No description available.

The present thesis argues that the current legal framework regulating online cross-border business-to-consumer arbitration reduces the consumer confidence in online arbitration. The analysis focuses on the law applying to online cross-border business-to-consumer arbitration in England and on the U.S. Federal level, as these are identified as main emerging legal systems in this field. The main points in support of the above argument are as follows: First, the current rules do not oblige the business to notify the consumer about the existence of the arbitration clause in the B2C e-commerce contract. Second, the current choice of law rules applicable to online cross-border B2C arbitration do not ensure the consumer that he will enjoy the protection awarded to him under the law of his country of domicile. Third, the current jurisdiction rules applicable to online B2C arbitration do not give the consumer the right to litigate disputes related to online arbitration agreements and processes in the Courts of his country of domicile. Fourth, the current rules governing the online arbitral procedures do not promote the consumer perception of fairness. Finally, this thesis concludes that consumer confidence is essential for the success of this form of electronic dispute resolution, and that it can be increased by the adoption of an international convention which resolves all the above mentioned problems.

Employment discrimination cases in the United States of America (USA) are regularly resolved using alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes, yet critics argue that mediation merely diverts cases away from overburdened courts, neutralises private and societal interests and is unable to equalise differing party resources. The less widespread but increasingly popular use of mediation to resolve discrimination disputes England and Germany calls into question the applicability of American informal justice criticism and appropriateness of mediation in these cases. In this context, the thesis analyses comparatively the value added by mediation to existing resolution means for settling employment discrimination claims in England and Germany, also with a view to explaining the significantly less utilisation of mediation in contrast to the USA. Analytical frameworks offered by the seminal works of Darnaska and Hofstede enable the examination and determination of suitability and prospects of ADR in particular legal systems. The first provides a model to compare procedural systems and the second catalogues organisational preferences in terms of culture. Within these frameworks it will be demonstrated that the above criticism is only applicable with regard to the general principles and practice of mediation which will need addressing should ADR become more embedded in established dispute resolution structures. It is also strongly suggested that mediation is beneficial in employment discrimination cases. Overall, of the two frameworks cultural disputing preferences are more capable to determine the potential success of transplanting new dispute resolution methods and identify process modifications to facilitate utilisation and acceptance. The inclination toward ADR is culturally informed and the existing procedural foundation is but one aspect of disputing culture. Dispute system design, that is developing a bespoke resolution framework for individual organisations, may be one means of changing disputing culture from the bottom-up in contrast to state-imposed mandatory mediation programmes.

Grounded in interpretive theory, this researcha ddressesth e question: `How do professional, lay and gendered actors understand and experience mediation in legal disputes'? While mediation is increasingly well described and understood through a fast growing literature, to which lawyers and other social scientists have contributed, rather little empirical data is yet available on what happens inside mediation sessions and on how these sessions are experienced by the actors involved. The different understandings of professional and lay actors, and of males and females, particularly require further examination. These differences are explored here through data derived from interview/questionnaire/observationfi les of actors (parties, lawyers, mediators) involved in 64 mediated medical dispute claims (mandatory and voluntary; pre- and intra-litigation). Attention to the discursive representations of the various actors on issues such as understandings of plaintiffs' litigation aims, all actors' mediation objectives and perceptions of what occurred during mediations revealed significant differences in terms of both language and agenda. It emerges that professional and lay actors, males and females, occupy largely parallel worlds of understanding affecting how conflict and its resolution are perceived. There is some evidence that mediation experience leads lawyers to re-conceptualise their roles. This move away from conventional legal thought is strengthened through the discourse of lawyer-mediators, which was frequently distinct from practitioners and more akin to that of non-lawyer mediators. Nevertheless, in juxtaposing actors' discourse on all sides of the same or similar cases, the data reveals inherent problems with the core workings of the legal system as stark similarities in the discourse of disputants on the one hand, and lawyers of all camps on the other reveal unlikely conceptual alignments between mediations' legal and extra-legal actors.

Interim protection of rights (through provisional, including protective, measures) is as important as the final protection of those rights. This thesis examines several problems and uncertainties surrounding provisional measures in international commercial arbitration. Those problems and uncertainties influence the effectiveness of arbitration; thus, they constitute a threat to the future of arbitration. The thesis aims to identify, analyse, and offer solutions to those problems and uncertainties. The thesis initially examines the roots and evolution of the concepts of arbitral powers to grant provisional measures and court assistance to arbitration. This examination highlights the roots of the problems and uncertainties and demonstrates how the approach towards provisional measures shifted, in due course of time, from judicial authorities' exclusive power to arbitrators' power to grant those measures and how the courts' role regarding interim protection has evolved into assistance. It further deals with the forum to seek provisional measures mainly to demonstrate that today an arbitrator or another party-determined authority is and should be the natural judge regarding interim protection of rights and that the courts' assistance should be restricted to ensure the effectiveness of arbitration. It, in addition, investigates complementary mechanisms to arbitration for providing interim protection in order to show that such mechanisms enhance the effectiveness of arbitration for a period prior to the appointment of an arbitrator. The thesis also endeavours to establish the standards of procedure and principles in regard of arbitral provisional measures, for instance, form, requirements and types of arbitral provisional measures. The establishment of these standards and principles makes arbitration a more consistent and predictable dispute resolution mechanism. It thus boosts the effectiveness of arbitration. It finally discusses the enforcement of arbitral provisional measures to show that some of these measures are effective without any coercion and that some others, however, necessitate the use of coercive powers, which are lent by judicial authorities.

Par un étonnant paradoxe, le contrôle étatique des sentences arbitrales internationales conduit à réintroduire la justice étatique là où les parties avaient voulu l’exclure. Mais ce paradoxe pourrait n’être qu’apparent. Une approche fondée sur la distinction entre les intérêts publics et les intérêts privés ouvre de nouvelles perspectives. L’examen réalisé par le juge étatique l’invite à s’assurer, d’une part, du respect par les arbitres des intérêts privés des parties et, d’autre part, à contrôler la compatibilité de la sentence avec ses intérêts publics. Aussi paraît-il concevable que l’intérêt en cause puisse modifier directement la nature du contrôle exercé. Parallèlement, le juge compétent est tantôt indirectement désigné par les parties, tantôt déterminé par le lieu d’exécution de la sentence. Par conséquent, il est légitime d’assigner aux juges de l’annulation et de l’exequatur une mission distincte, mais complémentaire. Le juge de l’annulation examinerait les intérêts privés et le juge de l’exequatur garantirait la conformité de la sentence aux intérêts publics. En définitive, la distinction des intérêts privés et des intérêts publics pourrait devenir un instrument de redéfinition du contrôle étatique des sentences arbitrales internationales. À la fois plus respectueux de la volonté des parties, plus protecteur des intérêts étatiques et offrant une solution au désordre actuel du contrôle des sentences arbitrales, ce nouveau paradigme concourrait à l’efficacité de l’arbitrage. / State control of international arbitral awards leads to a clear paradox, as it involves State court intervention to a procedure where the parties intended to exclude it. However, this paradox might only be a mirage. An approach based on the distinction between public interests and private interests opens up new perspectives. The review by the national judge invites him, on the one hand, to ensure the arbitrators’ compliance with the private interests of the parties, and, on the other hand, to control the compatibility of the award with public interests. Also, it seems conceivable that the interest in question could directly influence the nature of such control. At the same time, the competent judge is sometimes indirectly appointed by the parties, and sometimes determined by the place of enforcement of the award. It is therefore legitimate to give a separate, yet complementary, role to the annulment judge and to the enforcement judge. The annulment judge would consider the private interests whereas the enforcement judge would ensure the award's compliance with the public interests. Ultimately, the distinction between private interests and public interests could constitute the basis of redefining State control over international arbitral awards. More respectful of the will of the parties, more protective of State interests, this new paradigm would contribute to the effectiveness of arbitration.

No description available.

La gestion des conflits est indiscutablement une préoccupation actuelle des opérateurs économiques qui en appellent fréquemment à leur volonté afin de prévenir, traiter, aménager ou résoudre les conflits, au sein du contrat d’origine, par le contrat ou dans le procès, s’appropriant ainsi l’œuvre de justice. La volonté des sujets de droit et l’ordre imposé par les différentes sources de droit s’entrechoquent alors avec une intensité variable selon qu’il s’agit du domaine contractuel ou processuel. De cette confrontation se dessinent les frontières de la liberté qu’il apparaît nécessaire d’éprouver. Apprécier le rôle de la volonté, individuelle ou conjointe, des parties ou des tiers, dans la gestion des conflits permet ainsi d’isoler plusieurs conceptions de la Justice, entre satisfaction d’intérêts privés, service public et réalisation d’un idéal universel. À cet égard, la position adoptée par le droit positif incite à se demander si une vision plus individualiste de la justice serait envisageable. / Conflict management is nowadays undoubtedly a major subject for economic operators who frequently mobilize their will in order to prevent, process, adjust or solve their conflicts, within the original agreement, by an agreement or during the proceedings, thus appropriating the art of justice. Individual will then confronts with the imposed order as defined by different mandatory legal sources with an intensity which varies depending on the contractual or procedural nature of the considered field. From this confrontation arise freedom’s boundaries which need to be challenged. Assessing the role of will, whether individual or joint, of the parties or of third parties, in conflict management enables the isolation of multiple conceptions of Justice, as private interest satisfaction, universal ideal achievement and public service. The position adopted by subtantive law invites to determine if a more individualistic view of justice is conceivable.

