Source(s) of the information:

Lawyers, other representatives, expert(s), tribunal’s secretary

    Statement of Assadollah Noori

    I concur in the present Award. However, I would like to point out that the Tribunal could and should have rejected the Claimant's claims at the earlier stages of the proceedings, for lack of jurisdiction. I am still of the opinion that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the claims of Iranians with dual United States nationality. See my note appended to Partial Award No. 497-319-1 (15 November 1990), in Hooshang and Catherine Etezadi and The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, reprinted in 25 Iran-U.S. C.T.R. 264.
    In addition, I wish, with due respect, to express my disagreement with the Tribunal's decision on the costs of arbitration (the Award, paras. 76, 77 and 78, c). I believe that the Tribunal should have granted Iran's request for legal fees and other costs, especially given that no reason or justification for apportioning the costs of arbitration can be found in this Case. The Claimant's husband, Hooshang Etezadi, was exclusively an Iranian national during the relevant period, and yet he initiated these proceedings against Iran even though he clearly had no standing to sue. The Claimant herself, in the guise of a dual Iran-United States national, has also persisted in pursuing these claims, which would belong to her husband and not to her even if they had a basis, and thereby caused Iran to sustain considerable costs and expenses, and to devote a part of its experts' limited time and manpower, in responding to these totally baseless claims. The Tribunal should therefore have obligated the Claimant to indemnify Iran for the costs and expenses incurred by it, in view of the special circumstances of this Case, Articles 38-40 of the Tribunal Rules, the settled practice of the Tribunal, and dictates of fairness and justice.
    Apart from the fact that both law and equity demand it, requiring such claimants to redress the Government of Iran for its costs of arbitration would also have the salutary effect of reminding other Iranian claimants alleging to be United States nationals and seeking to pursue their inadmissable--and unfortunately, mostly spurious--claims by resorting to the vehicle of the unjust Decision in Case No. A18, that they should not idly toy with the time and resources of the Iranian Government and the Tribunal, solely for the sake of their unlimited greed and avarice and their unwarranted obstinacy.
    Whole document
    Click on the text to select an element Click elsewhere to unselect an element
    Select a key word :
    1 /

    Instantly access the most relevant case law, treaties and doctrine.

    Start your Free Trial

    Already registered ?