## Facts

- Development and Resources Corporation (a U.S. corporation) contracted with multiple Iranian governmental entities for technical, management, and development services before the Iranian Revolution.
- After political changes and deterioration of relations, the claimant alleged Iran and its entities terminated contracts, interfered with performance, or failed to pay, and it sought compensation.
- Iranian respondents asserted counterclaims, including alleged unpaid taxes and social-security-related obligations.
- The Tribunal issued a merits and quantum award in 1990 resolving the claimant’s claims and numerous counterclaims.
- After the award, three respondents (Ministry of Energy, Ministry of Agriculture, and the State Organization for Administration and Employment) sought post-award relief framed as clarification and correction, including: (i) “clarification” of portions of the award, (ii) inclusion of an allegedly omitted claim, and (iii) reallocation of arbitration costs and internal responsibility among Iranian entities.

## Issues

1. Under UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules Article 32(2), what is the permissible scope of post-award interpretation/clarification, as distinguished from impermissible modification of the award?
2. Under Article 37, what kinds of errors qualify for correction (clerical, typographical, computational, or similar), and did the requests meet that standard?
3. May a respondent use a post-award request to add or obtain decision on an allegedly “omitted” claim?
4. May the Tribunal, after issuing an award against Iran and multiple state entities, apportion liability or arbitration costs among those entities in response to a post-award request?

## Decision

- The Tribunal largely denied the post-award requests.
- It held that Article 32(2) permits only interpretation to resolve genuine ambiguity about an award’s meaning or scope and does not authorize re-litigation or changes to outcomes.
- It held that Article 37 permits only narrow correction of clerical, typographical, computational, or similar errors and does not support substantive revisions.
- It rejected attempts to introduce additional or allegedly omitted claims through post-award procedures.
- It refused to re-apportion the amounts awarded or the arbitration costs among Iranian governmental entities, treating internal allocation as a matter for Iran rather than a post-award restructuring by the Tribunal.
- It granted only limited, non-substantive clarifications and corrections consistent with the Rules’ narrow post-award authority.

## Legal Principles

- Post-award “interpretation” under UNCITRAL Article 32(2) is limited to clarifying ambiguity regarding an award’s meaning or scope; it cannot be used to alter substantive findings, damages, or cost determinations.
- Post-award “correction” under Article 37 is confined to clerical, typographical, computational, or similar errors; absent such an error, the tribunal lacks authority to revise the award.
- A request that would change the legal or financial consequences of the award is a request for modification, not interpretation or correction, and is outside the tribunal’s post-award powers.
- A party may not use post-award procedures to add new claims or reframe matters not properly presented and decided in the merits phase.
- Where an award is rendered against a state and named state organs, internal apportionment of payment responsibility among those organs is for the respondent state’s domestic arrangements, not for post-award tribunal action.

## Conclusion

The Tribunal enforced the finality of its 1990 award by confining post-award relief to narrow interpretation and clerical-type corrections, rejecting efforts to add claims or to reallocate liability and costs among Iranian governmental entities.


Dev. & Res. Corp. v. Gov’t of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 26 Iran-U.S. C.T.R. 256 (Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. 1991)