La gestion des conflits est indiscutablement une préoccupation actuelle des opérateurs économiques qui en appellent fréquemment à leur volonté afin de prévenir, traiter, aménager ou résoudre les conflits, au sein du contrat d’origine, par le contrat ou dans le procès, s’appropriant ainsi l’œuvre de justice. La volonté des sujets de droit et l’ordre imposé par les différentes sources de droit s’entrechoquent alors avec une intensité variable selon qu’il s’agit du domaine contractuel ou processuel. De cette confrontation se dessinent les frontières de la liberté qu’il apparaît nécessaire d’éprouver. Apprécier le rôle de la volonté, individuelle ou conjointe, des parties ou des tiers, dans la gestion des conflits permet ainsi d’isoler plusieurs conceptions de la Justice, entre satisfaction d’intérêts privés, service public et réalisation d’un idéal universel. À cet égard, la position adoptée par le droit positif incite à se demander si une vision plus individualiste de la justice serait envisageable. / Conflict management is nowadays undoubtedly a major subject for economic operators who frequently mobilize their will in order to prevent, process, adjust or solve their conflicts, within the original agreement, by an agreement or during the proceedings, thus appropriating the art of justice. Individual will then confronts with the imposed order as defined by different mandatory legal sources with an intensity which varies depending on the contractual or procedural nature of the considered field. From this confrontation arise freedom’s boundaries which need to be challenged. Assessing the role of will, whether individual or joint, of the parties or of third parties, in conflict management enables the isolation of multiple conceptions of Justice, as private interest satisfaction, universal ideal achievement and public service. The position adopted by subtantive law invites to determine if a more individualistic view of justice is conceivable.

Cette thèse propose de partir de l’État en tant qu’objet historique afin de comprendre ses relations avec l’arbitrage d’un point de vue de droit public. Elle adopte une étude fonctionnelle et introduit des éléments de droit comparé afin d’éclairer ces relations. Les fonctions de l’État dans l’arbitrage reflètent en effet l’évolution de la forme étatique, tout comme cette évolution explique leur nature et leur diversité. L’analyse des fonctions de l’État dans l’arbitrage mène ainsi au constant d’une série de dualités porteuses de tensions. Dualité d’abord entre deux grands types de fonctions étatiques qui structurent ce travail : les fonctions de puissance de l’État d’une part et les fonctions de régulation de l’État dans l’arbitrage d’autre part. Les premières correspondent aux fonctions traditionnelles de l’État moderne de juridiction, d’édiction et d’exécution et sont profondément imprégnées de l’idée de monopole étatique et de hiérarchie. Les secondes sont apparues plus récemment, en partie en réaction à deux globalisations économiques génératrices de réalités transnationales sur lesquelles l’État ne peut pas agir de manière efficace à travers ses fonctions de puissance. Dualité ensuite au sein de chacune des fonctions de puissance étatiques qui évoluent sous cette même pression ainsi qu’entre des fonctions de régulations directes et des fonctions de régulation indirectes de l’État dans l’arbitrage. Au sein de chacune de ces dualités, plutôt qu’un passage d’un pôle à un autre, on assiste à leur coexistence parfois conflictuelle. / This study takes the historical figure of the sovereign state as a point of departure in order to understand its relationship with arbitration from a public law perspective. To do so, it adopts a functional approach and introduces elements of comparative law. In fact, the sovereign functions in arbitration mirror the evolution of the sovereign state, while that evolution explains their nature and diversity. The analysis of sovereign functions in arbitration leads to identify a number of dichotomies that are a potential sources of conflicts. First, there is a dichotomy between functions of power in arbitration and regulatory functions in arbitration from which this study borrows its structure. The functions of power encompass the traditional jurisdictional, legislative and executive functions characteristic of the modern state and are linked to the ideas of state monopoly and hierarchy. The regulatory functions of the state are more recent, and emerged as a reaction to two economic globalizations that engendered transnational phenomena which cannot be ruled in an efficient manner through the sovereign’s functions of power. Second, there are dichotomies within each function of power when applies to arbitration as well as a dichotomy between direct and indirect regulatory functions in arbitration. Within each of these dichotomies, rather than a shift from one pole to the other, it is possible to observe a coexistence of both poles.