Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T09:16:33.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Constitutes A Compensable Taking of Property? The Decisions of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

George H. Aldrich
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has been thirty years since the publication of Professor G. C. Christie’s well-known analysis of the state of international law on this question and ten years since the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal began to render awards on whether takings had occurred that required compensation under international law. Nearly fifty awards have included decisions on such claims, a number that constitutes a massive addition to the decisions of international tribunals on this subject. Only a few of the claims based upon alleged takings of property remain to be heard. In these circumstances, it seems appropriate to review the relevant decisions for the purpose of identifying the factors cited by the Tribunal in support of its findings that an alleged taking had or had not occurred.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 88 , Issue 4 , October 1994 , pp. 585 - 610
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 G. C. Christie, What Constitutes a Taking of Property Under International Law?, 38 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 307 (1962).

2 The Tribunal was established in 1981 pursuant to the Algiers Declarations of January 19, 1981, reprinted in 20 ILM 224 (1981), 75 AJIL 418 (1981), which resolved the hostage crisis between Iran and the United States, but decisions relevant to the present topic were not issued until 1983. While the Algiers Declarations gave the Tribunal broad discretion in its choice of law (Art. V of the Claims Settlement Declaration), international law almost invariably has been applied by the Tribunal in its decisions on takings of property. For the 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, see 20 ILM at 230, 75 AJIL at 422.

3 Burns H. Weston, “Constructive Takings” under International Law: A Modest Foray into the Problem of “Creeping Expropriation,” 16 Va. J. Int’l L. 103 (1975).

4 For such an analysis, see Judge Charles N. Brower’s Hague Academy lecture, The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, 224 Recueil des Cours 123, 333–84 (1990 V).

5 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, Apr. 15, 1955, U.S.-Iran, 8 UST 900.

6 Presidential Order No. 1, October 19, 1981, 46 Fed. Reg. 55,468 (1981), authorized a chamber to relinquish jurisdiction to the Full Tribunal when an issue was important or might result in inconsistent decisions, but such relinquishment was not mandatory and was rarely done after the early years of the Tribunal when it was done to decide certain jurisdictional questions such as the meaning of the Iranian courts clause (in Art. 11(1) of the Claims Settlement Declaration, supra note 2) and jurisdiction over claims by nonprofit corporations. Presidential Order No. 1 is reprinted in 1 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 95 (1981–82). While useful, relinquishment languished because the Full Tribunal proved to be slower and more ponderous than the chambers.

7 There have been many changes in membership over time. In alphabetical order, the third-country members have been Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz (Italy), Pierre Bellet (France), Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel (Germany), Robert Briner (Switzerland), Bengt Broms (Finland), Gunnar K. Lagergren (Sweden), Nils Mangård (Sweden), Willem Riphagen (the Netherlands), José M. Ruda (Argentina), Krzysztof Skubiszewski (Poland), and Michel Virally (France). The American members, in addition to the author, have been Richard C. Allison, Charles N. Brower, Howard M. Holtzmann, and Richard M. Mosk. The Iranian members have been Mohsen Aghahosseini, Koorosh H. Ameli, Parviz Ansari Moin, Hamid Bahrami Ahmadi, Seyyed Enayat, Mahmoud Kashani, Seyed Khalil Khalilian, Seyed Mohsen Mostafavi Tafreshi, Assadollah Noori, Shafie Shafeiei, and M. Jahangir Sani.

8 Iran was usually represented by its own attorneys, except for cases involving its central bank (Bank Markazi) or the petroleum industry, where foreign counsel were often employed.

9 While the petroleum industry was eventually nationalized, it is treated separately in the text at notes 43–59 infra, because it was taken over de facto prior to any formal nationalization.

10 See, e.g., INA Corp. v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 184-161-1 (Aug. 13, 1985), reprinted in 8 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 373; American Int’l Group, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 93-2-3 (Dec. 19, 1983), reprinted in 4 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 96.

11 See Malek v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 534-193-3 (Aug. 11, 1992).

12 Khosrowshahi v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 558-178-2 (June 30, 1994).

13 Id., para. 65. The Tribunal also ignored the Iranian procedure by finding a considerably higher value per share than was given pursuant to that procedure in Iran.

14 See, e.g., Law for the Protection and Development of Iranian Industry, July 1, 1979, Official Gazette No. 10,031 (July 31, 1979), cited in the Tippetts award, infra note 19, 6 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 224; Act Regarding Provisional Appointment of Manager or Managers to Head Manufacturing, Industrial, Commercial, Agricultural and Service Units Belonging to Either the Public or Private Sector, Bill No. 6738, June 16, 1979, Official Gazette No. 10,018 (July 8, 1979), cited in the Starrett award, infra note 15, 4 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 154, and the Payne award, infra note 21, 12 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 7, para. 15; Law of Protection of Industries and Prevention of Stoppage of Factories in the Country, Official Gazette No. 5864 (Aug. 24, 1964), cited in the Phelps Dodge award, infra note 21,10 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 125, para. 9, and the Starrett award, supra, 4 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 154.

