No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
1 Done June 10, 1958, 21 UST 2517, TIAS No. 6997, 330 UNTS 38 (entered into force Dec. 29, 1970).
2 See Gould Marketing, Inc. v. Ministry of Deferice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 6 Iranu. S. Claims Tribunal Rep. 272, 274, 286 (1984 II), summarized in 79 AJIL 148 (1985).
3 6 Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal Rep. at 287. This was an extremely unusual result at the Tribunal. Only eight other contested cases at the Tribunal have resulted in awards against a private U.S. party, generally involving nominal awards of $2,000 to $15,000 for costs. Besides Gould, only two other American claimants received substantial adverse monetary awards, and both of these involved large advance payments, some portion of which the claimants conceded was payable to Iran. See Harris International Telecommunications, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 323-409-1 (Nov. 2, 1987) (Chamber 1) ($833,949.44 awarded to Iran); FMC Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 292–353–2 (Feb. 12, 1987) (Chamber 2) ($8,659,750.50 awarded to Iran).
4 Paragraph 7 of the Declaration of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria, Jan. 19, 1981, reprinted in 75 AJIL 418, 420, created a Security Account funded with $1 billion in Iranian assets that had been frozen during the hostages crisis. Awards to successful American claimants are paid out of the Security Account. No specific provision for the payment of awards in favor of Iranian claimants was made in the Accords.
5 Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States, DEC 62–A/21–FT, at 11 (May 4, 1987) (Full Tribunal).
6 Gould also raised procedural defenses based on the form of the pleadings. No. CV 87–03673–RG, slip op. at 7, reprinted in Int’l Arb. Rep., January 1988, at C.
7 The U.S. appearance was pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §517, which authorizes the Attorney General to “attend to the interests” of the United States in any pending suit.
8 Statement of Interest of the United States, in Ministry of Defense of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Gould, Inc., Case No. CV 87–03673–RG, at 3–6 (CD. Cal. filed Sept. 2, 1987).
9 The United States recently filed similar statements of interest in two other cases in which American defendants disputed Iran’s right to access to U.S. courts. See Statement of Interest of the United States in Organization for Investment, Economic and Technical Assistance of Iran v. Shack Be Kimball, Civ. No. 85-0437 (NHJ) (PJA) (D.D.C. filed Mar. 1, 1988); Brief for Amicus Curiae the United States of America in National Petrochemical Co. of Iran v. The M/T Stolt Sheaf, No. 87–9022 (2d Cir. filed Feb. 29, 1988).
10 The court made no reference to the prior contrary holding of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. See National Petrochemical Co. of Iran v. The M/T Stolt Sheaf, 671 F.Supp. 1009 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), appeal docketed, No. 87–9022 (2d Cir. Dec. 4, 1987).
11 Slip op. at 3 (relying on Pfizer v. Government of India, 434 U.S. 308 (1978)).
12 Id. at 4.
13 Islamic Republic of Iran v. Boeing Co., 771 F.2d 1279 (9th Cir. 1985).
14 Slip op. at 5.
15 Id. at 6 (citing 9 U.S.C. §203 (1982)).
16 Id. (citing Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654(1981)). The absence of the signature of President Carter or President Reagan on the Accords was also held to be irrelevant. Id.
17 Id. at 7.
18 Ministry of Defense of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Gould, Inc., No. CV 87–03673–RG (CD. Cal., order filed Feb. 17, 1988).
19 See note 10 supra.