Andreas F. Lowenfeld is Charles L. Denison Professor of Law at New York University Law School. The speech upon which this article is
based was presented to the American Arbitration Association Seminar on U.S.-Iranian Claims Arbitrations on April 8, ?98), in New York City.
Drawing on his experience in individual international arbitrations, the author raises the question of how some 700 disputes can be bandied within a reasonable time frame by the tribunal established to bear the U.S.-lranian claims. He stresses the importance of management of the caseload, and suggests some procedural devices that might be helpful.
Among bis proposals are that the claims be sorted into broad categories (for example, sales, contractor, and investor claims) and that a few cases of each type be beard and decided early by the full tribunal. If, through this means, some of the many common legal questions could be resolved, particular disputes might be beard by smaller panels or settled by the parties under the established guidelines.
Common questions likely to recur are the allegation of tainted contracts; the effect of the U.S. freeze of Iranian assets; force majeure arising out of unrest in Iran; tbe effect, if any, of the Act of State doctrine; the availability of damages for loss of future profits; thbe appropriate measure of damages for expropriation of investments; and the availability of interest.
Procedural suggestions, emphasizing in particular the importance of pleadings, rules for production of documents, and reliance on an efficient, professional secretariat, are also made.