scholarly journals The Nature of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and the Evolving Structure of International Dispute Resolution

1990 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 104-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
David D. Caron

The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal has been called “the most significant arbitral body in history”; its awards, “a gold mine of information for perceptive lawyers.” In a recent international commercial arbitration, however, an arbitrator reportedly stated that decisions of the Tribunal, although on point, were not persuasive because the Tribunal, after all, involves a special type of arbitration. This arbitrator is not alone. A lecturer at the Hague Academy of International Law, speaking on international commercial arbitration, reportedly did not refer to the Tribunal’s jurisprudence because he did not find it relevant to his work for the same reason. Viewed as a gigantic experiment in international dispute resolution rather than merely a claims settlement device for this particular group of disputes, the Tribunal thus appears (at least to some) to yield decisions of unclear precedential value. Millions of dollars have been spent on its operation and hundreds of awards rendered, yet an apparently not uncommon perception is that the work of this, in some respects unique, institution is not applicable elsewhere.

This chapter examines the nature of international commercial arbitration and its distinguishing features; the harmonisation of the law of international commercial arbitration; international arbitration and the conflict of laws; the review of arbitral awards; and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Consideration is given to the contribution made by the UNCITRAL Model law on International Commercial Arbitration and to the rules of various arbitral institutions (such as the ICC) to the harmonisation of arbitral law and practice. Also examined is the relationship between arbitration and national courts and national law, particularly in the context of the debate over delocalisation.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 242
Author(s):  
Soheila Hashemi ◽  
Nader Mardani

Arbitration is one of the most important solutions to end enmity and replace judicial inquest. As international trading is extended, referring to judgment to solve the conflicts caused by commercial contracts has been rapidly rising which is a result of judgment benefits over justice authorities. Fastness and efficiency, law inquest cost, compromise nature of selecting the referees, and professional selection are among the most evident specifications of arbitration. Furthermore, Iran’s involvement in the most significant judgment case of the last century i.e. the lawsuits filed between the Islamic Republic of Iran the United States of America after the victory of the revolution would double the essentiality of knowing this organization. Judgment may be either individual or organic (permanent) and also the number of referees needs to be one or three. The most important issue in the judge’s inquest is to follow two factors including independence and impartiality from the beginning until the end of the inquest process. Violating these characteristics or the lack of one of both or other descriptions predicted in the arbitration contract would result in its violation by one side of the conflict or both of them. In the present paper, a comparison is conducted between the commonalty and distinction of Iran’s international commercial arbitration in 1376 and international law.


Author(s):  
Gama Lauro ◽  
Girsberger Daniel ◽  
Rodríguez José Antonio Moreno

This chapter studies how the private international law rules of most jurisdictions have traditionally addressed State court litigation, without considering the specificities of international arbitration. Many nations have now created their own legislation for international arbitration or adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. These laws regularly contain their own rules dealing with parties’ choice of law on the merits. The chapter then explores choice of law in international arbitration with a particular view on the Hague Principles which are, as paragraph 4 of their Preamble discloses, intended to apply equally to courts and arbitral tribunals. It analyses the approach arbitral tribunals have taken when confronted with choice of law issues, and particularly a party choice of the law applicable to the merits of the dispute. The chapter also assesses whether it is correct and if so, for which reasons, and in which way, that commercial parties have a larger autonomy in arbitration, compared to litigation, to choose non-State rules of law, and which types of rules they may choose. Finally, it demonstrates why, how, and to what extent the Hague Principles can contribute to define, delineate, interpret, and supplement existing (conflict of law) regimes in the field of international arbitration.


2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 1245
Author(s):  
Adriana Braghetta

New Zealand Law Foundation International Dispute Resolution Lecture 2015, delivered at Stone Lecture Theatre, Auckland Law School, 19 October 2015. The lecture focuses on diversity and regionalism in international commercial practice, looking specifically at the representation of new players.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document