The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 in section 145 and the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965 in section 33 uses wording very similar to one another to specifically enable the labour court to review CCMA and private arbitration awards respectively. As a result, labour arbitration award reviews are regarded as part of the family of special statutory reviews; the implication of such a classification being that the situation specific statutory provision(s) and the jurisprudential principles developed thereunder are applicable rather than those applicable to reviews in general. When the common purpose of the review procedure is then read with the legislature’s objective of quickly and finally resolving labour disputes at arbitration level as well as the limited grounds for review as provided for in the LRA and the AA, indications are that the labour courts’ review powers should be restrictively interpreted. However, because the making of CCMA arbitration awards also constitutes administrative action, the review thereof is also influenced by the constitutional right to just administrative action and reasonableness in particular. This does however not mean that applicants on review can rely directly on section 33 of the Final Constitution or on the broader grounds of section 6 of the PAJA to review CCMA arbitration awards on the basis of unreasonableness. Section 145 of the LRA constitutes administrative action legislation within the specialised labour law sphere and reasonableness is not a ground mentioned therein. A constitutionally consistent interpretation of section 145 however has the effect that reasonableness suffuses the statutory defined grounds for review; a state of affairs that does not threaten the restrictive scope of CCMA arbitration award reviews. In terms thereof, courts on review must establish whether the decision, alleged to have been reached by the commissioner as a result of the occurrence of one or more of the section 145 grounds for review, is one that a reasonable decision-maker could not reach. This interpretation accords far better with the legislature’s specific objectives pertaining to labour arbitration award reviews and the permissible range of reasonableness further ensures that awards are not easily interfered with on review. When a court is then called upon to determine whether or not a decision is reviewable in terms of section 145, it is entitled to have regard to both the award and the record of the proceedings. If, after such scrutiny, the court is of the opinion that the decision was arrived at as a result of the occurrence of a defect as contemplated by section 145 of the LRA, the decision should be reviewed and set aside irrespective of the fact that the outcome can be sustained by other reasons also identifiable from the record; the focus of review always being on the commissioner’s process of reasoning and the way in which he arrived at his findings rather than the outcome of the process. A court should however be mindful of the fact that erroneous reasons for findings per se are not reviewable grounds, but at best serve as evidence of a reviewable ground that will in conjunction with other considerations have to be sufficiently compelling to justify an inference that the decision is unreasonable. In the case of jurisdictional reviews, the reasonableness standard is also applicable because the focus is on the commissioner’s subjective reasons for his findings rather than the jurisdictional fact’s objective existence. A court on review can accordingly set aside a decision following upon the non-observance of a jurisdictional fact if the commissioner, in deciding that the jurisdictional fact existed, committed one or more of the section 145 grounds for review. In the case of private arbitration awards, applicants seeking a review must do so on the grounds recognised in section 33 of the AA and reasonableness is not one of them. This is however not the only reason why these awards are also not subject to the scrutiny of the reasonableness test on review. The other reason relates to the fact that the issuing of private arbitration awards does not constitute administrative action. The disputing parties can also not by agreement incorporate the reasonableness standard into private arbitration award reviews conducted by the labour court. Such parties are however entitled to establish a private appeal or private review body in their arbitration agreement, clothing it with the powers that they wish to confer upon it, including the ability to review an award subject to the reasonableness standard. / Abstract

