Iran-United States Claims Tribunal
The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal , IUSCT for short (in German: Iranian-US Claims Court) is a court of arbitration established on July 1, 1981. The IUSCT is based in The Hague , Netherlands .
History and background
Iranian expansion
During the 1960s and 1970s, under the leadership of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi , Iran tried to break away from its heavy economic dependence on the raw material oil. Technology, equipment, services and consultants from abroad were sought.
Great importance was attached to the involvement of Western and, above all, American companies and consultants. With the oil price quadrupling at the end of 1973, investment by Iran also increased. The government recruited and employed more and more foreign technicians and consultants to set up and maintain the factories and equipment it had acquired, and to train Iranian personnel.
Most of the money now flowed into the Iranian military. Computer technology, road and port facilities, as well as factories and steel mills were acquired on a large scale.
Reversal of the revolution
However, resentment grew among the population when up to 45,000 US citizens were overseeing projects worth billions of dollars in Iran in the late 1970s . This ultimately led to the strengthening of religious leaders, Ayatollah Khomeini and the ousting of the Shah . Many of the contracts with US companies were later terminated (in various ways) and their assets confiscated when the revolution gained the upper hand with the proclamation of the Islamic Republic of Iran .
Proceedings with assets
When Iranian protesters stormed the US embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979 and took the staff hostage, the protests against the US reached their peak.
In addition, the then finance and foreign minister (and later first President of the Islamic Republic of Iran) Abolhassan Banisadr threatened that Iran would consider withdrawing all state assets from US banks and reject all claims by American citizens, which prompted President Jimmy Carter on the part of the USA Freeze Iranian accounts.
Agreement on IUSCT
After negotiations on both sides, with Algeria as intermediary, the Algiers Accords came about on January 19, 1981 (settlement of Algiers). This consists of a general declaration (GD), the Claims Settlement Declaration and procedural rules. In the settlement of Algiers, in addition to the release of the hostages and the release of the accounts, it was also agreed that an arbitration tribunal would be set up to deal with claims by US citizens against Iran, claims by Iranian nationals against the US, and claims between the two governments. As part of the agreement, around one billion US dollars were withheld as a "security account" in order to be able to pay out arbitral awards awarded to the American plaintiffs.
On July 1, 1981, the court officially met for the first time and began its work.
Structure and structure
The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (IUSCT) was set up by the Algiers Accords in accordance with Art. II, Para. 1 CSD.
I. Appointment of the arbitrators
Article III, Paragraph 2 of the CSD provides that the appeal of the members of the court must be made in accordance with the arbitration rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Legislation (UNCITRAL-AR).
The court should consist of nine or any number divisible by three. Ultimately, the number remained with nine members. Three arbitrators are appointed by the government of Iran and three more are appointed by the United States government. The last three arbitrators are to be appointed from the six Iranian and American arbitrators already appointed. In the event that an agreement cannot be reached, the remaining judges will be appointed by the Appointing Authority .
On October 19, 1981, the first President of the IUSCT, Gunnar K. Lagergren, made use of his powers under Article III, Paragraph 1, Clause 4 of the CSD and formed three chambers of three arbitrators each. The composition of the chambers was decided by lot.
II. Change of referee
A change of referee has happened many times in the history of the tribunal, be it that a judge has left the tribunal himself or that a challenge has been submitted against him. The procedure for replacing an arbitrator is regulated in the Tribunal Rules of Procedure (TRP). Art. 13 para. 1 TRP refers to Art. 6-9 TRP. These have been taken over verbatim (with the same article numbers) from the UNCITRAL-AR. From these norms and taking into account Art. III para. 2 CSD, different procedures result, depending on whether the outgoing arbitrator is one of the government of one of the parties (i.e. Iran or the United States of America), or whether the judge was a so-called neutral judge appointed by the two parties.
1. Replacement of a government-appointed arbitrator:
The replacement of a government-appointed arbitrator is straightforward. After the arbitrator has resigned, the responsible government appoints a successor. In the event that the government refuses to replace a resigned arbitrator, a successor will be appointed by the Appointing Authority (currently Former Chief Justice of the Dutch Supreme Court Pim Haak) at the request of the other government in accordance with Art. 7 Para. 2 TRP ) ordered. However, such a case has never occurred in the history of the tribunal.
2. Replacement of a "neutral" arbitrator:
If a "neutral" arbitrator leaves his office, his successor will be appointed by the six arbitrators of the two governments in accordance with Art. 7 Para. 1 TRP. If they cannot agree on a successor, Art. 7 Para. 3 TRP refers to the procedure regulated in Art. 6 TRP with regard to the appointment of the successor by the Appointing Authority.
III. Refusal of an arbitrator
With regard to the refusal of an arbitrator, the reasons set out in the UNCITRAL AR apply. An arbitrator can therefore be rejected in cases where there are legitimate doubts about his impartiality. The TRP also contain an extension to the UNCITRAL-AR: A referee can also reject himself if he doubts his impartiality in a specific case. For example, the Iranian arbitrator Parviz Moin Ansari rejected himself in a certain case because of previous relationships with one of the parties. The Iranian government appointed one of the legal assistants to act as an ad hoc arbitrator to continue the case.
On September 3, 1984, an incident occurred that also led to a formal rejection request. The Iranian arbitrators Mahmood Kashani and Shafie Shafeiei were violent against the then chairman of the 3rd Chamber, Nils Mangård, and threatened him with further violence if he did not leave the tribunal. This refusal has no direct reference to a specific case before the tribunal. However, the Americans' motion for rejection would certainly have been successful had the two Iranian arbitrators not been withdrawn and replaced by their government. The application was therefore not pursued any further. However, it has never been formally withdrawn.
A rejection request is also currently in progress. This is directed against the Appointing Authority, Pim Haak.
IV. Chambers and "Full Tribunal"
As briefly mentioned above under DI, the first President of the IUSCT, Gunnar K. Lagergren, made use of his authority under Art. III Para. 1 Clause 4 CSD and formed three chambers of three arbitrators each. Each chamber should be formed by an Iranian, an American and an arbitrator from a “third country”, with the “neutral” judge presiding over the chamber. The current chamber occupation is as follows.
V. Distribution of tasks
The division of tasks between the Full Tribunal and the individual chambers was carried out by Presidential Orders No. 1 of October 19, 1981 and No. 8 of March 24, 1982. More on this below.
VI. Seat of the Tribunal
According to Article VI, Paragraph 1 of the CSD, the seat of the tribunal is “The Hague or another place agreed between Iran and the United States”. Since spring 1982 the IUSCT has moved into its own premises at Parkweg 13, NL 2685 JH The Hague, after it was first allowed to use the premises of the Peace Palace, which is also the seat of the International Court of Justice and the Permanent Court of Arbitration. However, all major meetings are still held in the Peace Palace today.
VII. Status of the Tribunal, its members and staff
A formal agreement on the status, immunity and privileges of the tribunal, its members and staff has not yet existed. However, an exchange of letters between the President of IUSCT and the Government of the Netherlands led to an agreement. On March 4, 1988, the government of the Netherlands issued a document certifying that the members of the tribunal and the general secretary (but not his representative) enjoy the status of ambassadors of the Netherlands. The “Special Assistants and other employees in categories 9 and 10” enjoy the same status as embassy employees in the Netherlands. The tribunal itself is equal to the embassies of the Netherlands.
tasks
1. Duties of the full tribunal
On the basis of these Presidential Orders, the Full Tribunal is generally responsible for all disputes i. S. d. Art. II para. 3 and VI para. 4 CSD responsible. According to Art. VI, Para. 4 CSD, the full tribunal is solely responsible for questions relating to the interpretation or application of the CSD. Art. VI Para. 3 CSD refers to Art. 16 and 17 of the GD and thus justifies the competence of the full tribunal in questions of the interpretation or implementation of provisions of the GD.
The full tribunal also takes action if a chamber has not come to a majority decision, or if the chamber does not come to any conclusions on individual questions and submits them to the full tribunal for an answer. The case is then referred back to the chamber originally responsible for processing.
2. Duties of the chambers
The chambers are responsible for claims and counterclaims according to Art. II Para. 1 CSD. These are, in particular, lawsuits between the two states arising from purchase and service contracts, Art. II, Para. 2 CSD.
3. Classification and assignment of cases
The disputes were classified as follows:
a) "A" cases:
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 numbered consecutively, starting with the number 1. The "A" cases are only heard before the Full Tribunal.
b) "B" cases:
Lawsuits by one government against the other arising from sales or service contracts, so-called "B" cases, are preceded by the letter B and are also numbered starting with 1. The “B” cases also fall under the jurisdiction of the full tribunal.
c) Private claims:
According to Art. III, Paragraph 3 CSD, claims by citizens of one state against the government of the other state (private claims) are to be divided according to their value in dispute. Lawsuits containing claims under US $ 250,000.00 are referred to as so-called small claims. They are numbered starting with the number 10.001. So-called large claims are lawsuits with a value in dispute of over US $ 250,000.00.
Results
By December 31, 2003, a total of 3935 cases had been closed (19 “A” cases, 72 “B” cases, 960 large cases and 2884 small cases).
The United States were from IUSCT 2,166,998,515.43 dollars awarded and Iran 1,013,716,179.13 dollars.
All private claims are settled. Only a few “A” and “B” cases remain.
The amount of time still needed to settle all claims is estimated differently.
The Iranian legal advisor Piran does not dare to make a forecast. He notes that the processing of the private claims progressed “very quickly” (these were terminated in 1991, which results in a processing time of 10 years), but the remaining “30 to 40 A and B cases” require a much higher amount Workload. A "B" case is currently being prepared, the files of which include "several tens of thousands of pages". This case has a total litigation value of approximately $ 11 billion.
The American legal advisor Nancy Brown estimates that if it were not going to be less than 10 years, it would probably take even longer to finish the work.
By May 9, 2016, a total of 3936 cases had been closed (20 “A” cases, 72 “B” cases, 960 large cases and 2885 small cases).
literature
- Pedram Dehghani The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal , University of Hamburg, Law Faculty, Hamburg 2004.
Web links
- iusct.org Website of the arbitration tribunal
- US Department of State website for the arbitration tribunal
Individual evidence
- ↑ 9 May 2016 Communiqué regarding the work of the Tribunal. (PDF) IUSCT, accessed on August 18, 2018 .
