عنوان مقاله [English]
Iran and the U.S. are among the not-so-many countries in the world which still assign some role to reciprocity in their respective laws of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The doubts about what this role exactly is in each case and how political tensions between the two countries has affected, or might affect, the way each of them applies its rule of reciprocity to the judgments rendered by the other’s courts specifically makes a detailed analysis of these two legal systems and their interaction, what this article attempts, worthwhile. Sketching a basic view of reciprocity as a concept and its current global status, the first chapter provides an introduction to the topic. The next two chapters explore the laws of the U.S. and Iran, respectively, on reciprocity, addressing their approaches to a number of practical issues ensuing from their commitment to this rule. The fourth chapter examines each country’ application of its own version of the rule to its specific relation with the other. Toward this end, it both studies the actual decisions of Iranian and the U.S. courts that involved this matter and contemplates other, possible scenarios in deciding the reciprocity questions in light of the interpretive possibilities that the two legal systems open up.