The Iran-US Claims Tribunal was instituted in 1-981 to hear claims from the two governments and their nationals after they broke diplomatic and economic ties. Upon deciding hundreds of cases, the Tribunal has been hailed as an example of a successful international adjudicative body, and as a source of inspiration for international dispute-settlement scholars. Less often acknowledged, however, the Tribunal's output also constitutes a formidable and under-investigated dataset, ripe for empirical and data-oriented analysis. Such an analysis confirms the Tribunal's enduring relevance and sheds light on older and newer debates in international dispute-settlement scholarship. The oft-mentioned charge that the Tribunal's party-appointed members were 'political', or the practice of issuing dissenting opinions, can be reviewed under this lens, as they lessons for international law scholars and practitioners today.
