 1991, resulting in a processing time of 10 years is the result ), but require the remaining " 30-40 A and B cases" a disproportionately higher effort. Currently become a "B " case prepared whose acts " tens of thousands of pages " covers. This case has an aggregate amount of about 11 billion U.S. dollars.

The American Legal Advisor Nancy Brown estimates that there are not less than 10 years if 'll keep progressed so slowly, it would probably take even longer is finished until the job.

416707
de