This research analyzes investment treaty arbitration under the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in the context of Nigeria's international investment law regime. The ICSID Convention establishes ICSID. The arbitration of investment claims in the context of investment treaty arbitration under the ICSID should reflect the purpose of the ICSID Convention. The nature of foreign investment disputes is implicated in any act or omission by the host State tantamount to expropriation or violations of applicable investment agreements. This implication is one of the considerations for the protection of foreign investments in the host State through mechanisms that support the theory of the 'internationalization of State contracts' and the interpretation of 'umbrella clauses' found in most Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) applicable to the settlement of investment disputes. There are questions with respect to the feasibility of the classical theory of foreign direct investment (FDI) and the postulation of 'treaty protagonists' that the core adjudicative element of investment treaty arbitration ought to be 'contribution to economic development.' The thesis argues that, while the international mechanisms for the conduct of FDI are not yet perfect, the mechanisms offer some ideas and experience on how to reform Nigeria's investment treaty mechanism using 'the law in context approach' as a basis for reforms. The uncertainty associated with the ICSID Convention, with respect to the definition of 'investment' and established foreign investment treatment standards found in Nigeria's BITs regime, provides an opportunity for Nigeria to design a legal mechanism that would enhance its competitiveness in attracting FDI for economic development. A legal framework for investment treaty arbitration conducted under the ICSID is proposed to promote economic development and avoid the costs associated with investment treaty arbitration.

This thesis called Arbitration contract in international and national business transactions deals with arbitration contract and its position not only in legal environment of the Czech republic but also at international stage. First chapter focuses mainly on evolvement of arbitration contract from the Middle Ages till now and its modern form that is regulated in the Act No. 216/1994 Coll., on Arbitration Proceedings and on Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, in New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and also in UNCITRAL Model law. Next chapters discuss concept of arbitration proceedings and consider it important in order to better explain nature of arbitration contract that is one of the most important aspects of this kind of proceedings. Next chapter deals with essentials of arbitration contract from which its validity arises. Mainly, it emphasizes important requirements that parties need to agree upon while negotiating arbitration contract. It does not forget also additional requisites that are recommended. Particularly, it compares situation when parties also negotiate these additional terms and situation when they do not do so and draws some conclusion. The aim of this thesis is to also look at the right of appeal that becomes popular for the parties and therefore...

La mondialisation a permis l’instauration de plusieurs institutions d’arbitrage. Cette multitude de choix offerte aux investisseurs pourrait induire les parties à choisir une institution défavorable quant à la résolution de leur litige. L’objectif de la thèse est de présenter un modèle de gestion pour les juristes qui facilite le choix de la juridiction la plus efficace ceci avec la mise en œuvre d’un tableau de notation associant des critères multidimensionnels accordant une notation selon le degré d’importance vue par les parties. A ce sujet, le tableau mis en place regroupe les quatre juridictions les plus connues internationalement qui sont les juridictions étatiques, la CCI, le CIRDI et la CNUDCI. L’arbitrage est composé de plusieurs fondements qui lui accordent sa spécificité. L’analyse multidimensionnelle permettrait donc de faire une analyse arithmétique des valeurs comparatives des composantes juridiques et extra-juridiques de l’arbitrage qui forment le tableau de notation afin de faciliter la prise de décisions des investisseurs. Afin de vérifier l’efficacité du tableau de notation, un questionnaire a été adressé aux investisseurs ainsi que des interviews effectuées avec des juristes ont permis de déceler l’impact de l’expérience sur le choix du centre le plus efficace. L’étude de cas de l’affaire COMMISIMPEX est un exemple de l’effet du choix inefficace sur la résolution du litige et explique comment l’expérience pourrait affecter la décision de l’institution d’arbitrage le plus efficace à la résolution du litige. Pour en conclure qu’il n’y a pas de juridiction intrinsèquement meilleure que les autres. Il faut donc procéder au cas par cas et selon ce que les parties recherchent suite à leur litige, pour en déduire la juridiction ou l’institution qui leur serait la plus favorable afin de leurs garantir le plus de droits lors de la résolution de leur litige / Globalization has established several arbitral institutions. They offer a multiple of choices to the investors that could induce the parties to choose an unfavorable institution.The aim of this thesis is to present a management model for jurist which facilitates the choice of the most efficient jurisdiction in resolving their dispute, with the implementation of a scoring table combining multidimensional criteria, giving a rating according to the degree of importance for the parties. In this regard, the table regroup four of the most well-known internationally jurisdiction, the State court, the ICC, the ICSID and the UNICITRAL. Arbitration is composed of several fundaments that give it its specificity. Multidimensional analysis thus would make an arithmetical analysis of the comparative values of the legal and extra-legal components of arbitration which form the scoring table to facilitate decision making of investors. To verify the effectiveness of the scoring table a questionnaire was sent to investors as well as an interview conducted with lawyers have identifies the impact of the experience on the choice of the most efficient arbitral center. The Case study of COMMISIMPEX is an example of the effect of inefficient choice on the resolution of the dispute and how the experience may affect the decision of the most effective arbitration institution to the resolution of the dispute. To conclude none of the jurisdiction is inherently better than the others. We must proceed case by case and according to what the parties are looking after their dispute, to deduce the court or institution that would be most favorable to them by guarantying more rights in the settlement of their dispute.

