ebrahim shoarian; Touraj Jamshidi
Abstract
The United States’ unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA, as a deal which was the result of the efforts between Iran and the P5+1 to reach a major international agreement, overshadowed the implementation of International commercial contracts due to reinstatement of the sanctions. The return of sanctions, ...
Read More
The United States’ unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA, as a deal which was the result of the efforts between Iran and the P5+1 to reach a major international agreement, overshadowed the implementation of International commercial contracts due to reinstatement of the sanctions. The return of sanctions, like their establishments, could have made it difficult to fulfill obligations, which actually happened. The question is whether the return of sanctions can be regarded as circumstances precluding State responsibility under titles of force majeure or hardship? And more importantly, could it create liability for compensation for the United States as a third party? To answer the questions posed, analyzing the legal nature of JCPOA, and examining the conditions for the civil liability of states as a violation of an international obligation, is a prerequisite for a convincing answer. In this article, along with analyzing the legal nature of the JCPOA and expressing different views, the legal effect of the sanctions on contracts, including force majeure and hardship is examined and then the liability of the United States is assessed in accordance with international law principles.
ebrahim shoarian; sara sahebjam
Abstract
Defining the applicable standards for proving and measurement of damages constitute one of the most significant issues under the law of damages. In principle, an aggrieved party, who claims compensation for damages based on contractual liability is responsible for showing the existence and the amount ...
Read More
Defining the applicable standards for proving and measurement of damages constitute one of the most significant issues under the law of damages. In principle, an aggrieved party, who claims compensation for damages based on contractual liability is responsible for showing the existence and the amount of losses suffered or to be suffered. Due to great importance of the issue, transnational instruments of contract law, such as UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (UPICC), Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) and Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) have set out, explicitly or implicitly, special standards such as reasonable certainty, reasonably likely to occur and so on for proving damages; By contrast, the Iranian laws and regulations including the Civil Code do not set out such standards. The legal scholarship and jurisprudence have also failed to address the issue. Therefore, a comparative study of the issue with particular look at international instruments and arbitral awards could provide a reliable source of guidance. This paper analyzes the general and specific standards for proving damages and those situations that fall outside of ambit of the standards such as late payment damages. By doing so, the paper tries to open the debate in Iranian law.
