Reciprocal Treatment in the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Iranian and U.S. Law
Dear user, I am Khalil Asayesh (Iranian lawyer from the Tehran Bar Association with license number 21129). Thank you for choosing my site to use legal services. We would like to inform you that this site has been set up with the aim of improving the level of legal information, legal advice, and solving problems of domestic and international law.
My specialty is in the field of international companies and contracts. I have experience in advocacy in international arbitration, as well as experience in enforcing foreign judgments in Iranian courts and courts outside Iran (including Germany, France, Turkey, UAE, and Oman), so I am ready to provide you with legal services in this regard.
Contact Information
- Iran: 09124439719
- United Arab Emirates (WhatsApp): 00971521583759
Note: We are not responsible for holidays and non-working hours.
The Iranian Court’s Position on Reciprocal Treatment with the U.S. Government
The reciprocal treatment of the foreign government has been conditioned on a number of conditions, including Rule 1295 of the Civil Code, Rule 169 of the Civil Law, Rule 293 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Law on the Accession of the Government of Iran to the New York Convention, and Article 1 of the Law on the Competent Justice of the Islamic Republic of Iran to Deal with Civil Claims Against Foreign Governments (2011).
Apart from opinion disputes regarding the insertion of this condition, its implementation in practice is accompanied by numerous complexities. In this article, we have chosen U.S. law for comparative study in this field, which is suitable for such studies in a number of respects:
- It is one of the few legal systems in the West in which the condition of reciprocal behavior is accepted and applied.
- Because of the characteristics of the American legal structure, rich jurisprudence has been formed on this condition.
- Due to political tensions and legal issues between Iran and the U.S., achieving an exact action model is of particular importance.
Global Definition and Acceptance of the Reciprocity Condition
1.1 Philosophical and Legal Roots of Reciprocity
Reciprocal behavior is the traditional principle of political philosophy, and since Aristotle, the foundation of this concept in international relations has been based on exchange justice. In this article, the separation between recognition and enforcement is not applicable. Wherever the recognition of rulings is mentioned, it should be understood as both recognition and enforcement.
1.2 Reciprocity in International and Private Law
The principle means that any advantages or restrictions imposed by one State against another or its nationals shall be met with equal treatment by the latter. In public international law, States are free to act under this principle. In private international law, reciprocity has a special position, since recognition of judgments issued by a court of one state by another state is essentially a privilege granted by the recognizing state.
Reciprocity has both a negative and a positive side. Positive reciprocity mandates the granting of a right or privilege in the event of reciprocal behavior.
Justification for Including Reciprocity in Legal Provisions
The answers to this question are based on whether courts prioritize public/international law or private/internal law. Court rulings in civil and commercial matters, on the one hand, are acts of sovereignty and therefore fall under international law. On the other hand, they create a new legal status for individuals, which belongs to private law and should be recognized worldwide.
Even if we recognize the authority of governments to identify foreign rulings, discrimination by the state based on the behavior of a foreign state sacrifices the inalienable rights of individuals to the suspected interests of the state. This has been criticized and weakened in practice.
Different Approaches of States in the Past
Until about 50 years ago, state practice regarding reciprocity varied significantly. Common law countries such as England followed the theory of the right of the individual, and the principle was to recognize foreign judgments without reciprocity. European civil law countries generally had a more closed approach, with reciprocity conditions more prevalent (e.g., France).
Developments in recent decades, such as the expansion of trade relations and regional integration, have convinced countries to amend their criteria for recognizing foreign judgments. Depending on each country’s initial position, these amendments have either facilitated recognition or maintained restrictions.