15 ITL 32-24-1 (Dec. 19, 1983), reprinted in 4 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 122, and 23 ILM 1090 (1984).

16 4 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 155.

17 Id. at 156.

18 Id. at 156–57.

19 AWD 141-7-2 (June 29, 1984), reprinted in 6 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 219.

20 6 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 225-26 (footnote omitted).

21 See Saghi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 544-298-2 (Jan. 22, 1993); Birnbaum v. Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 549-967-2 (July 6, 1993); Payne v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 245-335-2 (Aug. 8, 1986), reprinted in 12 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 3, 11; Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 217-99-2 (Mar. 19, 1986), reprinted in 10 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 121, 129–30, and 25 ILM 619 (1986); Sedco, Inc. v. National Iranian Oil Co., ITL 55-129-3 (Oct. 28, 1985), reprinted in 9 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 248, 276–79.

22 Weston, supra note 3, at 170.

23 See supra note 21.

24 Phelps Dodge, 10 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 130.

25 See Christie, supra note 1, at 337; and Weston, supra note 3, at 170, where he states:

Concededly “State administration” measures that are launched and continued without foreseeable termination, however much they are claimed to be “temporary,” are not likely to encourage that foreign investment which is needed for global well-being. Nor are “State administration” measures, however well-intended, that infringe unduly on the central benefits of ownership, such as, for example, administrations which are carried out without regular accounting or ones which are undertaken in explicit or implicit anticipation of subsequent liquidation or other wholesale removal. In such cases, at the very least, the burden of policy proof should be on those who maintain that the measures involved do not give rise to compensatory liability (i.e., the host country).

26 AWD 220-37/231-1 (Apr. 11, 1986), reprinted in 10 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 228.

27 10 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 249–50.

28 Id. at 251–52.

29 AWD 329-227/12384-3 (Nov. 11, 1987), reprinted in 17 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 153.

30 See Eastman Kodak Co. v. Government of Iran, AWD 514-227-3 (July 1, 1991), reprinted in 27 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 3.

31 See, in particular, the Separate Opinion of Judge Lagergren in the INA Corp. award, supra note 10, 8 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 385; and the Amoco International Finance award, note 43 infra, 15 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 246–52, paras. 189–209, and 260–65, paras. 233–48. See also Treaty of Amity, supra note 5, Art. IV(2).

32 AWD 304-284-2 (Apr. 29, 1987), reprinted in 14 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 283.

33 14 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 300.

34 Christie, supra note 1, at 322–24.

35 See, e.g., Tippetts, text at note 20 supra; Phelps Dodge, supra note 21, at 130–31, para. 23; and Saghi, supra note 21, paras. 75–77.

36 AWD 373-481-3 (June 28, 1988), reprinted in 19 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 73.

37 19 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 87.

38 Id. at 95 (Brower, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

39 See text at note 20 supra; and 6 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 225.

40 See note 15 supra.

41 For both awards, see note 21 supra.

42 See, e.g., Birnbaum, supra note 21, paras. 26, 33–35, and cases cited therein.

43 AWD 310-56-3 (July 14, 1987), reprinted in 15 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 189, and 27 ILM 1314 (1988).

44 AWD 311-74/76/81/150-3 (July 14, 1987), reprinted in 16 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 3.

45 AWD 425-39-2 (June 29, 1989), reprinted in 21 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 79. The Amoco and Mobil awards determined liability but left the determination of compensation and certain related issues to further proceedings. Before the conclusion of those proceedings, negotiated settlements were reached, and awards on agreed terms were rendered by the Tribunal. See Exxon Corp. v. NIOC, AWD 436-150-3 (Aug. 31, 1989), reprinted in 23 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 401; Amoco, AWD 481-56-3 (June 15, 1990), reprinted in 25 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 314; Mobil, AWD 492-74-3 (Nov. 8, 1990), 25 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 339; and Arco Iran, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 498-81-3 (Dec. 17, 1990), 25 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 339. The Phillips award, which decided both liability and damages, was filed in English only. Prior to the filing of the Persian text and the notification of the Escrow Agent to make payment, Iran attempted to attack the award in the Full Tribunal by bringing Case No. A25; in due course Phillips and Iran settled Phillips’s claims and Iran withdrew Case No. A25. See Phillips Petroleum Co. Iran v. Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 461-39-2 (Jan. 10, 1990), reprinted in 21 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 285 (1989).

46 Amoco award, supra note 43, 15 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 212–13, para. 83.

47 Id. at 289. In Virally’s view, the issue of lawfulness affected the standard of compensation, a view with which Chamber Two differed in the Phillips award. See note 58 infra.

