Seyed Ghasem Zamani; vahid bazzar
Abstract
In international investment law, the investor's negligence is considered to be a factor which affects the determination the amount of reparation. Thus, if a causal relationship is established between the investor's conduct and the damage, the amount of claimable damage will be reduced in accordance with ...
Read More
In international investment law, the investor's negligence is considered to be a factor which affects the determination the amount of reparation. Thus, if a causal relationship is established between the investor's conduct and the damage, the amount of claimable damage will be reduced in accordance with the role of the investor in the damage. This rule, which can always be used against the respondent, is concerned with the determination of the amount of reparation after assuming responsibility. The duty to mitigation as one of the aspects of "injured party’s negligence" refers to a situation in which an investor refuses to prevent extension of damage after creation of damage and despite its ability. The proof of the investor's negligence is, contrary to the current procedures, with the defendant. It does not affect the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal or the responsibility of the host state and can only lead to a reduction in the amount of reparation. Third party participation or force majeure in creation of the damage cannot be the basis for applying the "injured party’s negligence" rule. This is also the case when the international community is considered to be an injured party or when the investor's negligence is the sole cause of damage.
Amir Vatani; Sayyed Ghasem Zamani; Jafar Zanganeh Shahraki
Abstract
Compensation for damages arising from a breach of contractual obligationsshould place the injured party in the position he would have been in had thecontract not been breached. By accepting the idea of full compensation, theUNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts as well as theConvention ...
Read More
Compensation for damages arising from a breach of contractual obligationsshould place the injured party in the position he would have been in had thecontract not been breached. By accepting the idea of full compensation, theUNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts as well as theConvention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1980), judicialprecedents, and international arbitration awards have recognised this approach.Despite the recognition of the principle of compensation, this theory is subject tocontroversy in Iranian law, particularly in the event of damages caused by theloss of anticipatory benefits. From justice and economic efficiency perspectivesand for the sake of adapting Iranian commercial rules with ones reflected ininternational trade instruments, and for considering the affirmative religiousjurisprudential principles, it is recommended that effective steps should be takentowards the removal of all existing legal barriers in Iranian law.
