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.

This thesis deals with out-of-court dispute resolution within international business transactions. Its goal is an analysis of those methods of dispute resolution that may be encountered both in practice and specialized literature and determination of their basic characteristics that allow comparison. The thesis is divided into six chapters. The first two chapters are of general nature and specify the content of the given topic. The third chapter establishes the framework of relevant law and the subsequent chapters are concerned with the online dispute resolution with the help of modern technology. The first chapter is composed of three parts. The first part defines the notions of out-of-court dispute resolution and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and explains the relation between those two notions that are not considered synonymous. The second part describes the common features of the out-of-court dispute resolution methods. To the contrary, the third part points out the differences between them and groups the particular methods based on various criteria. The second chapter defines the international business transactions and focuses on international or foreign element and its determination. The third chapter provides an overview of the legal framework relevant to the topic. In its four parts...

O objetivo da presente dissertação de mestrado foi o de, a partir de uma análise fática das discussões judiciais travadas entre fisco e contribuinte para solução de controvérsias tributárias, constatar a ineficiência do sistema atualmente posto à disposição dos sujeitos envolvidos em tais relações e buscar soluções processualmente viáveis, com foco em mecanismos consensuais (transação) ou adjudicatórios de base consensual (arbitragem). Para tanto, partiu-se de uma análise do atual cenário dos litígios judiciais envolvendo fiscos e contribuintes, concluindo-se pela incapacidade do sistema a proporcionar soluções satisfatórias e tratamento adequado ao conflito (Parte I, Capítulo 1). Diante da realidade fática enfrentada, o problema é proposto para soluções de controvérsias tributárias, frente ao regime de indisponibilidade do crédito tributário. Na nova moldura das relações que envolvem o Estado, tendo em vista que não se afasta disponibilidade do crédito tributário desde que se dê nos termos da lei (Parte I, Capítulo 2), passou-se a uma análise dos meios atualmente postos à disposição dos fiscos e contribuintes para solução das controvérsias tributárias, vislumbrando-se, ao final, pela viabilidade de adoção de meios alternativos para solução de tais controvérsias (Parte I, Capítulo 3). A segunda parte do estudo é voltada à análise da arbitragem tributária, partindo da arbitrabilidade do crédito tributário (Parte II, Capítulo 1) até os requisitos formais e processuais para adoção de tal método privado e de base consensual para solução de conflitos tributários. Feitas as premissas necessárias, tratou-se dos aspectos processuais da arbitragem tributária, sempre os vinculando à estrita legalidade que permeia tais relações e será premissa de validade do procedimento que se cogita (Parte II, Capítulo 2). Finalmente, na terceira parte é feita a avaliação acerca da transigibilidade das controvérsias tributárias (Parte III, Capítulo 1) para, após, verificar os aspectos processuais da transação tributária, sempre com vistas à legalidade, tipicidade cerrada e limites impostos pela Lei de Responsabilidade Fiscal. / This dissertation aims at looking for feasible solutions from a procedural standpoint, based on a factual analysis of tax judicial lawsuits between the taxpayers and the Government that verified the inefficiency of the system currently made available to the parties involved in the said disputes, focused on the possibility of adopting the arbitration and transaction. Initially, it is discussed the current scenario of the judicial tax litigation, which resulted in the conclusion of the inability of the system to provide satisfactory solutions and appropriate treatment to the relevant conflicts (Part I, Chapter 1). Given such scenario, the proposed problem is how to use consensual mechanisms (transaction) or adjudicatory-based consensus procedures (arbitration) to resolve tax controversies, vis a vis the regime of unavailability of the tax credit. In the new framework of relations involving the States, which allows the availability of the tax credit strictly under the law (Part I, Chapter 2), it is analyzed the ways currently available to the tax authorities and taxpayers for the resolution of tax controversies and it is concluded for the feasibility of adopting alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods (Part I, Chapter 3), in addition to the adjudicative resolution of the conflicts. Then, the second part of the study is focused on the analysis of tax arbitration, moving from the arbitrability of the tax credit (Part II, Chapter 1) to the substantive and procedural requirements for adopting such a method private and consensual-based for resolving tax disputes. As the necessary premises were confirmed, it is analyzed the procedural aspects of tax arbitration, always linking them to the strict legality that permeates tax matters and will utmost validate the arbitration for tax matters (Part II, Chapter 2). Finally, the third part is an evaluation about the possibility of tax transaction (Part III, Chapter 1); after that, it is analyzed the procedural aspects of the transaction for tax purposes, always under the strict legality and the limits imposed by the Fiscal Responsibility Law (Part III, Chapter 2).

