¹ However, the claims in this case relate exclusively to Phase I of the Project which involves only 1,600 apartments.

¹ The terms “expropriation,” “nationalization,” “taking” and “confiscation” are used almost interchangeably in the literature on this subject. “Confiscation” might be the most appropriate word in the context of this case, in which there has been no payment of compensation; however for consistency with the Interlocutory Award, I will use the terms “expropriation” and “taking,” intending them to have equivalent meaning. See 2 O'Connell, D. International Law 769 776–77 (2d ed. 1970)Google Scholar; Hecke, Van Confiscation, Expropriation and the Conflict of Laws.4 Int'l L. Q.345–46(1951)Google Scholar; Fawcett, Some Foreign Effects of Nationalization of Property, [1950 Brit. Y.B. Int'l L.355–56,Google Scholar; Fachiri, Expropriation and International Law, [1950 Brit. Y.B. Int'l L.159.Google Scholar

² The Tribunal rules that “for ease of accounting . . .31 January 1980 shall be considered as the date of taking.”

³ I have previously written to protest what I view as exaggerated formalism in the reasoning of the Tribunal. See, e.g., Dissent of Howard M. Boltzmann From Final Decision Refusing to Accept Claim, in which George H. Aldrich and Richard H. Mosk Join, Refusal Case No. 21 (20 December 1982), 1 Iran-D.S. C.T.R. 396.

⁴ Aréchaga, De “International Responsibility,” in Manual of Public International Law 531 562–64 (M. Sorensen ed.1968)Google Scholar; 8 Whiteman, M. Digest of International Law 819–24(1967)Google Scholar; Draft Convention on the International Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens, Art. 18, reprinted in Sohn & Baxter, supra, 55 A.J.I.L. at 576; Bolivar Railway Company Case (Gr.Brit. v. Venez.) Robson's Reports 388, 394 (1904); 2 O'Connell, D. International Law 769 776–77 (2d ed. 1970)Google Scholar; International Law Commission, Revised Draft on Responsibility of the State for Injuries Caused in Its Territory to the Person or Property of Aliens Arts. 7, 8 & 16, II Yearbook of International Law Commission 46-48 (1961).. Accord, Lillian Byrdine Grimm and The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 25-71-1 (Dissenting Opinion of Howard M. Holtzmann (filed 22 March 1983).

⁵ Borchard, E. The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad 217,225(1927)Google Scholar, Eaqleton, C. The Responsibility of States in International Law 81 & n.22, 127 & nn. 5 & 6(1928)Google Scholar;D. O'Connell, supra, at 968-69; Aréchaga, De supra, at 562; Bar, De la responsabilité des Etats à raison des dommages soufferts par des étrangers en cas de troubles, d'émeute ou de guerre civile. Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée (2d Series, 1) 464,471(1899).Google Scholar

⁶ E.g., in November 1978, leaflets were distributed reminding the “cursed YonJcy” that “all the Iranian people” hate him. Newsweek, 20 Nov. 1978, at 23. In December, signs were placed in store windows reading “Yankees Go Home by February or Be Killed.” Int'l Herald Tribune, 27 December 1978, at 1. On 23 December 1978, Paul Grimm, a senior American oil company executive was shot to death in Ahwaz. Lillian Byrdine Grimm and The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Award No. 25-71-1 (filed 22 February 1983). Shortly thereafter, as reported in the Iranian press, another American was found in his Kerman apartment with his throat slit and with the warning “Please return to your country writtenon the wall. Kayhan, 16 January 1979, at 1. Tehran Domestic Service reported on 12 February 1979 that 25 Americans had been arrested by “people's fighters,” and on 26 Februarythat four Americans had been arrested and turned over to the Ayatollah Khomeini's staff.Other acts of violence directed against Americans were extensively reported in the Iranian and international press, e.g., Kayhan 22 January 1979, at. 8; id., 30 January 1979,at 2; The Guardian, 19 November 1979, at 6; Newsweek, 20 November 1978, at 23; Time, 27 November 1978, at 23; N.Y. Times, 22 December 1978, at Al; Fortune, 31 December 1978 at 39.

⁷ See, e.g., Ellermann, c. Etat polonais (Ger. v. Pol.),5 frib. Arb. Mixtes 457,460(1924)Google Scholar; Hartmann, Jeno Dec. No. HUNG - 717,FCSC Tenth Semiannual Reportp.45(1958)Google Scholar; Klein, Malvin Dec. No. HUNG - 1123, id. at 53;Geza Danos, Dec. No. HUNG-1004-A, id. at 56.,See also Lena Goldfields Casep.(3 September 1930)Google Scholar,reprinted in Nussbaum, The Arbitration Between the Lena Goldfields, Ltd. and the Soviet Government, 36 Cornell L.Q. 31, 49-50 (1950) (arrest of claimant's officials and coercion of employees resulting in widespread resignations); Fearn International, Inc., Contract Nos. 5969 and 6159, Memorandum of Determination (OPIC, 20 Oct. 1973) (arrests of key employees and blocking access to plant site).

⁸ The royal decree establishing the Pahlavi Foundation stated: “We, the Pahlavi King of Kings of Iran ... have willed that . . . a charitable organization be-incorporated entitled 'The Pahlavi Foundation.'” The Foundation was to hold the Shah's “inherited” and “personal” property. The Articles of Incorporation required that the Board of Trustees be appointed “through his Majesty's Decree,” and that its members be five high Government officers, headed by the Prime Minister, and two “trusted individuals as selected by His Majesty.” Article 10. The Managing Director also was required to be appointed “by Bis Imperial Majesty's Decree.” Article 11. Decisions of the Board were to be effective “on approval of Bis Majesty.” Article 15. Reports of future plans were to be reported to the Shah and required not only approval of the Trustees but also “receipt of the Royal Assent.” Article 9. Finally, the personal control exercised by the Shah was emphasized by a provision that “only the person of His Imperial Majesty, the grand founder of the Foundation, may revise any of the Articles of this articles of incorporation.” Article 25.

⁹ A detailed description of Bank Omran's obligations under the Basic Project Agreement is set forth in the Interlocutory Award.

¹⁰ The Full text of Item 11 of the Basic Project Agreement appears in the Interim Award.

¹¹ 15 August 1955, 8 U.S.T. 899. Specifically, the Claimants allege that, in addition toexpropriating their property rights without payment of compensation in violation of Article IV, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Amity, Iran violated that Treaty by: (i) deprivingStarrett and its American personnel of their right to enter and remain in Iran for purposes of carrying on commercial activities, in violation of Article II, Paragraph 1; (ii) preventing Starrett from developing and directing the operation of the Project in which they had invested, in violation of Article II, paragraph 1 and Article XX," paragraph 4;(iii) depriving Starrett of its right to manage and control the Project, in violation of Article IV, paragraph 4; (iv) depriving Starrett and its personnel of their right to constant protection and security of their property and persons, in violation of Article IV, paragraph 2 and Article II, paragraph 4; (v) depriving Starrett of fair, equitable and non discriminatory treatment, in violation of Article IV, paragraph 1; and (vi) subjecting the offices and premises of Starrett to entry and molestation without just cause, in violation of Article IV, paragraph 3.\

¹² A description of the counter-claims appears in the Interlocutory Award.

¹³ The full text of the relevant provisions of the Apartment Purchase Agreements appear in the Interlocutory Award.

¹⁴ The Code of Ethics for Arbitrators in Commercial Disputes (1977) , prepared jointly by the American Arbitration Association and the American Bar Association,contains the following provision as Canon IV-H:

It is not improper for an arbitrator to suggest to the parties that they discuss the possibility of settlement of the case.However, an arbitrator should not be present or otherwise participate in the settlement discussions unless requested to do so by all parties. An arbitrator should not exert pressure on any party to settle. While the Code does not bind this Tribunal, it is instructive