---

The present article deals with the issues of nationalization and expropriation in the light of Iran-United States Claims Tribunal Awards by looking at their legality and the limits on the rights of states to nationalise and expropriate, while discussing some case law. I will argue that the state’s right to nationalize foreign property is an attribute of its sovereignty and derives from territorial supremacy of the state. It is also proposed to examine the questions of State responsibility for the injurious consequences of certain wrongful acts or omissions during the Revolution of 1979. The question is whether the events of the revolution and the appointment of temporary managers to administer the foreign companies’ affairs could be interpreted as constituting an expropriation and whether this measure is in full accord with international jurisprudence. The Tribunal’s decisions make it clear that regardless of whether the state has obtained any value of property or not, responsibility exists whenever acts attributable to a state have deprived a foreigner of his property rights.

---

Abstract 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.

---

There seem to be conflict of interests between protecting environment and supporting foreign investment. On one hand, expropriation is mentioned in investment agreements and arbitration practice. On the other hand, host states emphasize on states sovereignty and expropriate foreign investor by claiming environmental and natural resources protection. To solve the conflicts between foreign investment law and international environmental law, some international agreements, instruments and awards mentioned the priority of environmental protection. Foreign investment arbitration practice has a considerable approach in this regard. Arbitral tribunals assessed the claim of environmental risk as a cause of legitimate expropriation. Since compensation is a result of legitimate expropriation, arbitral tribunals mentioned it in their awards. In some cases, according to international practice or findings of the tribunal, as occurrence of environmental risks seems to be serious, the tribunal assessed the host state approach as a legal act and the compensation is excluded. 

---

The protection of ownership is rooted in the foundations of the legal system, and its foundations are completely dependent on the ruling view of the ownership theory. At the same time, in any legal system, the individuals’ ownership may be invaded due to public needs. The problem is, what are the foundations of ownership protection? With what justification and basis can such protection be violated and denied? In Iran's jurisprudence, the protection of ownership is based on jurisprudential rules such as “Domination” and “Prohibition of the Detriment” or as a fundamental right. Expropriation was also justified in two western-jurisprudential schools of thought. On the one hand, the theories of public interest and necessity, which have a jurisprudential background, were raised, and on the other hand, the theory of public interest entered the legal discourse. In English law, the protection of ownership as a fundamental right is done through the rule of law and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the compliance of all actions with the law, and judicial supervision is its guarantee. Expropriation is also permissible if there is public interest, but the attitude towards public interest has different interpretations due to conceptual ambiguity. Nevertheless, the authors believe that the basis of expropriation is rooted in the legitimacy of the state. Such legitimacy at a minimal level is associated with the right to life of the government, so that expropriation is one of the basic tools of the government to continue its existence and provide public service. At the same time, the maximum level of legitimacy is rooted in the legitimacy of the political system from the people's point of view. From this point of view, in Iran, the divine-popular basis of sovereignty, which is the birth of the constitution, considers the basis of expropriation to be granted to the government through the people.