In the face of a conflict, citizens can follow different ways to solve it. But, how justice is configurated in the conclusion of a specific conflict? what guarantee that the procedure of the mechanism is fair? We can think here in the due process of law; nevertheless, due process of law does not reach all mechanisms of conflict resolution.This paper, therefore, focuses in the study of the role of justice in (i) the procedural scope of judicial process and ADR mechanisms; and in (ii) the conflict resolution generated by them. / Ante un conflicto, los ciudadanos pueden seguir diversas vías para dar solución al mismo. Pero, ¿cómo se configura la justicia en la conclusión de un conflicto en específico? ¿qué garantiza que el procedimiento del mecanismo sea uno justo?. Podemos pensar aquí en el debido proceso; no obstante, éste no alcanza a todos los mecanismos de resolución de conflictos.Este artículo, por consiguiente, se enfoca en estudiar cuál es el rol de la justicia en (i) el ámbito procedimental del proceso judicial y de los MARCs; así como en (ii) la resolución al conflicto generada por aquéllos.

O objetivo da presente dissertação de mestrado foi o de, a partir de uma análise fática das discussões judiciais travadas entre fisco e contribuinte para solução de controvérsias tributárias, constatar a ineficiência do sistema atualmente posto à disposição dos sujeitos envolvidos em tais relações e buscar soluções processualmente viáveis, com foco em mecanismos consensuais (transação) ou adjudicatórios de base consensual (arbitragem). Para tanto, partiu-se de uma análise do atual cenário dos litígios judiciais envolvendo fiscos e contribuintes, concluindo-se pela incapacidade do sistema a proporcionar soluções satisfatórias e tratamento adequado ao conflito (Parte I, Capítulo 1). Diante da realidade fática enfrentada, o problema é proposto para soluções de controvérsias tributárias, frente ao regime de indisponibilidade do crédito tributário. Na nova moldura das relações que envolvem o Estado, tendo em vista que não se afasta disponibilidade do crédito tributário desde que se dê nos termos da lei (Parte I, Capítulo 2), passou-se a uma análise dos meios atualmente postos à disposição dos fiscos e contribuintes para solução das controvérsias tributárias, vislumbrando-se, ao final, pela viabilidade de adoção de meios alternativos para solução de tais controvérsias (Parte I, Capítulo 3). A segunda parte do estudo é voltada à análise da arbitragem tributária, partindo da arbitrabilidade do crédito tributário (Parte II, Capítulo 1) até os requisitos formais e processuais para adoção de tal método privado e de base consensual para solução de conflitos tributários. Feitas as premissas necessárias, tratou-se dos aspectos processuais da arbitragem tributária, sempre os vinculando à estrita legalidade que permeia tais relações e será premissa de validade do procedimento que se cogita (Parte II, Capítulo 2). Finalmente, na terceira parte é feita a avaliação acerca da transigibilidade das controvérsias tributárias (Parte III, Capítulo 1) para, após, verificar os aspectos processuais da transação tributária, sempre com vistas à legalidade, tipicidade cerrada e limites impostos pela Lei de Responsabilidade Fiscal. / This dissertation aims at looking for feasible solutions from a procedural standpoint, based on a factual analysis of tax judicial lawsuits between the taxpayers and the Government that verified the inefficiency of the system currently made available to the parties involved in the said disputes, focused on the possibility of adopting the arbitration and transaction. Initially, it is discussed the current scenario of the judicial tax litigation, which resulted in the conclusion of the inability of the system to provide satisfactory solutions and appropriate treatment to the relevant conflicts (Part I, Chapter 1). Given such scenario, the proposed problem is how to use consensual mechanisms (transaction) or adjudicatory-based consensus procedures (arbitration) to resolve tax controversies, vis a vis the regime of unavailability of the tax credit. In the new framework of relations involving the States, which allows the availability of the tax credit strictly under the law (Part I, Chapter 2), it is analyzed the ways currently available to the tax authorities and taxpayers for the resolution of tax controversies and it is concluded for the feasibility of adopting alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods (Part I, Chapter 3), in addition to the adjudicative resolution of the conflicts. Then, the second part of the study is focused on the analysis of tax arbitration, moving from the arbitrability of the tax credit (Part II, Chapter 1) to the substantive and procedural requirements for adopting such a method private and consensual-based for resolving tax disputes. As the necessary premises were confirmed, it is analyzed the procedural aspects of tax arbitration, always linking them to the strict legality that permeates tax matters and will utmost validate the arbitration for tax matters (Part II, Chapter 2). Finally, the third part is an evaluation about the possibility of tax transaction (Part III, Chapter 1); after that, it is analyzed the procedural aspects of the transaction for tax purposes, always under the strict legality and the limits imposed by the Fiscal Responsibility Law (Part III, Chapter 2).

