Declaration of the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria Concerning the Settlement of Claims by the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran

1981 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 422-425 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran ◽  
The Government

scholarly journals Comparative Study of International Commercial Arbitration and International Law in Iran

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 242
Author(s):  
Soheila Hashemi ◽  
Nader Mardani
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
International Trading ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran

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.

R. N. Pomeroy v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran

1984 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 240-243
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Capital Stock ◽  
The United States ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
Administrative Services ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran ◽  
The Government ◽  
Planning Development

Claimants, sole owners of capital stock in Pomeroy Corporation (Pomeroy), a Liberian corporation, filed a claim against respondent, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal for amounts allegedly due Pomeroy under a contract for the provision of planning, development and administrative services to the Iranian Navy. Respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, contending that claimants could not assert the contract rights of Pomeroy because it was not a national of the United States. In addition, respondent disputed the validity of the contract and, in the alternative, alleged that Pomeroy had breached the contract. Chamber Three rejected the jurisdictional challenge, holding, that since the claimants owned a controlling interest in the corporation, they indirectly owned the claims of the corporation. As U.S. nationals, they were proper parties to assert those claims before the Tribunal. The Chamber also held that a contract existed between the parties and awarded claimants amounts due for services rendered, an estimated amount for lost profits, and interest and costs.

scholarly journals Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Iran v. U.S.) (Judgment on Preliminary Objections) (I.C.J.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-40
Author(s):  
Diane A. Desierto
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran

On February 3, 2021, the International Court of Justice delivered its judgment on preliminary objections in Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). The judgment rejected all of the United States’ preliminary objections, declared the admissibility of Iran's Application, and held that the Court has jurisdiction “on the basis of Article XXI, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights of 1955.”

Faith or Ideology? Religiosity, Political Islam, and Anti-Americanism in Iran

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 545-559
Author(s):  
Peyman Asadzade
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Systematic Study ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Islam ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran ◽  
The Government ◽  
Original Survey

Abstract The Middle East, particularly the Islamic Republic of Iran, has a reputation for harboring very strong forms of anti-Americanism. Why are some individuals more hostile to the United States than others? What factors are associated with anti-American sentiments? This article offers the first systematic study of anti-Americanism in Iran, a country in which anti-Americanism has been a guiding policy of the government since the 1979 revolution. Based on original survey data from 2016, I seek to explain how religiosity and political Islam influence public attitudes toward the United States. Distinguishing between political and cultural anti-Americanism, I find that, while support for political Islam is significantly associated with both types of anti-Americanism, religiosity predicts only cultural anti-Americanism. The findings challenge the literature that associates anti-American sentiments with religiosity in the Islamic world.

Phillips Petroleum Co. Iran v. Islamic Republic of Iran

1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 184-191
Author(s):  
David P. Stewart
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Flow Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
Discounted Cash Flow ◽  
Phillips Petroleum ◽  
Wholly Owned Subsidiary ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Persian Gulf

Phillips Petroleum Co. Iran, a wholly owned subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum Co., brought a claim before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal against the Islamic Republic of Iran and the National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC) seeking compensation for the alleged taking of its rights under a joint agreement for the exploration and exploitation of petroleum resources in the Persian Gulf. Chamber Two of the Tribunal concluded that the claimant had been deprived of its property interests during the Iranian Revolution by conduct attributable to the Government of Iran for which respondents were liable to provide compensation. Affirming earlier decisions that the 1955 Treaty of Amity between the United States and Iran requires payment of “just compensation” representing the full equivalent of the property taken, the Tribunal accepted “discounted cash flow” analysis as a central method of determining that value. After making significant adjustments to claimant’s calculations, and considering “all relevant circumstances,” the Tribunal awarded claimant $55 million as the value of the expropriated property, with simple interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum from the date of loss to the date of payment from the Security Account.

The Latest Award from the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal: The Line Between Approximation of Damages and Ruling ex Aequo et Bono

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (2) ◽  
pp. 369-378
Author(s):  
David P. Stewart ◽  
Stephen M. Schwebel ◽  
Ruth Teitelbaum
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran ◽  
The Hague

The Iran–United States Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) has functioned in the Hague since 1981. To date, the Tribunal has completed its work in over thirty-nine hundred cases, making it one of the most significant claims settlement efforts in history. Remaining on the Tribunal’s docket are several very large and complex claims between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document