FA
Joint EPC and infrastructure projects between Iran and China constitute one of the most significant forms of bilateral economic and technical cooperation, playing a pivotal role in the development of infrastructure in the fields of energy, transportation, industry, and construction. Considering their high financial value, technical complexity, and the multiplicity of stakeholders involved, the emergence of disputes in such projects is virtually inevitable. In this context, international arbitration holds a central position as the principal mechanism for dispute resolution.
Legal Nature of EPC Contracts in Iran-China Joint Projects
Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) contracts represent one of the most complex yet widely adopted contractual frameworks in large-scale industrial and infrastructure projects jointly implemented by Iran and China. Under such agreements, the employer entrusts the contractor with the comprehensive responsibility of engineering design, procurement of equipment, and project construction, with the obligation to deliver a fully operational and ready-for-use facility.
While this concentration of responsibilities offers managerial and operational advantages—such as improved coordination, reduced implementation conflicts, and accelerated project progress—it simultaneously broadens the contractor’s legal obligations. Consequently, in the event of disputes, it generates intricate and multilayered claims during the arbitration process. This complexity is further exacerbated in Iran-China projects due to differences in legal systems, technical standards, and contractual practices between the two jurisdictions.
Key Legal and Practical Characteristics of EPC Contracts
Extensive and concentrated risk allocation: In EPC contracts, the contractor bears most of the risks relating to engineering design, supply of equipment, delays, cost overruns, and technical performance. The manner in which these risks are allocated and capped constitutes one of the principal sources of arbitration disputes.
Strong dependency on technical specifications and project schedules: Technical documentation, designs, execution standards, and timetables play a decisive role in interpreting the parties’ obligations. Ambiguities or inconsistencies in these materials often lead to complex technical–legal disputes in arbitration.
Interconnection with international standard forms: Many EPC contracts in Iran-China projects are modeled upon standard forms such as those of FIDIC. However, the adaptation and localization of these forms to comply with domestic legal frameworks in Iran and China give rise to interpretative challenges and contractual disputes.
Multilayered contractual networks: An EPC contract typically coexists with a web of subcontracts involving numerous subcontractors, suppliers, and consultants, which complicates the determination of liabilities and the scope of arbitration clauses.
Given these complexities, the legal character of EPC contracts in Iran-China joint projects requires meticulous contractual drafting, foresight of potential disputes, and well-designed specialized arbitration mechanisms to avert the escalation of disputes in later stages.
Principal Challenges of Arbitration in Iran-China EPC Contracts
Arbitration in EPC contracts between Iranian and Chinese parties faces a series of legal and practical hurdles stemming from the technical intricacy of the projects, the multilayered contractual structures, and divergent legal and interpretative systems between the two countries.
Technical Complexity of EPC Disputes
A significant portion of EPC-related disputes are highly technical, involving issues such as engineering design, technical specifications, manufacturing standards, system performance, and project execution schedules. In such cases, arbitrators must analyze both the legal and technical dimensions of the dispute simultaneously. In practice, the shortage of arbitrators possessing both advanced knowledge of international arbitration law and adequate understanding of EPC engineering principles can lead to protracted proceedings, excessive reliance on expert witnesses, and reduced accuracy and coherence of arbitral awards. This issue is particularly acute in Iran-China projects, which often involve advanced technologies and differing engineering standards.
Multiplicity of Parties and Related Contracts
Large-scale EPC projects are often structured on multiple tiers, where the main EPC contractor cooperates with subcontractors, local and foreign suppliers, and technical consultants. This complex contractual web gives rise to several arbitration-related challenges, including determination of arbitral jurisdiction, extension or non-extension of the arbitration clause to third parties, joinder and consolidation of related claims, and conflicts among dispute resolution clauses across different contracts. In Iran-China collaborations, differences in drafting subcontracts and the binding nature of arbitration clauses further intensify these difficulties.
Divergent Interpretation of Contractual Obligations
Interpretation of EPC contractual provisions forms one of the central areas of contention in Iran-China arbitrations. Distinct legal approaches toward principles such as good faith, strict versus liberal interpretation of obligations, the role of trade usages, and the contractual hierarchy of technical documents often result in diverging understandings of parties’ commitments. These interpretative discrepancies frequently give rise to extensive claims concerning project delays, variations, technical defects, and compensation for losses. Failure to address these matters explicitly at the drafting stage significantly increases the risk of complex and costly arbitration proceedings.
Impact of Divergent Legal Systems on Arbitration
Iran’s legal system is rooted in civil law and influenced by Islamic jurisprudence, whereas China’s legal system is a hybrid model combining civil law foundations, government policy directives, and distinctive judicial practices. These structural differences become particularly significant regarding the determination of the governing law, validity of arbitration agreements, and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.
Governing law and jurisdiction: Ambiguous or inappropriate choice of governing law clauses may result in conflicts of interpretation and jurisdictional disputes during arbitration.
Enforcement of arbitral awards: Although both countries are parties to the New York Convention, variations in domestic judicial practices can affect the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in each jurisdiction.
