The Proposed Iran Claims Act of the United States

1983 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 166-167
Author(s):  
Marian Nash Leich
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Lump Sum ◽  
Settlement Agreement ◽  
Settlement Agreements ◽  
Small Claims ◽  
Made In

On September 14, 1982, the Department of State submitted proposed legislation (S. 2967) to Congress that would authorize the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to adjudicate “small” claims of U.S. nationals against Iran, i.e., those for less than $250,000, in the event of an agreement between the United States and Iran for an en bloc settlement to cover such claims. The Commission’s adjudications would be made in accordance with the provisions and procedures of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, subject to the provisions of the relevant claims settlement agreements (the Claims Settlement Agreement of the Algiers Accords and any lump sum settlement agreement negotiated with Iran).

scholarly journals The United States-Rumanian Claims Settlement Agreement of March 30, 1960

1961 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 617-636 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gordon A. Christenson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
19Th Century ◽  
The United States ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Lump Sum ◽  
Settlement Agreement ◽  
Damage Claims ◽  
The 19Th Century

On March 30, 1960, the United States and Eumania settled by agreement certain claims of American nationals against Rumania. The agreement provides for the payment by Rumania of a lump sum in discharge of those claims.In recent years the device of the en bloc or lump-sum settlement of international claims has to some extent replaced the use of the mixed claims commission. Lump-sum settlements between nations are not unique to the 20th century, however, and as early as 1802, the United States paid Great Britain a lump sum of £600,000 ($2,664,000) to settle certain debt claims. In the 19th century also, the United States obtained lump-sum settlements from Prance, Spain, Great Britain, Denmark, Peru, Belgium, Mexico, Brazil and China. Early in the present century mixed claims commissions were used in deciding claims between the United States and Great Britain, war damage claims against Germany, Austria and Hungary, claims between the United States and Mexico, and claims between Panama and the United States. When the work of the United States-Mexican General Claims Commission remained uncompleted after two successive conventions which extended the existence of the Commission, and when practical difficulties beset the United States-Mexican Special Claims Commission, an en-bloc settlement of all claims was the only solution. That settlement signaled disillusionment with mixed claims commissions. Thereafter, the major international claims settlements involving the United States were on a lump-sum basis. The very next settlement was one concluded on October 25, 1934, with Turkey. It provided for the payment of a lump sum of $1,300,000 to settle certain outstanding claims of American citizens against Turkey.

Jurisprudence of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission: Iran Claims

1997 ◽  
Vol 91 (3) ◽  
pp. 436-465 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard B. Lillich ◽  
David J. Bederman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Lump Sum ◽  
Settlement Agreement ◽  
Small Claims ◽  
The Government

The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (Commission or FCSC) was granted jurisdiction to determine the validity and amounts of certain claims by U.S. nationals against Iran by the Iran Claims Act and the 1990 Settlement Agreement (lump sum settlement) between the United States and Iran. The Iran Claims Act, a 1985 statute enacted in anticipation of the lump sum agreement settling U.S. “small claims” against Iran, required the Commission to apply: (1)the terms of any settlement agreement [lump sum settlement];(2)the relevant provisions of the Declarations of the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria of January 19, 1981, giving consideration to interpretations thereof by the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal; and(3)applicable principles of international law, justice, and equity.

The United States-Bulgarian Claims Agreement of 1963

1964 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 686-706 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard B. Lillich
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Lump Sum ◽  
Concrete Experience

After two and one-half years of negotiation, an agreement settling claims of the United States against Bulgaria was signed at Sofia on July 2, 1963. Under its terms Bulgaria will pay a lump sum of $3,543,398 in settlement of the claims of United States nationals arising out of war damage, nationalization of property and certain financial debts. Together with the Rumanian lump-sum settlement of 1960, which it closely parallels, the Bulgarian agreement constitutes a unique development in postwar international claims practice, for it follows rather than precedes a unilateral adjudication of the claims by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, a United States national claims commission acting pursuant to domestic claims legislation. Avoiding some of the problems of its predecessor, so ably considered in an article by a former Department of State attorney, the present agreement “merits analysis, not only for the benefit of private claimants involved, but also for a general understanding of technical, concrete experience in settling international disputes in a day when the chief talk revolves about grandiose schemes of the rule of law.”

Claims Settlement Agreements

1981 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 368-368
Author(s):  
Marian L. Nash
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Eastern Mediterranean ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
States Government ◽  
Settlement Agreements ◽  
Six Day War ◽  
The Government ◽  
Final Settlement

On December 18, 1980, the Department of State announced that the United States Government had accepted the proposal by the Government of Israel to pay $6 million in three annual installments of $2 million each, beginning on January 15, 1981, as final settlement of U.S. claims arising out of an unprovoked attack upon the Liberty on June 8, 1967, by Israeli aircraft and motor torpedo boats in international waters in the eastern Mediterranean. The attack occurred while the ship was some 20 miles off the Sinai coast during the Six-Day War.

scholarly journals Legal Nature and Enforcement of Settlement Agreements: Comparative Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 116-140
Author(s):  
Artyom Berlin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
Comparative Review ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
Settlement Agreement ◽  
Settlement Agreements

The article is devoted to two major issues: the substantive nature of settlement agreement, and legal remedies available for a creditor under compromise which interest is not satisfied voluntarily. Both issues are covered from comparative perspective employing Russian and the United States statutes, case law and doctrine. First, the paper demonstrates that, while Russian doctrines has evolved a sui generis approach to substantial nature of settlement agreement, United States tend to consider it as special contractual type with consideration granted specifically for termination of a legal dispute. Second, the article analyzes scope of res judicata effect invoked in course of Russian and U.S.-governed settlement, as well as common points and differences in granting creditors with relief in forms of specific performance and recovery of damages. Finally, the paper considers problem of rescission as remedy for material breach of compromise. Author comes to conclusion on desirability of employing this type of claim into Russian legislation.

The Withdrawal of the United States from Haiti, 1928-1934

1963 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald B. Cooper
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Crisis ◽  
Military Dictatorship ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
High Commissioner ◽  
Military Background ◽  
Local Politicians ◽  
United States Occupation ◽  
Self Rule

The United States occupation of Haiti — despite benevolent intentions — was a thinly-disguised military dictatorship. The official view of the Department of State that the numerous U. S. officials there were merely advisers to the legitimate Haitian government, acting in accordance with limitations prescribed by treaty, was a polite fiction. It deceived no one, particularly the large number of Haitians who resented foreign experiments in benevolent despotism in their land.The real ruler of Haiti, as the system had evolved by the pivotal year of 1928 — the last “normal” year before the political crisis which precipitated withdrawal — was General John H. Russell, United States Marine Corps, the U. S. High Commissioner. The nominal ruler, President Louis Borno, generally relied upon his U. S. advisers. In Russell's own words “[Borno] has never taken a step without first consulting me.” When differences arose, usually as a result of pressures exerted on Borno by local politicians, General Russell was free to make appropriate concessions. But his will prevailed in any showdown conflict. The General was noted for his fairness, however, and his relations with Haitian officials were usually harmonious. Yet his military background, combined with his devotion to efficiency and economy, was not well-suited to preparing a dependent people for enlightened self-rule.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document