IRAN-UNITED STATES CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE CHARLES N. BROWER
CONCURRING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART
I concur in the Partial Award ("Award") in this case except to the extent of my dissent from it stated in the paragraphs that follow.
THE NON-APPLICATION OF ARTICLE I OF THE CSD BY THE MAJORITY AND THE RESULTING MISAPPLICATION OF PARAGRAPH 77 H) OF AWARD 529-AlS-FT
1. A glaring gap in the Tribunal majority's reasoning in the Award which this Concurring and Dissenting Opinion accompanies ("Opinion"), affecting a number of the Claims at issue in this case, is its complete failure to consider at all the obligation the Parties' undertook that they "will promote the settlement of the claims" subject to the Tribunal's jurisdiction as provided in Article I of the Claims Settlement Declaration ("CSD").
2. Although the Parties have not expressly raised to the Tribunal their legal obligation to promote settlements found in Article I of the CSD, the Tribunal cannot possibly proceed to decide this case without considering an obligation of the Parties clearly stipulated in one of its constituent instruments. In Award No. 60 l, the Tribunal explained that "as a judicial forum" it was "presumed to know the law."! It cited the well-known Latin iteration of this principle, Jura novit curia, and relevant judgments of the Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Court of Justice ("ICJ") in support. In one of those judgments, Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), the ICJ described the principle as follows: