The Status of Informal Electronic Correspondence in the Proof of Claims in Arbitration between Iran and China

With the expansion of electronic communications in international commercial relations, a significant portion of contractual interactions has departed from traditional formal correspondence and now takes place through channels such as email, instant messaging platforms, and project management systems. In international commercial arbitration—particularly in disputes involving Iranian and Chinese parties—the essential question arises as to what evidentiary weight can be attributed to informal electronic communications and to what extent they are admissible as evidence.
This paper conducts a comparative study of the evidentiary value of informal electronic correspondence in arbitral proceedings in Iran and China, analyzing the legal challenges and practical solutions associated with their use.

The concept of informal electronic correspondence

Informal electronic correspondence refers to the body of digital communications that occur outside the formal frameworks envisaged in contracts, traditional administrative correspondence, or instruments bearing official signatures. Despite their informal character, such communications often play a critical role in shaping, interpreting, and executing contractual obligations. These correspondences reflect the parties’ day-to-day interactions and frequently reveal their true intentions, mutual consent, and practical course of dealing throughout project implementation.
In cross-border commercial relations, particularly in joint Iran–China projects, a substantial portion of operational decisions, technical instructions, and practical agreements are reached not through formal written exchanges but via informal electronic communications.

Forms of informal electronic correspondence

Informal electronic correspondence may assume various forms, including but not limited to:

1. Non-formal business emails:
   Emails exchanged between project managers, engineers, consultants, or representatives of the parties that lack traditional administrative formalities—such as letterhead, reference numbers, or signatures—but often contain technical instructions, opinions, approvals, or objections, and are commonly relied upon in operational decision-making.
2. Instant messaging communications:
   Messages transmitted through applications such as WhatsApp, WeChat, Telegram, and similar instant messaging platforms widely used in Iran–China projects. These are often used for swift communication, urgent problem solving, or daily coordination, yet they may include acceptance of obligations, modifications to work scope, or implied approvals of decisions.
3. Correspondence recorded in project management platforms:
   Notifications, messages, and logs within project management systems, ERP tools, or online collaboration platforms documenting execution processes, change notices, and follow-ups. Although sometimes considered informal, such records often carry substantial evidentiary weight due to their systematic registration.
4. Electronic recording of oral instructions or agreements:
   In many projects, instructions or agreements initially presented orally (in meetings, calls, or face-to-face negotiations) are later summarized and confirmed through electronic means such as emails or instant messages. These digital confirmations serve evidentiary functions in proving the existence or content of an agreement.

Legal characteristics of informal electronic correspondence

Typically, informal electronic communications:

• Lacks formal signatures or contractual formality.
• Are conducted as part of daily operational exchanges.
• Prioritize speed and ease of communication over strict formalities.
• Are they directly related to the practical implementation of contracts?

Despite these features, such exchanges may be invoked in arbitration as circumstantial evidence, presumptions, or even substantive proof—provided their authenticity, authorship, and relevance to the dispute are established.

The significance of informal correspondence in ascertaining the parties’ true intent

Although informal electronic correspondence may lack formal title or documentary formality, it often serves as the most direct means of uncovering the parties’ genuine intent. Arbitrators—especially when addressing complex Iran–China commercial disputes—tend to emphasize the parties’ actual conduct and established course of dealing; informal correspondence therefore plays a key role in demonstrating such conduct.
Consequently, these communications not only mirror the practical realities of contract execution but can substantially shape the interpretation of obligations and the resolution of disputes.

The status of informal electronic correspondence in Iranian arbitration

Under Iranian law, the rules of evidence are traditionally founded on instruments such as documentary evidence, confession, testimony, oath, and presumptions. Although these laws were originally designed for paper-based documents, the gradual acceptance of digital evidence in commercial practice has led to the recognition of electronic correspondence in arbitration and quasi-judicial proceedings.
In Iranian arbitral practice, informal electronic correspondence—such as emails or instant messages—may, if certain conditions are satisfied, be admitted either as an electronic document or as a judicial presumption, functioning alongside other evidence in shaping the arbitral tribunal’s decision.

Evidentiary nature of informal correspondence in Iranian arbitration

In practice, Iranian arbitrators adopt a cautious approach toward informal correspondence. Typically, such evidence:

• Is treated as corroborative or presumptive rather than as independent and conclusive proof.
• Is insufficient on its own unless supported by other evidence.
• Serves to interpret the contract, confirm the parties’ true intent, and clarify their course of conduct.
  Therefore, the evidentiary value of informal correspondence is relative and context-dependent.

Criteria for evaluation by Iranian arbitrators

When assessing informal electronic correspondence, Iranian arbitrators consider several criteria, including:

1. Relevance: The content must pertain directly or indirectly to the dispute, supporting or undermining a party’s claim. Irrelevant or marginal communications carry limited probative value.
2. Subsequent conduct: Arbitrators examine not only the message itself but also subsequent behavior. If later conduct aligns with the message content, its evidentiary weight increases.
3. Authenticity and authorship: Acceptance of emails or messages requires proof of sender identity, ownership or control over the account, and assurance against forgery or alteration. Technical expert analysis may be required where authenticity is contested.
4. Consistency with official records: If informal correspondence contradicts the explicit contract terms or official records, Iranian arbitrators usually prioritize the formal documents—unless strong evidence of a subsequent change in the parties’ intention is produced.

Complementary role of informal correspondence in Iranian arbitration

Practically, informal electronic communications exert their greatest impact when:

• Presented alongside the contract, annexes, and formal minutes.
• Used to clarify ambiguities or fill practical gaps in performance.
• Serve as indications of implied agreements, effective silence, or evolving practices.
  Under such circumstances, they can decisively influence the tribunal’s conviction and the direction of the arbitral award.

The status of informal electronic correspondence in Chinese arbitration

Under Chinese law, the concept of electronic evidence has been expressly recognized and incorporated into procedural and arbitral frameworks. This has led Chinese arbitral bodies—particularly the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC)—to adopt a flexible and pragmatic approach toward digital and informal communications.
In Chinese commercial arbitration, the emphasis lies not on the formality of the communication but rather on its functional role, context, and commercial significance. Consequently, informal electronic correspondence frequently serves as principal evidence in many cases.

The widespread acceptance of messaging platforms in Chinese arbitration

In practice, communications conducted through platforms such as WeChat play a dominant role in Chinese commercial disputes. WeChat functions not only as an information exchange tool but also as a venue for executing agreements, issuing instructions, and coordinating contractual matters. Accordingly, Chinese arbitrators treat WeChat messages with the same seriousness as any other electronic evidence, provided the requisite technical and legal conditions are met.

Criteria for evaluating informal correspondence in Chinese arbitration

The Chinese approach to admitting informal electronic evidence rests on three fundamental criteria:

1. Authenticity: Verification that the message genuinely originated from the person or entity to whom it is attributed, supported by account details, communication history, and technical metadata.
2. Integrity: The message must be presented complete and unaltered. Any suspicion of modification or omission diminishes or nullifies its probative value.
3. Attribution: It must be shown that the account, phone number, or user ID was effectively controlled by the person or their authorized representative, and that the message content reflects their intent.

The role of technical and forensic expertise

In Chinese arbitral practice, digital forensic analysis is commonly employed to verify these criteria. Arbitrators may appoint independent experts to examine metadata, system logs, and transmission records to ensure evidentiary reliability.

The decisive role of informal correspondence in Chinese arbitration

Given this pragmatic stance, informal electronic communications in Chinese arbitration may:

• Constitute principal evidence for establishing or modifying contractual obligations.
• Serve to prove implied agreements or practical amendments to contracts.
• Play a decisive role in interpreting conduct and true intent.
  In numerous cases, informal messages have outweighed formal documents—especially where the parties’ conduct cohered with their electronic exchanges.

Comparative analysis of Iranian and Chinese approaches

A comparative assessment highlights fundamental legal, procedural, and cultural divergences in the treatment of informal electronic evidence. These differences profoundly influence evidentiary evaluation and outcomes in Iran–China arbitral disputes.
In Iran, arbitrators tend to adopt a conservative, form-oriented approach. Informal communications are recognized primarily as supporting presumptions rather than conclusive proof, with formal documents and contractual writings enjoying clear precedence.
Conversely, Chinese arbitral tribunals apply a pragmatic, reality-based perspective. Institutions like CIETAC emphasize commercial practice, factual behavior, and functional communication. Informal exchanges may thus serve as central evidence in determining obligations or amendments.
Cultural distinctions further amplify these contrasts: Chinese commercial custom gives significant weight to practical performance and conduct, whereas Iranian practice still privileges formalistic legal documentation.
Another marked difference is the active role of the arbitrator. Chinese arbitrators engage directly in technical assessment and data analysis, whereas in Iran, arbitral evaluation remains largely dependent on evidentiary submissions by the parties.
Understanding these variances is essential in joint arbitrations, as overlooking them may lead to misjudging evidentiary risks.

Practical use of informal correspondence in Iran–China arbitration

In disputes arising from EPC contracts, infrastructure undertakings, or joint industrial ventures between Iran and China, informal electronic communications frequently prove decisive. The complexity and time-sensitive nature of such projects mean that many instructions and agreements occur outside formal written channels.
Key instances include:

• Issuance of technical or operational instructions outside formal procedures.
• Implicit approval of design modifications or schedule adjustments.
• Extension of contractual deadlines via emails or instant messages.
• Silence or lack of objection construed as tacit consent in arbitral reasoning.
  Such exchanges provide a realistic depiction of project execution and the parties’ practical dealings. Ignoring them may distort factual interpretation and lead to arbitral awards detached from project realities.

Evidentiary challenges

Despite their importance, informal electronic communications present substantial evidentiary challenges—especially in cross-border Iran–China arbitrations—including:

• Difficulties in verifying authenticity and authorship, particularly for messages sent through social platforms.
• Risks of inaccurate translation of technical or legal terms in multilingual contexts.
• Conflicts between the language of informal communications and the contract’s governing language.
• Risks of deletion, editing, or misuse in the absence of proper documentation.
  Unless managed professionally, these factors may undermine or invalidate the evidentiary value of such correspondence.

Risk mitigation and enhancement of evidentiary reliability

To strengthen the evidentiary value of informal communications in Iran–China arbitrations, a proactive and professional strategy is required. Key measures include:

• Explicit recognition of electronic correspondence as admissible evidence within the contract.
• Determination of the governing language for informal communications or requirement of subsequent confirmation in the contract’s official language.
• Secure, systematic archiving and traceable record-keeping of messages and emails.
• Use of specialized legal translation tailored for international arbitration.
• Provision for the appointment of digital forensic experts to authenticate electronic evidence.
  Implementing these measures can significantly reduce evidentiary risks and enhance each party’s position in arbitral proceedings.

Conclusion

Informal electronic correspondence has become an integral feature of modern commercial relations and plays a pivotal role in proving claims in Iran–China arbitrations. The differing legal and cultural approaches of the two jurisdictions profoundly affect how such communications are evaluated. A nuanced understanding of these distinctions, combined with prudent management and documentation of digital exchanges, can substantially mitigate arbitral risks and safeguard the legal and commercial interests of contracting parties.