Article contents
Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Extract
In Claim 4, one of several in Case No. Bl before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, claimant, the Islamic Republic of Iran, sought to recover from the United States possession of certain military equipment that had been sold to Iran pursuant to contracts forming part of the U.S. “Foreign Military Sales” (FMS) program. In the alternative, Iran sought compensation from the United States in the amount of U.S. $143,290,948, plus interest, for the alleged replacement value of the property at issue. In this partial award, the Full Tribunal held: that the United States was not obliged to deliver the equipment and that Iran’s request for specific performance must be denied, but that the United States was still required to compensate Iran for the value of the properties as of March 26, 1981, the date the United States communicated its decision not to permit their export to Iran. The Tribunal did not make an award of damages at this stage, since neither party had provided evidence as to the value of the goods on that date. American Arbitrators Howard H. Holtzmann and Charles N. Brower each filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in pArt. The three Iranian arbitrators concurred in the award, but without filing an opinion.
Keywords
- Type
- International Decisions
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1989
References
1 44 Fed. Reg. 65,729 (1979).
2 Declaration of the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria, Jan. 19, 1981, Dep’t St. Bull., No. 2047, February 1981, at 1, reprinted in 75 AJIL 418, 420–21 (1981).
3 AWD 382-B1-FT, slip op., para. 46.
4 Id., para. 57.
5 Id., para. 62 (refusing to consider, as Iran urged, whether the President’s exercise of discretion was justifiable at this time, given the end of the Iran-Iraq war and the permission granted to transfer other military equipment to Iran).
6 Id., para. 66.
7 Id., para. 70.
8 Id.
9 Separate Opinion of Judge Holtzmann, Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part, AWD 382-B1-FT, slip op., para. 12.
- 1
- Cited by