Magister Legum - LLM / This research will chart and navigate the early stages in the development, conceptualisation, and formulation of Islāmic law and the concept of ṣulḥ as a mechanism of legal redress in Islāmic law (Sharī’a). The research shows that firstly, the mechanism is deeply rooted and embedded in scriptural (Qur’ānic) and extrascriptural text namely the corpus of Ḥadīth. There is a plethora of instructions to prove that reconciliation is indeed a lofty goal which is rewarded as an act of worship. Like many other aspects of the Sharī’a, ṣulḥ is regulated by provisions of the scripture and extra-scriptural sources considered by Muslims as the (Sharī’a). Secondly ṣulḥ is also the preferred method of alternative dispute resolution because it is fluid, contractual, expeditious and one of the most effective ways of solving different types of disputes, whether commercial or family. It has therefore gained considerable traction in modern western financial industry which I think is largely due to its contractual nature and the absence of the adversarial element. As a mechanism of redress, ṣulḥ is governed by Islāmic law of contract which takes the form of an agreement which can be mutually negotiated between two or more parties. Of late it has also become the mechanism of choice in family and marital disputes.

A consolidação da arbitragem como mecanismo amplamente utilizado para a resolução de controvérsias em nosso país traz questionamentos a respeito dos riscos e da efetividade de tal método quando o assunto é a execução da sentença arbitral. Enquanto no processo estatal a efetividade da sentença é assegurada pelo reconhecimento da fraude à execução (sancionada com a ineficácia dos atos fraudulentos), restam dúvidas acerca da aplicabilidade da mesma regra no processo arbitral. A garantia da higidez patrimonial através da repreensão da fraude à execução também deve ser observada no processo arbitral, do contrário será incentivada a má-fé, bem como enfraquecida a efetividade da execução da sentença para aqueles que elegem a arbitragem para a resolução de suas controvérsias. Neste mister, o presente trabalho procura traçar os contornos da fraude à execução e da jurisdição arbitral para, através do confronto entre elas, trazer reflexões que colaborem com a compreensão dos riscos assumidos pelo usuário da arbitragem, especialmente no que diz respeito à efetividade de uma eventual execução da sentença arbitral. / The consolidation of arbitration as a method widely used in Brazil has brought up the discussion over the risks and over the effectiveness of the arbitration award enforcement. While in state court procedures the effectiveness of the decision is assured by the legal recognition of fraud of execution (sanctioned with disregard of the fraudulent acts), in arbitral procedures the applicability of this same rule is doubtful. The assurance of the patrimonial integrity through punishment of fraud of execution also must be observed in arbitration, otherwise bad faith would be stimulated and the enforcement of the arbitral award will be compromised for those who chose arbitration for solving their controversies. This paper intents to analyze and to confront the features of fraud of execution and of the arbitral jurisdiction in order to collaborate with the understanding of the risks taken by the user of arbitration, especially regarding the effectiveness of the enforcement of the arbitral award.