Cultural and Linguistic Challenges in Iran-China EPC Arbitration
Cultural and linguistic factors play a decisive role in shaping, intensifying, or even resolving disputes arising from EPC contracts between Iranian and Chinese parties. Differences in professional communication styles, decision-making approaches, and mutual understanding of contractual obligations may influence every stage of arbitration—from dispute emergence to award enforcement.
Cultural Divergences in Dispute Management
Chinese business culture places great emphasis on maintaining long-term relationships, avoiding direct confrontation, and prioritizing informal negotiation before resorting to formal dispute mechanisms. Conversely, Iranian parties tend to adopt a more legalistic approach grounded in the literal application of contractual provisions. If not appropriately managed, such divergent interaction styles can lead to misunderstandings, erosion of mutual trust, and deeper disputes in EPC arbitration proceedings.
The Role of Legal and Technical Translation in EPC Arbitration
EPC project documentation comprises an extensive collection of legal and technical texts, the precise translation of which is crucial to arbitration proceedings. Inaccurate or non-specialized translation—particularly in bilingual Iran-China contracts—may result in divergent understandings of obligations, liabilities, and technical standards. In practice, linguistic discrepancies in engineering, legal, and arbitral terminology constitute a hidden yet serious source of EPC disputes. Therefore, employing professional legal–technical translators proficient in EPC terminology, international standards, and arbitral procedures is not merely a technical measure but a strategic necessity for dispute-risk management.
Procedural Challenges in Large-Scale Infrastructure Arbitration
Procedural challenges in arbitration concerning large-scale infrastructure projects refer to the difficulties encountered in managing complex, resource-intensive disputes. These include prolonged timelines, coordination among multiple stakeholders, intricate contractual frameworks, collection and presentation of technical evidence, resolution of combined technical and financial issues, and ensuring the effective enforcement of arbitral awards. Meticulous case management, appointment of expert arbitrators, and active cooperation between parties are vital in minimizing risk and expediting arbitral proceedings.
Selection of an Appropriate Arbitral Institution
In Iran-China EPC projects, the selection of a neutral, specialized, and mutually acceptable arbitral institution is of paramount importance. An effective institution must possess institutional independence, international credibility, practical experience in EPC and infrastructure disputes, and the ability to administer technically complex and multi-party cases. Failing to consider these aspects at the contract drafting stage may later result in jurisdictional challenges, procedural delays, and diminished arbitral efficiency.
Cost and Duration of EPC Arbitration
Owing to their vast documentation, technical intricacy, and extensive expert hearings, EPC-related arbitrations are generally costly and time-consuming. Without proper procedural mechanisms, such as pre-defined timetables, staged arbitration, or the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques, the efficiency of arbitration can be significantly compromised. Therefore, effective management of time and costs in EPC arbitration necessitates the careful design of dispute resolution mechanisms in the contract and the adoption of procedures tailored to the specific nature of large-scale infrastructure projects.
Strategies for Mitigating Arbitration Risks in Iran-China EPC Contracts
Given the legal, technical, and international complexity of EPC contracts in joint Iran-China projects, dispute prevention and intelligent arbitration risk management must begin at the contract negotiation stage. Implementing appropriate legal and institutional measures can substantially reduce the likelihood of prolonged and costly arbitral disputes.
Precise and transparent arbitration clause drafting: Arbitration clauses in EPC contracts must be tailored to the unique characteristics of such projects, including technical complexity, multi-party participation, and extended duration. It is essential to clearly specify the arbitral institution, governing law, seat of arbitration, language, and qualifications of arbitrators. Any ambiguity or generalization may later result in serious legal complications.
Use of specialized or hybrid mechanisms (Med-Arb): In large-scale EPC projects, specialized arbitration or hybrid methods such as mediation-arbitration (Med-Arb) can enhance the efficiency of dispute resolution by combining negotiation and adjudication phases, thereby reducing time and costs.
Appointment of bilingual arbitrators familiar with both legal systems: Selecting arbitrators fluent in both languages and knowledgeable about the legal, cultural, and commercial contexts of Iran and China is critical to successful arbitration. Bilingual arbitrators can directly analyze contractual and technical documents, minimizing misunderstandings caused by translation.
Involvement of legal and technical experts during contract formation: Many EPC disputes originate in the negotiation stage. Engaging expert legal and technical advisors in the planning and drafting of international EPC contracts, particularly in Iran-China cooperation, helps identify potential risks, define obligations precisely, and establish effective dispute resolution mechanisms. This preventive approach can significantly reduce subsequent arbitration costs.
The Iran-China International Arbitration and Legal Center, with its specialized legal, linguistic, and cultural capacities, can play an instrumental role in managing and resolving EPC and infrastructure-related disputes, providing a secure and professional platform for specialized arbitration.
Conclusion
Arbitration in EPC and joint infrastructure projects between Iran and China faces a combination of legal, technical, cultural, and procedural challenges. Prudent management of these challenges—through careful contract drafting, selection of suitable arbitration mechanisms, and engagement of specialized institutions—can substantially mitigate dispute risks and ensure the success and sustainability of joint projects.
