Interpretive Awards in Iranian and International Arbitration Law: Lessons from the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

Publish Year: 1403
نوع سند: مقاله ژورنالی
زبان: English
View: 91

This Paper With 26 Page And PDF Format Ready To Download

  • Certificate
  • من نویسنده این مقاله هستم

استخراج به نرم افزارهای پژوهشی:

لینک ثابت به این Paper:

شناسه ملی سند علمی:

JR_IJICL-2-2_008

تاریخ نمایه سازی: 12 خرداد 1404

Abstract:

Notwithstanding the explicit provision for interpretive awards under Article ۳۲ of Iran’s Law on International Commercial Arbitration, their application in domestic arbitration remains contentious. However, their existence may be inferred from instruments such as Article ۹ of the ۲۰۲۲ Arbitration Fee Regulations. The absence of a comprehensive definition for interpretive awards has perpetuated conceptual confusion and facilitated their misuse as substitutes for revision procedures—a problematic tendency that, when considered alongside the significant benefits of properly utilized interpretive awards, underscores the critical importance of precisely understanding this legal mechanism. Interpretive awards must be conceptualized within established legal frameworks including res judicata and functus officio. Crucially, such awards address only those ambiguities arising from either drafting deficiencies or divergent party interpretations, rendering them fundamentally distinct from supplementary or corrective awards. In international law, interpretive awards appear in various instruments including the ۱۹۷۶ UNCITRAL Rules (which govern the Iran-U.S. arbitration agreement). International practice demonstrates that valid interpretation requests must satisfy specific criteria: (۱) demonstration of genuine ambiguity; (۲) pursuit of clarification rather than substantive modification; (۳) direct relevance to the award’s scope; and (۴) grounding in established factual circumstances. Proper requests should additionally include: (a) the ambiguous text; (b) explanation of the ambiguity; and (c) the parties’ conflicting interpretations. The jurisprudence of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal confirms that failure to meet these requirements has resulted in uniform rejection of interpretation requests.

Authors

Seyyed Hasan Hosseini Moghaddam

Associate Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

Mohammad Hossein Taghipour-Darzi-Naghibi

Assistant Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

Mojtaba Khalili Gorji Mahalleh

Master’s Student in Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran.