Este estudo examina as estipulações voltadas à instituição de meios multiportas de solução de controvérsias, mecanismo responsável por materializar a vontade da partes em solucionar os seus conflitos via métodos alternativos ou adequados de solução de controvérsias, tendo relevante papel na materialização do escopo social do processo. Há uma clara dicotomia entre os denominados métodos de solução de controvérsias consensuais, nos quais a própria participação das partes levará à solução e à conformação do litígio e, de outro lado, os métodos adjudicatórios de solução de controvérsias, no qual haverá um terceiro imparcial escolhido pelas partes ou de acordo com mecanismos por elas estabelecido e que será responsável pela solução da controvérsia. Existem ainda métodos combinados ou mistos, em que são aglutinados elementos dos métodos denominados primários, quais sejam negociação, conciliação, mediação e arbitragem. Clara a diferença entre essas categorias de métodos de solução de controvérsias, deve-se analisar, ainda, se há alguma diferença no tocante à vinculação das partes a cada uma das mencionadas categorias de solução de controvérsias e, com grande importância, de que modo métodos consensuais podem interferir no surgimento e desenvolvimento de métodos adjudicatórios. Em relação à vinculação dos métodos de solução de controvérsias adjudicatórios, a grande referência no direito brasileiro é a arbitragem, que conta com legislação própria e deve muito de seu sucesso no atual estado dos métodos de solução de controvérsias no direito brasileiro a alterações relativas à sua vinculação e efetivação. Nitidamente, há uma inserção das cláusulas de solução de controvérsias, seja qual for o método utilizado no âmbito da ciência processual. A base de tais cláusulas é de direito privado, fundamentando-se em institutos bastante conhecidos: transação e compromisso que ganharam a categorização jurídica de contrato após o Código Civil de 2002. Do ponto de vista da adoção desses instrumentos jurídicos como veículos da utilização dos métodos de solução de controvérsias, são previstas técnicas diversas de uso. A primeira é extrajudicial, baseada na planificação de solução de conflitos, que pode ser feita pelas partes e seus advogados, e uma segunda, que é extrajudicial baseada no caseflow e no case management, nos quais o Judiciário assume o papel de coordenador e aplicador de tais métodos. A relação entre os métodos de solução de controvérsias ganha caráter dinâmico na medida em que determinados sistemas de solução de controvérsias são combinados para uma dada questão. Trata-se das chamadas cláusulas escalonadas que têm por escopo acompanhar a escalada de litigiosidade que possa surgir em determinada discussão jurídica, combinando métodos consensuais e adjudicatórios de solução de litígios. Em qualquer situação, de acordo com os termos dos arts. 158 e 466-B do Código de Processo Civil que podem analogamente ser comparados com os arts. 4.º e 7.º da Lei de Arbitragem, há a total vinculação das partes ao método de solução de controvérsias escolhido. Questão bastante tormentosa é a inserção e a inter-relação dos métodos de solução de controvérsias, especialmente com o processo civil e os efeitos que daí podem decorrer. Nesse aspecto, sendo um método consensual, as partes que a ele aderiram terá que realizá-lo antes da busca de um método adjudicatório de adesão voluntária, como é a arbitragem, ou um método adjudicatório inevitável, como é o Judiciário. Trata-se do efeito negativo das cláusulas ADR. Contudo, há que verificar que efeitos seriam gerados aos métodos adjudicatórios pela não realização de um método consensual precedente. Os métodos de solução de controvérsias poderiam ser encarados como pressupostos processuais, condições da ação ou questões prévias, promovendo diferentes resultados em um processo judicial ou arbitral. Há que se buscar a solução que melhor se adequar a um contexto de solução de controvérsias. Desta feita, os MASCs devem ser colocados como hipóteses suspensão dos processos arbitral ou judicial, suspensão essa que deve durar até a realização do referido método acordado anteriormente, garantindo-se a sua eficácia. No tocante a este ponto, o Estado tem um relevante papel político e legislativo de modo a incentivar a utilização de tais métodos e garantir-lhes a eficácia. Além disso, a parte que se furtar está sujeita a consequências contratuais que podem ser previstas, tais como a imposição de multas e cláusulas penais. Vislumbram-se também hipóteses de perda de uma chance, com o agravamento do litígio e prejuízos que podem advir do tolhimento da chance de um método de solução de controvérsias produzir um resultado. De qualquer modo, aquele que pretendia utilizar o método, para se valer dessas possíveis indenizações, tem o dever de mitigar o próprio dano como resultado da mesma cláusula geral de boa-fé que, ao reverso, obrigou o ex-adverso a utilizar o método e foi violada. Pode-se pensar nesse contexto, ainda, a possibilidade de métodos alternativos de solução de controvérsias serem estabelecidos por meio de cláusulas que prevejam a venda de excussão entre as partes ou mesmo medidas corporativas, tais como ocorrem na BM&F Bovespa, apenas de acordo com a manifestação de vontade das partes de adesão ao referido sistema, sendo uma prova da força e extensão do vínculo surgido de uma estipulação de solução de controvérsias, ainda que consensual. Há, de qualquer modo, uma execução por transformação em que a manifestação de vontade apresentada pelas partes pode ser efetivada pelo magistrado permitindo a utilização dos métodos de solução de controvérsias a partir do momento em que ocorreu a adesão das partes. Por fim, a confidencialidade que pode ser aplicada aos métodos de solução de controvérsias tem natureza contratual, não interferindo na eficácia das cláusulas ADR. / This study examines the stipulations aimed to establishing alternative settled mechanism responsible for materializing the will of the parties to resolve their disputes through alternative or appropriate dispute settlement with a relevant role in the materialization of the social scope of the process. There is a clear dichotomy between the called consensual methods of dispute resolution in which the participation of the parties will lead to the solution and the conformation of the dispute and, on the other hand, the called adjudicatory methods in which an impartial third party will be chosen by parties or in accordance with mechanisms established by them and will be responsible for resolving the dispute. There are also mixed or combined methods, which contains elements of the primary methods, namely, negotiation, conciliation, mediation and arbitration. Differences between these categories of methods of dispute settlement shall be analyzed, even if there is any difference with respect the binding feature of those methods and, with great importance, so that consensual methods can interfere in the emergence and development of adjudicatory methods. In relation to binding adjudicatory methods of dispute settlement, the most important reference in Brazil is Arbitration. Its Law is responsible for it succed as a method of dispute resolution in the Brazil, specially for ten. changes to their binding feature and enforcement of its result, now recognized as a sentence. The legal basis of such clauses is private law and are based on well-known institutions: transaction and commitment that are a contractual legal categorie after the Civil Code. From the standpoint of using, these legal instruments are vehicles and are expected to use different techniques. The first rendition is based on planning for conflict resolution that can be made by the parties and their lawyers and a second which is based on caseflow and case management, in which the judiciary takes over the role to coordinate and implement these methods. The relationship between the methods of dispute settlement became dynamic when individual methods of dispute settlement are combined to a given question. These are the called staggered terms which seeks to track the escalation of litigation that may arise in a particular legal issue, combining both consensual and adjudicatory dispute resolution methods. In any event, in accordance with the terms of the arts. 158 and 466-B of the Civil Procedure Code that can similarly be compared with the arts. 4o and 7o of the Arbitration Act, there is the share of binding feature of the method of dispute resolution chosen. Question very stormy is the interrelationship of the insertion of dispute resolution methods, especially consensual and adjudicatory methodse. In this aspect, a method is agreed, the parties have to do it before the search for an adjudicatory method. This is the negative effect of ADR clauses. However, there it is found that the effects would be generated by methods Adjudicative not performing a method consesual precedent. The methods of dispute settlement may be seen as procedural requisites, conditions of action or issues prior action by promoting different results in a lawsuit or arbitration. We must seek the solution that best fits the context of a multi door dispute settlement. The conclusion is that the ADR methods should be placed as hypotheses of suspension for arbitration or judicial processes. That suspension should last until the completion of this method previously agreed, assuring its effectiveness. Concerning this point, the State has an important political and legislative role in order to encourage the use of such methods and guarantee their effectiveness. In addition, the part that is subject to evade contractual consequences that can be provided such as the imposition of fines and penalty clauses. In case of ADR clauses breach the lost of a chance theory shall applyo, with increased litigation and damages that may arise from the chance of stunting a method of dispute resolution to produce a result. Anyway, who intended to use the breach of the other party to take advantage of possible damages, has the duty to mitigate the loss itself as a result of the same general clause on good faith that, in reverse, enforces the former adverse to using the method and was violated. One might think in this context also the possibility of alternative methods of dispute settlement be established by means of clauses providing for the sale of excussion between the parties or even intracorporis issues such as occur in the BM&F Bovespa, only in accordance with the manifestation the will of the parties to accede to such a system, a testament to the strength and extent of the relationship arising from a stipulation of settlement of disputes, even if consensual. The intetion to use an alternative dispute resolution shall be given by the partíreis but in case of breach of this obligation the interested party can obtain an mandatory decision by the Judge indicating that the other party must attend the dispute resolution method. Finally, the confidentiality that can be applied to methods of dispute settlement is contractual in nature, not interfering with the enforcement of ADR clauses.

Magister Legum - LLM

Mediation has been regarded as one of the effective dispute resolving techniques. However, the issues pertaining to the development of mediation have been overlooked and are therefore less well known. There has been limited discussion about mediation and some of the theoretical explanations about its development in the construction industry were not well investigated or documented. The main purpose of this research was to investigate the development of mediation by focusing on investigating the barriers which impede the use of mediation in resolving construction industry disputes in the UK. Gaps in the literature were identified in the research but no hypothesis was generated. The interpretive research model was an ideal paradigm for this research as it assisted in structuring the whole process of the investigation. A grounded theory strategy was adopted as it helped to capture the overall mediation phenomenon in a construction environment. Semi-structured interviews, with sixteen leading mediators from around the UK, were used for this study. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. The interview transcripts were analysed using grounded theory analysis, through manual coding techniques. From the findings, two categories of barriers were identified: barriers arising from the public (lack of social awareness, disputatious culture, process barrier, insufficient planning, security and the introduction of adjudication) and barriers caused by the disputants’ legal advisors (ignorance, personal agendas and the conventional method of resolution). The study also explores some information on the mediation system such as financial issue was the main dispute in construction industry; facilitative mediation is the most appropriate mediation process and in appointing the mediator, excellence in mediating skills is more important than his or her professional background; also it is inappropriate/ counterproductive to impose mandatory mediation on construction disputes. The limited amount of literature dealing with mediation in the UK construction industry is one of the limitations of the research, as it complicated the process of designing the interview questions. Some potential sources of bias for the research are identified through the areas of data presentation and data interpretation. This research has provided theoretical and practical contributions to mediation development within the context of the UK’s construction industry. Further research is suggested to validate the research findings and to evaluate the quality of the mediation process, based on the gender and professional background of the mediator.

Diplomová práce je z oblasti silniční přepravy nebezpečných látek a věcí a zabývá se koncepcí zvyšování kvalifikace pracovníků silniční přepravy s aplikací na vybranou dopravní firmu. Teoretická část obsahuje východiska Dohody ADR, praktická část aplikaci na firmu Petschl Transporte (Česko) s.r.o. a analýzu koncepce zvyšování kvalifikace pracovníků, podílejících se na tomto druhu přepravy v dané firmě. Součástí práce jsou i návrhy na opatření.

