Attempts to regulate competition in Brazil have been made since the early 1960s without much success. However, with the adoption of trade liberalisation measures in the early 1990s, competition has gradually been regarded as an essential element of the process of liberalisation of the economy, and thus efforts have been made to develop and enforce competition law and policy. This thesis describes and evaluates competition law in Brazil during this last period. It critically analyses the legislation, the practices of enforcement agencies and the relevant case law. Emphasis is given to the study of cases which involve restrictive business practices as well as mergers, and which have been decided at the administrative level. This thesis highlights four main points: 1) developing countries should try to develop their own approach to competition law, and avoid adopting models created in other countries that reflect another reality; 2) competition legislation must define the approach to be adopted in the implementation of competition law in order to avoid uncertainty in the market; 3) a well structured institutional framework is necessary for the enforcement of competition law and policy; and 4) competition policy should be part of a coherent set of economic policies adopted by the government. The conclusion of this thesis is that competition policy in Brazil has not yet produced significant results. Factors that undermine competition policy in Brazil are the system for the enforcement of the law, the lack of coherence in case law, and changes in economic policy. On the other hand, there has been some progress: the legislation covers the main aspects of competition; the performance of enforcement agencies is improving; these agencies are co-ordinating their enforcement practices; and there is growing awareness among economic actors in Brazil that competition is desirable and should be protected.

Competition and intellectual property rights (IPRs) are both necessary for a market to work efficiently and to promote consumer welfare. The tension between them is only apparent. Properly applied, intellectual property rules define a legal framework which allows undertakings to profit from their inventions. This in turn encourages competition among firms and enhances dynamic efficiency, to the benefit of consumer welfare. From this perspective, IPRs and competition generate a fruitful symbiosis. Standard setting represents one of the fields where the interaction between competition law and IPRs clearly comes to light. The collaborative goal of standard setting organizations (SSOs) is to adopt and promote standards that either do not conflict with anyone’s right or, if they do, are developed under condition that patents are licensed under defined terms. On the one hand, patents are important to promote innovation, as they confer exclusive rights to the inventors. On the other, standards are paramount for enhancing the interoperability of products, expanding network externalities, and facilitating the dissemination of knowledge. Conflicts between IP and competition laws may arise in case IPRs owners in standardization contexts overexploit the rights they have been granted. This may lead to the hold-up problem, which represents both a private and public concern. How to strike, then, the optimal balance between IPRs and industry standards? By answering the question, this work aims at filling a gap in the academic literature, which does not appear so far to have attempted an in-depth assessment of the right equilibrium between investment incentives and competition goals in standard setting. Any abuse of market power may harm significantly consumer well-being. At the same time, any form of control of market power should preserve the incentives of firms to invest in the market. The crucial aim, hence, is to define the optimal balance in order to avoid risks of significant losses in consumer and societal welfare.

This thesis first examines the legislative framework in the UAE and its key guiding principles from which arbitration laws are derived. Secondly, based on the above examination of the existing legislative framework and literature the study identifies the various aspects of the existing legislative framework that impact upon the enforceability of e-arbitration for ecommerce dispute resolution in the UAE. Finally, the thesis demonstrates how e-arbitration can be incorporated into e-commerce and arbitration procedures in the UAE. Two methodologies, namely ‘explorative qualitative research method’ and ‘semi-structure interview’ are employed for the study. The findings from the examination of legislative framework and literature as well as the empirical field study show that the unprecedented developments in Information Communications Technology (ICT) had influenced and altered the traditional methods of societal interaction globally. The mass adoption of the Internet platform for trading has not only sought to eliminate the physical distance between the businesses and consumers but presented new avenues for potentially higher sales, coverage, lower costs and all at high speed. The concept of electronic trading (E-Trade) has naturally developed new markets and opportunities, which nations within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) such as the UAE are seeking to capture. The findings also show that electronic arbitration (E-Arb) is eliminating the physical barriers between businesses, consumers and others choosing to arbitrate in cyberspace. This implies that E-Arb is perceived to be an additional component and extension of the growing ECommerce market and services. Therefore, adopting and supporting E-Arb provides an ideal opportunity for the UAE as a global hub for commercial purposes. However, despite the enthusiasm for the greater utilisation of ICT in UAE society, the domestic legalisation do not fully recognise the distinctive feature of e-arbitration, which makes it difficult to link them with international laws. The study also identifies concerns with the impact of E-Arb upon the traditional heritage and cultural practices in the UAE. Therefore, the study recommends that the existing UAE legislative framework is made compatible with international laws. It also recommends that there are comprehensive education and research programs in place to transform the traditional and cultural nuances of UAE society towards a greater understanding of developments in modern technology.

In maritime law, there are two special regimes for maritime claims, namely maritime liens and limitation of liability for maritime claims. Each of the regimes provides the maritime claimant or the liable person some special rights. It appears that the legal principles underlying maritime liens and limitation of liability are not related, however, they are interconnected in that both of them seek to strike a proper balance in the encouragement of shipping on the one hand and the effective prosecution of maritime claims on the other hand. Historically speaking, maritime liens and limitation of liability are related in that both of them reflect the impact of the personification of ships. Under this doctrine, a ship is personified to be regarded as a distinct entity with a capacity to contract and to commit torts. However, after their own development, the two regimes currently have different emphases and opposed purposes. The purpose of maritime liens is to protect the maritime claimant with regard to the fact that ships are highly mobile and can flee the jurisdiction of the court, coupled with the additional fact that their owners could continue to incur liabilities to the detriment of existing creditors. Limitation of liability for maritime claims is more shipowner friendly. Limitation of liability allows shipowners or other persons related to ship operation to limit their liability for damage, loss or injury caused through their acts. This thesis studies whether maritime liens and limitation of liability for maritime claims can be reconciled with each other under English law and Chinese law. The thesis revisits the relationship between the two regimes and analyses the problems arising from their inconsistences in both jurisdictions as well as in relevant international conventions. This thesis has raised questions that have not been considered before. These questions include: (a) What is the relationship between maritime liens and limitation of liability for maritime claims? (b) What are the conflicts between maritime liens and limitation of liability for maritime claims? (c) What is the effect of so-called 'conflict clauses'? (d) How should maritime liens be reconciled under English law and Chinese law? The answers provided by this research to the above questions are as follows: (1) The relationship between maritime liens and limitation of liability for maritime claims lies in the personification of ship. Therefore, such a relationship is broken under the tonnage limitation system which does not rely on the personification theory. (2) Because of the opposed policy consideration and the overlap of the two regimes, the regime of limitation of liability apparently prevents maritime liens' operation. (3) The conflict clauses have their effect of depriving the application of maritime liens in the limitation proceedings. However, none of these clauses provided an all-around solution to the conflicts. (4) Legislation reform is required in order to resolve conflicts between maritime liens and limitation of liability under Chinese law; whereas Reconciling maritime liens and limitation of liability for maritime claims under English law can be achieved by wider application of case law. The law is stated as of 12 March 2015.

One often meets the view that economic regulation should be understood in terms of Pareto efficiency. Economic theories of law have traditionally focused on concepts such as market failure, efficiency, and inefficiency. Proponents assume that under the conditions of perfect competition, rational economic actors will enact courses of action that tend to induce Pareto outcomes. The idea of perfect competition means that markets which are competitive will induce efficient outcomes. The perfect competition approach has focused on the conception of market failure as the foundation for designing regulatory policy. Until recently, lawyers overwhelmingly relied upon a model of economic contract, developed over the last two decades in law and economics, as a normative structure to guide efficient decision-making.