چکیده:
The present article will discuss the issue of compensation in cases of expropriation and
nationalization in the light of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. It is a well
recognized rule in international law that the property of alien cannot be taken without
appropriate compensation. But, the standard of compensation for expropriated
private property has been the subject of controversy between Western and developing
countries since the end of World War II. In alters woads, the standard to be applied in
determining compensation remained a controversial issue at a theoretical level. The
main argument has been whether the traditional standard of full compensation is a
general rule of law applicable in all cases. In this article, awards of the Iran-US
Claims Tribunal have been wseof in an attempt to show that the prevailed rules defy
any conclusion that full compensation must be paid in all cases when foreign property
is taken by the State
مقاله حاضر موضوع جبران خسارت در موارد سلب مالکیت و ملی کردن را در پرتو دیوان دعاوی ایران-امریکا مورد بحث قرار میدهد. این یک قاعده شناخته شده در حقوق بین الملل است که اموال بیگانه را بدون جبران خسارت مناسب نمی توان تصاحب کرد. اما،در پایان جنگ جهانی دوم،معیار جبران خسارت برای اموال خصوصی سلب مالکیت شده موضوع بحث جاری بین کشورهای غربی و در حال توسعه بوده است.بر اسا س حقوق بین الملل، وقتی سلب مالکیتی اتفاق می افتد جبران خسارت قابل پرداخت است.لیکن،معیاری که باید در تعیین جبران خسارت پرداخت شود یک موضوع قابل گفتگو از لحاظ نظری باقیمانده است. بحث اصلی این بوده است که ایا معیار سنتی پرداخت جبران خسارت کامل، یک قاعده عمومی قابل اعمال در کلیه موارد است.در این مقاله،در تلاشی،از اراء دیوان داوری ایران-امریکا استفاده شده تا نشان داده شود که قواعد حاکم هرگونه نتیجه گیری را که جبران خسارت کامل باید در کلیه مواردی پرداخت شود که اموال بیگا نه به وسیله دولت تصاحب میگردد با مخالفت روبرو میکند.
خلاصه ماشینی:
"In expropriation cases, the principal issues before the tribunal were whether the applicable standard should be determined by reference to the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between Iran and the United States (1955) or to the customary international law.
The Tribunal reasoned that: Applying the rule of law set forth in Article IV of the Treaty of Amity to the present case, it is clear that the taking of Phelps Dodge’s property, that is ownership rights in STCAB, required the prompt payment of "just compensation" which must represent that "full equivalent" of the property taken.
Article 1 of the said Bill states: with the purpose of safeguarding the rights of the insured, development of the insurance industry all over the country, and placing the insurance at the service of the people, effective from the adoption of this law, all the insurance organizations in the country, while accepting the principle of legitimate and conditional ownership, shall be declared as nationalized the tribunal recognized that "for the purpose of this case we are in the presence of a lex specialis, in the form of the Treaty of Amity, which in principle prevails over general rules".
In fact the award of the Tribunal is inconsistent with the view taken by the PCJ in the Chorzow Factory case in that the Court stated that the compensation for an lawful taking was the value of the undertaking at the moment of dispossession, plus interest to the day of payment without elaborating on the element for loss of future profits."