## Facts

- In 1975 and 1978, Hoffman Export Corporation contracted with Iran’s defense ministry to supply military communications equipment and related services; Gould later acquired Hoffman.
- After political events in Iran and U.S.–Iran tensions, the parties’ disputes were submitted to the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal created by the Algiers Accords.
- Gould presented claims to the Tribunal; Iran filed counterclaims arising from the same transactions.
- In 1984, the Tribunal issued a net award in Iran’s favor requiring Gould to pay approximately $3.6 million and return certain equipment.
- Iran filed an action in federal district court to confirm and enforce the Tribunal award; Gould moved to dismiss, contesting federal subject-matter jurisdiction and enforceability under the New York Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
- The district court held it had jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 203 (Convention/FAA) and rejected Gould’s Convention-based objections; both sides pursued interlocutory appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether 9 U.S.C. § 203 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce an Iran–U.S. Claims Tribunal award against a U.S. corporation.
2. Whether a Tribunal award qualifies as an enforceable “foreign arbitral award” under the New York Convention despite the absence of a traditional bilateral arbitration clause and the Tribunal’s use of international law.
3. Whether enforcement is barred by New York Convention Article V defenses, including Article V(1)(d) (procedure not in accordance with party agreement or seat law) and Article V(1)(e) (award set aside or suspended).
4. Whether it was necessary to decide whether the Algiers Accords are self-executing under U.S. law.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 203 to entertain an action to enforce the Tribunal award.
- The court held the Tribunal award fell under the New York Convention and was enforceable as a “foreign arbitral award” for purposes of the Convention and FAA.
- The court rejected Gould’s Article V objections, concluding Gould did not establish a Convention defense to recognition/enforcement.
- The court declined to decide whether the Algiers Accords are self-executing because jurisdiction existed under the Convention/FAA.

## Legal Principles

- An action to enforce an arbitral award “falling under” the New York Convention arises under U.S. law for jurisdictional purposes under 9 U.S.C. § 203.
- An arbitral award issued by an international claims tribunal created by an executive claims-settlement agreement may qualify as a Convention award when it arises from a commercial legal relationship not entirely domestic.
- The Convention’s “written agreement” requirement may be satisfied by a binding claims-settlement instrument requiring submission of disputes to arbitration, reinforced by a party’s voluntary participation in the arbitral proceeding.
- The New York Convention does not require that the arbitration be governed by a single national arbitration statute; awards rendered under international law may still be enforceable if Convention requirements are met.
- Article V defenses are construed narrowly; a party resisting enforcement must prove that the arbitral procedure violated the parties’ governing agreement or applicable seat law, or that a competent authority has set aside or suspended the award.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that federal courts have jurisdiction under the New York Convention and the FAA to enforce Iran–U.S. Claims Tribunal awards against U.S. corporations, treated the Tribunal award as a Convention award notwithstanding its international-law character and nontraditional arbitral origins, rejected asserted Article V defenses, and avoided deciding whether the Algiers Accords are self-executing.


Ministry of Defense of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Gould Inc., 887 F.2d 1357 (9th Cir. 1989)