48 Mobil, supra note 44, 16 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 40.

49 Id. at 41.

50 Id.

51 Id. at 42, para. 126.

52 While concurring in the award, Judge Brower noted in a separate opinion his disagreement with the conclusion that the consortium members had waived their rights to claim expropriation or repudiation of the SPA. Id. at 60.

53 AWD 425-39-2, supra note 45, 21 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 95.

54 Id. at 96.

55 Id. at 111.

56 See text at note 20 supra.

57 21 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 115–16.

58 For the reasons why Chamber Two considered the lawful/unlawful distinction irrelevant, see the Phillips award, AWD 425-39-2, supra note 45, 21 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 121–22, paras. 109–10.

59 In International Technical Prods. Corp. v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 196-302-3 (Oct. 28, 1985), reprinted in 9 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 206, 240-41, the Tribunal said:

Where the alleged expropriation is carried out by way of a series of interferences in the enjoyment of the property, the breach forming the cause of action is deemed to take place on the day when the interference has ripened into more or less irreversible deprivation of the property …. The point at which interference ripens into a taking depends on the circumstances of the case and does not require that legal title has been transferred, (footnote omitted)

60 See Short v. Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 312-11135-3 (July 14, 1987), reprinted in 16 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 76, 84–85.

61 1980 ICJ Rep. 3, 29, para. 58 (May 24).

62 AWD 116-1-3 (Mar. 19, 1984), reprinted in 5 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 198, 226–27.

63 5 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 227.

64 AWD 221-65-1 (Apr. 16, 1986), reprinted in 10 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 269, 302-03.

65 10 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 303. For Pereira, see note 62 supra.

66 AWD 298-317-1 (Apr. 22, 1987), reprinted in 14 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 223, 233-34.

67 AWD 360-10514-1 (Apr. 20, 1988), reprinted in 18 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 232, 238.

68 AWD 324-10199-1 (Nov. 2, 1987), reprinted in 17 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 92.

69 17 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 104 (footnote omitted).

70 The Tribunal also awarded compensation for household goods that the claimant was forced to leave behind, on the ground that his expulsion was unlawful as it did not allow him a reasonable time to arrange his affairs.

71 While claims for unlawful expulsion in a few instances did include claims for expropriation of property, in general they were founded on other grounds, such as loss of income or losses from distress sales of property or the simple abandonment of property at the time of expulsion. Even in cases where claimants could show that their expulsion was attributable to the Government and was unlawful as violative of either procedural or substantive limitations on the state’s right to expel aliens, it was often impossible for the claimants to prove that their losses were caused by their expulsion. See Rankin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 326-10913-2 (Nov. 3, 1987), reprinted in 17 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 135.

72 AWD 378-173-3 (July 22, 1988), reprinted in 20 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 3, 123–26.

73 AWD 474-268-1 (Mar. 14, 1990), reprinted in 24 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 203, 222–26.

74 See the Separate Opinion of Judge Holtzmann, 24 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 227, for a detailed (and to me persuasive) dissent from the majority’s evaluation of the evidence.

75 AWD 516-322-1 (July 23, 1991), reprinted in 27 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 49, 61–62.

76 See United Painting Co. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 458-11286-3 (Dec. 20, 1989), reprinted in 23 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 351, 370–71 (equipment had been left with LAPCO—a NIOC company—in storage); Oil Field of Texas, Inc. v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 258-43-1 (Oct. 8, 1986), reprinted in 12 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 308, 318-19 (equipment had been leased to NIOC, and an Iranian court order prevented NIOC from either paying rental or returning the equipment); General Dynamics Tel. Sys. Center, Inc. v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 192-285-2 (Oct. 4, 1985), reprinted in 9 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 153, 165–66 (test equipment and spare parts had been left in locked rooms at two Iranian Air Force bases); and Dames & Moore v. Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 97-54-3 (Dec. 20, 1983), reprinted in 4 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 212, 223 (Iran sequestered a warehouse containing claimant’s equipment).

77 AWD 309-129-3 (July 7, 1987), reprinted in 15 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 23.

78 15 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 31. The Tribunal’s use of the additional term “conversion” suggests that it believed liability to arise under general principles of law as well as under international law.

79 AWD 378-173-3 (July 22, 1988), reprinted in 20 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 3, 124–25.

80 AWD 420-443-3 (Mar. 31, 1989), reprinted in 22 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 3, 79.

81 22 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 103–04.

82 See Treaty of Amity, supra note 5, Art. IV(2).

83 AWD 518-131-2 (Aug. 14, 1991), reprinted in 27 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 64.

84 27 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 95–96. The Tribunal noted in a footnote (id. at 96 n.11) that NIOC’s actions were attributable to Iran, because NIOC was an instrument by which Iran conducted its national oil policy; the Tribunal cited the Oil Field of Texas award, ITL 10-43-FT, at 14, reprinted in 1 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib: Rep. 347, 356 (1981–82), and Article 7(2) of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility adopted by the International Law Commission, [1975] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 60, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1975/Add.1.