Thesis (B.A.)--Haverford College, Dept. of Economics, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references.

As the increase of direct investment in China, Taiwanese businessmen are encountering more and more disputes there, which makes this issue be worthy of attention. Among the various types of disputes, this present study focuses on investment disputes and attempts to figure out the types, causes and dispute resolution mechanism of investment disputes through the method of case study, literature review and expert interview. The conclusions of this study are as follows: There are 6 common types of investment disputes that Taiwanese businessmen usually encounter in China: 1. Disputes on contributing investment; 2. Disputes on the right of management¡F3. Disputes on profit distribution; 4. Disputes on suspending equity joint-ventures or contractual joint-ventures; 5. Disputes on partners¡¦ illicit behaviors; 6. Disputes between Taiwan shares holders or anonymous investment disputes. It is revealed that the causes of investment disputes are 1. China¡¦s restrictions against foreign investment; 2. Taiwanese businessmen¡¦s unfamiliarity with the investment laws and regulations of China; 3. Taiwanese businessmen are not discreet in choosing their China partners; 4. Taiwanese businessmen tend to sign contracts and building cooperation constitutions carelessly. Taiwanese businessmen resort to three kinds of dispute resolution mechanisms, including Adjudication, Mediation, and Arbitration, when encountering investment disputes in China. This study conducts a comparative analysis between these three mechanisms in terms of six dimensions, i.e. ¡§efficiency¡¨, ¡¨cost¡¨, ¡¨professionalism¡¨, ¡¨confidentiality¡¨, ¡§relationship maintenance¡¨ and ¡¨enforceability¡¨. The result shows that mediation and arbitration perform better than adjudication in almost all dimensions except the dimension of ¡§enforceability¡¨. It is also suggested that Taiwanese businessmen prefer mediation to any other dispute resolutions in practice. Since arbitration is also an excellent dispute resolution mechanism, this phenomenon implies that arbitration is ignored by the Taiwanese businessmen. Therefore, the regulation, exercise and notice of China¡¦s arbitration are further demonstrated for Taiwanese businessmen in the final part of the study.

It has been more than 50 years since the declaration and commencement of the local arbitration system. The frequency of usage did not decrease with development of the society. Arbitration system is an efficient dispute resolution. The purpose of this research probes into the situation of local arbitration, and the perception and the difference between arbitration committee members and democracy to provide viable suggestions. Methods used in this research include 1.document analysis ¡Vto know the history of arbitration system, 2.individual case study interviews ¡Vfocus on individual case, 3.in-depth interview ¡Vfocus on the situation of arbitration executed. The results as follow as: 1. Cognitive consistency (1) Execution: it took more than 60 min. by each case. The types of cases tend to car accidents and two committee members attend mostly. (2) Case conditions: both sides filed alternative resolution less than twice and the other side is rational. (3) Cognitive of success factors: it is ineffective that arbitration through different way and people cannot know it immediately. The success factor is a compromise of both sides; and the failure factor is the individual insistence. The success arbitration is the suggestion of baseline from both sides. The negative effect is the external factor. (4) Cognitive of arbitration system: Agree with the limit of minimum female members. Councilors cannot be part-time committee members. The arbitration is related with experience but educational background. 2. Cognitive inconsistency (1) The case details: committee members consider they are sufficient understanding the case details, but people do not agree with them. (2) Numbers appropriateness of committee member: committee members consider it is a just number, but people consider it is an excess number. (3) The key factor of committee members: committee members consider the key factors are professionalism and passion; people consider the key factors are objective and fair. (4) Arbitration system is being substitute for justice: committee members agree with it, but people disagree with it.

