Magister Legum - LLM

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

The creation of a binding adjudication system under the Dispute Settlement Understanding ("DSU") is one of the major successes of the WTO. However, while the Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") has experienced a high level of compliance with its rulings, there have been enough failures to raise concerns about compliance with WTO rulings. This in turn endangers the long term viability and legitimacy of the WTO as a decision-making body. This thesis explores the possibility of more effective integration of arbitration as a means of dealing with a small number of problematic cases where compliance with a ruling is doubtful. It considers arbitration as an alternative to what has effectively become an institutionalized litigation system involving panels and the Appellate Body, and as an adjunct to the diplomatic resolution of disputes, particularly for policy driven cases where compliance with WTO rulings is more doubtful. While proposals for the use of arbitration made during the Uruguay Round of negotiations leading to the creation o f the WTO have been realized in the provisions of the DSU, arbitration has never been effectively tested as a true alternative. Further, arbitration as an alternative to the litigation system has been almost entirely ignored in the context of the current debate over reform of the WTO dispute settlement system. After over a decade of WTO decision making, it is now an opportune point to consider meaningful institutional reform that more fully incorporates arbitration as an alternative form of dispute settlement at the WTO in politically difficult cases, and that builds on the existing but underused arbitration provision in Article 25 of the DSU. This thesis challenges the predominant bias towards the litigation system involving panels and the Appellate Body as a one-size-fits-all solution. It explores the potential role of arbitration, in the context of compliance theories, a historical review of the negotiations during the Uruguay Round, and an analysis of the shortcomings of the current DSU that contribute to the problems of non-compliance. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

In the last decade, parties to arbitration agreements have attempted to broaden the scope of judicial review of arbitral awards by contract, beyond the boundaries established in international and domestic arbitration statutes. This thesis analyzes this contractual expansion of judicial review from an international perspective. To this end, the standard of judicial review under the most important international instruments pertaining to commercial arbitration is examined: the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The study then addresses the question as to whether provisions for heightened judicial review of arbitral awards would be enforceable under the legislation of three major players in commercial arbitration: England, France and the United States. An analysis of the legitimacy of agreements that provide for expanded judicial review under the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law follows. The thesis concludes with an assessment of the impact the mentioned clauses would represent for the institution of arbitration and its advantages.

Universiẗat, Diss., 2006--Regensburg.

No description available.

Today we live in a world where international trade accounts for a significant proportion of the daily trade for an enormous number of companies and institutions. The number of international commercial deals that are made every day is countless. The sheer scale of international trade invariably results in an increase in the number of disputes between international partners. However, where there are problems, methods to resolve the disagreements will invariably appear. One of the main and mostly preferred methods is arbitration. Arbitration is preferred for it is convenient and cost-effective method to resolve disputes between business partners. Saudi Arabia has recently reformed its Arbitration Regulations through the implementation of new regulations in 2012. This replaces previous regulations dating from 1983 and the implementation rules of 1985. This thesis examines, analyses and criticises these regulations and compare them to the English and the Scottish arbitration laws. Throughout this study, the old Saudi regulations and implementation rules are examined in order to determine how the rule of arbitration worked in the country. Following this, the new regulations are presented to see what has changed and if there has been any improvement. This is subsequently followed by a discussion on the scale of the improvement and whether further improvements are required in Saudi Arabia. This thesis will also carry out a comparison with the English Act of 1996 and the Arbitration Scotland Act of 2010. The conclusion address and highlight the main differences between the regulations, when present and highlights what the Saudi legislator can benefit from the laws under consideration. One of the main aims of this study was to find if the Saudi Arbitration Regulations have improved and addressed the issues that concerned researchers and commentators in the past. The research finds that there are significant improvements in the Saudi regulations.

This thesis analyses how and to what extent the contractual and treaty instruments interact in protecting upstream energy contracts against political interference by the host state. The study considers whether the interaction between the upstream contracts and international investment treaties provide effective protection for the upstream investors and whether the interaction between them prevents the host state from exercising its regulatory rights. By examining both jurisdictional and substantive aspects of the interaction between these two instruments, the study found that political risks in the upstream industry are not effectively mitigated and managed. The study therefore calls for a higher degree of interaction between these two instruments. This can be achieved by drafting the relevant upstream contracts and investment treaties in a more interactive manner so that they would together provide maximum protection for the upstream investors.

published_or_final_version / Environmental Management / Master / Master of Science in Environmental Management

published_or_final_version / Real Estate and Construction / Master / Master of Science in Construction Project Management