85 For these awards, see notes 77, 79 and 80 supra.

86 See note 32 supra.

87 AWD 122-38-3 (Apr. 16, 1984), reprinted in 5 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 361.

88 Const. Arts. 104, 105 (Iran), translated in 8 Constitutions of the Countries of the World (Albert P. Blaustein & Gisbert H. Flanz eds., 1992).

89 In his dissenting opinion, Judge Mosk pointed to elements of the law that indicated a degree of government control and to the absence of significant evidence on this question from Iran.

90 See notes 29 and 30 supra.

91 See text at note 30 supra.

92 See text at note 31 supra.

93 See note 19 supra.

94 AWD 135-33-1 (June 22, 1984), reprinted in 6 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 149.

95 6 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 225–26.

96 6 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 166. The Tribunal cited the Oscar Chinn case, 1934 PCIJ (ser. A/B) No. 63, at 86 (Dec. 12); and Professor Christie’s article, supra note 1, at 311. The reference to Christie seems strange, as he stated on the cited page that the Norwegian Claims and German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia cases “illustrate that even though a State may not purport to interfere with rights to property, it may, by its actions, render those rights so useless that it will be deemed to have expropriated them.”

97 6 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 207.

98 AWD 425-39-2, supra note 45, 21 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 115.

99 AWD 196-302-3 (Oct. 28, 1985), reprinted in 9 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 206.

100 See note 84 supra.

101 AWD 259-36-1 (Oct. 13, 1986), reprinted in 12 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 335.

102 12 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 351.

103 See note 83 supra.

104 Petrolane, supra note 83, 27 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 92.

105 Christie, supra note 1, at 335, 338.

106 AWD 460-880-2 (Dec. 29, 1989), reprinted in 23 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 378.

107 23 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 387–88 (citing, at the end of the first quoted paragraph, Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States §712 comment g (1987); Kugele v. Polish State, 6 Ann. Dig. 69 (Upper Silesian Arb. Trib. 1930); Brewer, Moller & Co. Case (Ger. v. Venez.), 10 R.I.A.A. 423 (1903)).

108 ITL 55-129-3 (Oct. 28, 1985), reprinted in 9 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 248.

109 Law for the Protection and Development of Iranian Industries, Art. 1, cl. C, quoted in Sedco, 9 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 273–74.

110 9 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 275 (footnote omitted).

111 AWD 19-98-2 (Dec. 30, 1982), reprinted in 1 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 499 (1981-82).

112 1 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 504.

113 Id. at 505.

114 AWD 53-149-1 (June 10, 1983), reprinted in 3 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 10.

115 See note 94 supra.

116 AWD 142-100-3 (July 13, 1984), reprinted in 7 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 36.

117 Computer Sciences Corp. v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, supra note 64; Koehler v. Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 223-11713-1 (Apr. 16, 1986), reprinted in 10 Iran-U.S. CI. Trib. Rep. 333; and Stanwick Corp. v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 467-66-1 (Jan. 31, 1990), reprinted in 24 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 102.

118 AWD 255-48-3 (Sept. 19, 1986), reprinted in 12 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 170.

119 AWD 32-211-2 (Mar. 29, 1983), reprinted in 2 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 171.

120 2 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 176.

121 See note 26 supra.

122 See notes 26, 29, 36 and 80 supra, respectively.

123 AWD 519-394-1 (Aug. 19, 1991), reprinted in 27 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 122.

124 See note 94 supra.

125 See, e.g., Short v. Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 312-11135-3 (July 14, 1987), reprinted in 16 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 76; and the Yeager award, supra note 68.

126 AWD 326-10913-2 (Nov. 3, 1987), reprinted in 17 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 135.

127 17 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 146–48.

128 Id. at 148–51.

129 Petrolane, note 83 supra, 27 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 98–99.

130 AWD 524-313-2 (Nov. 15, 1991), reprinted in 27 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 248.

131 27 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. at 254.

132 See the Saghi award, supra note 21, paras. 18–26, for citation of the relevant Tribunal precedents. In the Saghi case, the issue was important, as the beneficial owners were not dual nationals and thus were not limited in their recovery by the nominal owner’s abuse of bis Iranian nationality.

133 AWD 282-10853/10854/10855/10856-1 (Dec. 17, 1986), reprinted in 13 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 286.

134 AWD 444-940-2 (Oct. 31, 1989), reprinted in 23 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 268, 274.

135 See note 73 supra.

136 See note 75 supra.

136 AWD 479-476-2 (May 23, 1990), reprinted in 24 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 272.

138 AWD 531-260-2 (June 25, 1992).