Thesis (M. Sc.)--University of Hong Kong, 1997. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 116-121).

Thesis (doctoral)--Humboldt-Universität, Berlin, 2002.

Arbitral tribunals’ engagement of secretaries has for several years been the subject of debate and surveys show that the use of arbitral secretaries varies in practice. The Swedish Arbitration Act as well as the Arbitration Rules and Rules for Expedited Arbitrations issued by the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce do not regulate the appointment and authority of an arbitral secretary. The requirements for the arbitrators’ appointment of a secretary and the extent of the secretary’s authority are, however, indirectly affected by general principles of law and provisions in the Swedish Arbitration Act. Regarding the requirements for appointment of a secretary, it is asserted in this thesis that the arbitrators ought to obtain the parties’ consent to the appointment. However, it is unclear if there are any other requirements that the arbitrators must observe when appointing a secretary. The limitations on the secretary’s authority mainly consist of agreements concluded by the parties and the provisions on challenge and invalidity of awards. Where the secretary has been appointed with the parties’ consent and the parties have not agreed on the secretary’s authority, the secretary is probably at least allowed to perform administrative tasks, but the arbitrators are not allowed to delegate their decision-making function or the duty to sign the award. However, the exact dividing line between proper and improper delegation cannot be established. In the final discussion it is asserted that further guidance on the authority of the arbitral secretary would be beneficial. It is proposed that such guidance should be provided through guidelines issued by the SCC, which shall recommend the arbitrators to: obtain the parties’ consent to the appointment of the secretary; conclude an agreement with the parties which states the duties that the arbitrators are allowed to delegate to the secretary; be transparent with the parties on the secretary’s involvement in the arbitral proceedings; and refrain from delegating the tasks to sign the award and decide the dispute. / Skiljenämnders anlitande av sekreterare har i flera år varit föremål för debatt och undersökningar visar på att användandet av sekreterare varierar i praktiken. Lagen om skiljeförfarande samt Stockholms Handelskammares Skiljedomsinstituts skiljedomsregler och regler för förenklat förfarande reglerar inte sekreterarens tillsättande och behörighet. Kraven för att skiljemännen ska kunna tillsätta en sekreterare och omfattningen av sekreterarens behörighet påverkas dock indirekt av generella rättsprinciper samt bestämmelser i lagen om skiljeförfarande. Angående kraven för att kunna tillsätta en sekreterare, hävdas i denna uppsats att skiljemännen borde inhämta parternas samtycke till tillsättandet. Det är dock oklart om skiljemännen måste observera några andra krav när de ska tillsätta en sekreterare. Sekreterarens behörighet begränsas främst av avtal som parterna har slutit samt reglerna om klander och ogiltighet av skiljedomar. Om sekreteraren har blivit tillsatt med parternas samtycke och parterna inte har avtalat om sekreterarens behörighet, så får sekreteraren troligtvis åtminstone utföra administrativa uppgifter, men skiljemännen får inte delegera deras beslutsfattande funktion eller uppgiften att underteckna skiljedomen. Den exakta gränsen mellan tillåten och otillåten delegering kan dock inte fastställas. I den avslutande diskussionen framhålls att det vore fördelaktigt med ytterligare vägledning angående sekreterarens behörighet. Det föreslås att sådan vägledning ska ges genom att SCC antar riktlinjer som rekommenderar skiljemännen att: inhämta parternas samtycke till tillsättandet av sekreteraren, avtala med parterna angående vilka uppgifter som skiljemännen får delegera till sekreteraren, vara öppna med parterna angående sekreterarens inblandning i förfarandet och avstå från att delegera uppgifterna att underteckna skiljedomen och avgöra tvisten.