The diploma thesis deals with the main risks of dangerous goods transportation and ways of their minimization. The thesis devotes a new form of internal training of SCHENKER's employees about regulations concerning dangerous goods transportation as the way to enhance their security.

Diplomová práce je z oblasti silniční přepravy nebezpečných látek a věcí a zabývá se koncepcí zvyšování kvalifikace pracovníků silniční přepravy s aplikací na vybranou dopravní firmu. Teoretická část obsahuje východiska Dohody ADR, praktická část aplikaci na firmu Petschl Transporte (Česko) s.r.o. a analýzu koncepce zvyšování kvalifikace pracovníků, podílejících se na tomto druhu přepravy v dané firmě. Součástí práce jsou i návrhy na opatření.

This thesis deals with preventive measures concerning transport of dangerous goods and how these are observed. Also, it discusses the influence of training and the shortcomings of the training system in the field of ADR. Further, the thesis mentions the development of road side checks connected with the transport of dangerous goods and also accidents connected with this kind of transport. As far as the accidents connected with the transport of dangerous goods are concerned, the main causes of these have been surveyed.

Diploma thesis focuses on the analysis of critical points in the transport of hazardous materials on the basis of which there is given a methodology for selecting safe routes. Thethesis includes statistical data on the total performance in the transport of hazardous materials within the EU states as well as specifies the proportion of transport performance of hazardous materials to the total performance among the individual European countries. For Czech Republic, the thesis also presents a statistical overview of the accident rate associated with this kind of transport as well as deals with the causes and consequences of the accidents occured during the transportation.

The thesis considered the feasibility of space warfare with an emphasis on the malicious potential of dual-use technology. I have described the orbital principles and set the presumptions of space warfare and the principles for space warfare strategy, introduced dual- use technology and its connections to space weapons, elaborated on existing counterspace capabilities and its impact, described the challenges for space warfare and evaluated the utilization of dual-use technology as space weapons. I have reached the conclusion that current space technology does not allow to lead extensive space warfare. However, counterspace technology is mature enough for the conduct of destructive space operations and states are encouraged to proliferate advanced offensive counterspace capabilities that are not sufficiently addressed and bounded to international law. Though, despite it seems space warfare is unlikely, the growing tensions of state space actors and rapid development of new technology that is currently mostly driven by the commercial actors may soon change the situation. Potentially destructive dual-use technology may then increase the risk and probability of space warfare. The thesis proposed several options of potentially destructive dual-technology technology that could be turned into space weapons.

The system of Alternative Dispute Resolution, commonly known as ADR, comprises multiple informal processes. Traditional processes of negotiation, mediation and arbitration are primary processes within the system of ADR. The elements of the primary processes have been combined with one another or with those of public process to form hybrid ADR processes original only to the system of ADR. These hybrid processes are: rent-a-judge, the mini-trial, the summary jury trial, neutral evaluation and mediation/arbitration. Under the auspices of ADR, derivative processes have also been developed, such as expedited arbitration, documents-only arbitration, final-offer arbitration and quality arbitration. Each process is distinct and separate, having its own unique form, function and method of transforming a dispute. Outwardly, this represents a diverse collection of disjunctive processes. Yet an introspective analysis shows that there is an innate centrality that originates in core principles that bind individual processes to each other and to a unified body of theory. These foundational principles of ADR are replicated in each of its processes. In these terms, ADR is therefore conceptualised as a pluralistic system of dispute resolution that consists of autonomous and individual systems of process that conform to a central body of general theory and consensual principles. As a method of extracting the fundamental principles of ADR, the discontinuities and continuities between the theory and principles of civil procedure, as a unitary system .of procedure, and ADR processes are explored. However, in its conclusions, the thesis rejects the premises of a unitary system of procedure as forming the basis for the theory and principles of ADR. Instead, the contrary notion is advanced that ADR is an independent system of dispute resolution which is based on a theory of processual pluralism and supported by cogent processual principles. / Constitutional, International & Indigenous Law / LL.D.