A consolidação da arbitragem como mecanismo amplamente utilizado para a resolução de controvérsias em nosso país traz questionamentos a respeito dos riscos e da efetividade de tal método quando o assunto é a execução da sentença arbitral. Enquanto no processo estatal a efetividade da sentença é assegurada pelo reconhecimento da fraude à execução (sancionada com a ineficácia dos atos fraudulentos), restam dúvidas acerca da aplicabilidade da mesma regra no processo arbitral. A garantia da higidez patrimonial através da repreensão da fraude à execução também deve ser observada no processo arbitral, do contrário será incentivada a má-fé, bem como enfraquecida a efetividade da execução da sentença para aqueles que elegem a arbitragem para a resolução de suas controvérsias. Neste mister, o presente trabalho procura traçar os contornos da fraude à execução e da jurisdição arbitral para, através do confronto entre elas, trazer reflexões que colaborem com a compreensão dos riscos assumidos pelo usuário da arbitragem, especialmente no que diz respeito à efetividade de uma eventual execução da sentença arbitral. / The consolidation of arbitration as a method widely used in Brazil has brought up the discussion over the risks and over the effectiveness of the arbitration award enforcement. While in state court procedures the effectiveness of the decision is assured by the legal recognition of fraud of execution (sanctioned with disregard of the fraudulent acts), in arbitral procedures the applicability of this same rule is doubtful. The assurance of the patrimonial integrity through punishment of fraud of execution also must be observed in arbitration, otherwise bad faith would be stimulated and the enforcement of the arbitral award will be compromised for those who chose arbitration for solving their controversies. This paper intents to analyze and to confront the features of fraud of execution and of the arbitral jurisdiction in order to collaborate with the understanding of the risks taken by the user of arbitration, especially regarding the effectiveness of the enforcement of the arbitral award.

Ce mémoire se penche sur l'opportunité d'introduire en droit civil québécois l'arbitrage intérimaire obligatoire pour les différends du secteur de la construction. Ce mécanisme est principalement utilisé dans les pays de « common law » pour un règlement rapide des différends en matière de construction. Ce domaine d’activité est propice aux litiges, notamment en raison des aspects techniques, de la diversité et du nombre d'acteurs impliqués et des sommes en jeu, particulièrement en contexte de grands chantiers. Les procédures judiciaires peuvent être longues et fastidieuses. Ces délais se traduisent par des coûts supplémentaires pour les parties, non seulement pour la procédure elle-même, mais également pour la prolongation du projet (salaires, machineries, assurances, etc.). Devant ces défis, les juridictions de common law ont développé un processus qui se veut expéditif pour régler les différends en temps réel et en minimiser l'impact jusqu'à la procédure finale, une fois les travaux terminés. Le but est d’éviter qu’un différend ne dégénère ou paralyse le projet jusqu’à en compromettre la réalisation. À notre connaissance, aucune juridiction de droit civil ne prévoit un tel mécanisme, bien que les défis soient à priori les mêmes. Nous nous interrogeons sur les raisons expliquant cette absence. Le nouveau Code de procédure civile tend vers les modes alternatifs des différends et dans ce contexte, nous nous interrogeons sur l'opportunité d'incorporer un mécanisme semblable pour l'industrie de la construction au Québec. Enfin, nous étudierons les adaptations qui pourraient être nécessaires à l'application d'un tel processus, issu de la common law, en droit civil québécois. / This master thesis explores the possibility of introducing a compulsory interim arbitration mechanism for the resolution of disputes in the construction sector in Quebec civil law. As of today, such procedure is mainly used in common law jurisdictions for the rapid settlement of construction disputes. Construction is a sector that is particularly prone to litigation, mainly because of the technical aspects, the diversity and the number of actors as well as the sums involved, particularly in the context of major projects. Court proceedings can be long and tedious. These delays result in additional costs for the parties, not only for the procedure itself, but also for the extension of the project (wages, machinery, insurance, etc.). In response to these challenges, common law jurisdictions have developed an expeditious process to resolve disputes in real time and minimize their impact until final proceedings are completed. The aim is to prevent a dispute from escalating and eventually, paralyze the project itself and jeopardizes its realization. To our knowledge, no civil law jurisdiction provides for such a mechanism, although the challenges are a priori the same. We question the reasons for this absence. The new Code of Civil Procedure tends towards alternative dispute resolution and in this context, we are wondering about the possibility of incorporating a similar mechanism for the construction industry in Quebec. Finally, we will evaluate the adaptations that may be advised for the application of such a process, because of its common law, origins, in Quebec civil law.