The World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement system is facing unprecedented challenges, following the United States (US) decision to block the appointment of all Appellate Body members. The US has justified its blocking tactic, already implemented since 2017 by raising several procedural and substantive concerns with the Appellate Body's failure to follow WTO rules. On 10 December 2019, the Appellate Body was forced to suspend its activities after the second terms of two of the remaining three members expired. While the WTO dispute settlement system continues to function at the panel stage, the Appellate Body is currently unable to review appeals because it lacks the minimum number of three members required to establish a division. In addition, the collapse of the Appellate Body means that any party to a dispute can block the adoption of a panel report by filing a notice to appeal which is likely to remain in limbo for an indefinite period. Numerous studies have discussed the Appellate Body crisis and its implications for the WTO dispute settlement system. Few, however, have critically analysed the validity of the concerns that the US has raised about the Appellate Body's work over the past few years. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to discuss and critically analyse these concerns to determine whether the Appellate Body has indeed strayed from its limited mandate. In addition, the research will provide recommendations on how to save the appellate stage and ensure that appeals are resolved while WTO members attempt to find permanent solutions to this unprecedented crisis.

Magister Legum - LLM / The World Trade Organisation (WTO) deals with regulation of trade in goods, services and intellectual property between participating countries by providing a framework for negotiating trade agreements.1 Furthermore, it has implemented a dispute resolution process aimed at enforcing participants' adherence to WTO agreements. Ideally, all WTO member states have ‘a level playing field’ in terms of access and equal rights under the dispute settlement mechanism. Disputes should be resolved in a fair and impartial manner. However, the WTO’s DSS has been criticised for being undemocratic, non-transparent and accountable to none. 2

I conducted a legal analysis of decisions by Texas Commissioners of Education in appeals by Texas school administrators from nonrenewal decisions made by Texas school districts from 1983 to 2013. I analyzed the findings of fact and conclusions of law described in the commissioners’ rulings to determine the legal basis of school districts’ decisions to nonrenew school administrators’ term employment contracts. I also examined the legal rationale for commissioners’ rulings and determined which party most commonly prevailed in these administrative proceedings—the respondent school district or the petitioner school administrator. In particular, the study determined factors that contributed to commissioners’ decisions to overrule or support school districts’ nonrenewal decisions. A careful review of commissioner decisions, which are accessible on the Texas Education Association website, identified 44 commissioner decisions involving appeals by superintendents, associate superintendents, public school administrators, athletic directors, or central office administrators concerning school districts’ term contract nonrenewal decisions from 1983 to 2013. Commissioners’ decisions in these cases were surveyed using legal research methods. This study provides recommendations to assist local education agencies to refine current policies and regulations regarding the nonrenewal of administrators’ term contracts, and provides insight on Texas Commissioners’ rulings on term contract nonrenewal appeals brought by Texas school administrators. The findings revealed that school boards’ lack of understanding of local policies and lack of evidence resulted in commissioners granting 27% of appeals. Additionally, commissioners denied 73% of the appeals because school boards provided at least one reason that met the substantial evidence standard of review, and respondents failed to substantiate allegations or enter evidence in evidentiary hearings.

O processo civil brasileiro tem sido objeto de diversas reformas, baseadas em teses doutrinárias, no intuito de aumentar a celeridade processual. Essas reformas acabaram por dar origem a contradições e inconsistências no sistema do Código de Processo Civil de 1973, criando novos problemas e aumentando a litigância em torno de questões processuais. Um novo Código de Processo Civil está sendo elaborado, reorganizando o sistema processual civil, modificando a recorribilidade das decisões intercalares e adotando algumas práticas do direito anglo-americano. Uma análise de direito comparado envolvendo as normas processuais adotadas no direito medieval português, na Justiça do Trabalho, nas cortes federais dos Estados Unidos e nas cortes estaduais de Nova Iorque sugere que algumas das modificações propostas podem não ser efetivas para obtenção de celeridade processual. Além disso, uma análise empírica de decisões do Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo demonstra que 44,33% das decisões intercalares recorridas são anuladas ou modificadas, sugerindo ainda ser importante a supervisão do juízo de segundo grau sobre este tipo de decisão. Os dados também demonstraram que apenas 22,27% dos agravos de instrumento implicam em alguma suspensão do processo, indicando que este recurso não é uma causa significativa de atraso no processo em primeiro grau. Conclui-se que, na realidade, algumas das inovações propostas para o novo Código de Processo Civil podem não ser a maneira mais eficiente de lidar com os problemas atuais do direito processual / Brazilian Civil Procedural Law has been subject to several statutory reforms based on legal theories in order to reduce judicial proceedings length of time. These reforms had produced contradictions and inconsistencies in the Civil Procedure Code introduced in 1973, creating new problems and increasing litigation on procedural matters. A new code is being drafted reorganizing the civil procedure system, redesigning appellate review on interlocutory orders and adopting some practices from common law. Comparative analysis involving procedures adopted by Portuguese medieval Civil Courts, Brazilian Labor Courts, U.S. Federal Courts and New York State Courts suggest that some of the proposed modifications on appellate review may be not effective to reduce procedural length. Moreover, empirical analysis of decisions from São Paulo Court of Appeals demonstrates a reversal or modification rate of 44,33% on appealed interlocutory orders, which suggest the second instance supervisory role over these orders is still important. The empirical data also shows a stay of proceedings rate of only 22,27% while interlocutory appeals are being decided, suggesting it is not a major cause for procedural delay. In fact, comparative and empirical analysis indicates that some statutory innovations to be introduced by the new Civil Procedure Code may be not the most efficient way to cope with the actual Brazilian Procedural Law problems

Europa-Univ., Habil.-Schr.--Zugl.: Frankfurt (Oder), 2005. / Literaturverz. S. [341] - 363.

Substantive Review of Arbitral Awards in International Commercial Arbitration Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution, which enables the parties to resolve their dispute outside the courts. The advantage of arbitration is especially its speed and effectiveness in resolving the dispute. In general, arbitration awards in international commercial arbitration are final and binding on both parties and cannot be challenged by any form of appeal. This master thesis aims to find the answer to the question under which circumstances the parties to the arbitration proceedings may reach a substantive review of arbitral awards. The first part of the master thesis (chapters 2, 3 and 4) examines the approach of the UNCITRAL Model Law, the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration to the substantive review of arbitral awards. The second part of the master thesis (chapters 5 and 6) deals with the legal framework for arbitration proceedings in the Czech Republic, Germany, Australia and the United Kingdom, with respect to the substantive review of arbitral awards. Using comparative method, the author compares the regulation of the arbitration proceedings in the selected jurisdictions. The last...

Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T14:27:26Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 GiovanniWPC_DISSERT_Parcial.pdf: 371943 bytes, checksum: 724db25e6b7e095634d8800f0d078987 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-08-27 / The present dissertation, elaborated is based on the deductive method, through the use of the General Theory of Resources concepts, by the main types of judgments existing in the Code of Civil Procedure, the interlocutory judgment and sentence, as well as the features and effects that challenge these decisions, we sought to identify on this theme one of the greatest evils facing the justice system in the world, which is the processing delays. This slowness in adjudication affects seriously the principle of effectiveness, one of the postulates of procedural law and society as a whole. Thus, the use of tort serves to fight the interlocutory decision and appeal which challenges the judge`s ruling. It is a resource for excellence in appellate system as it meets with the most awaited decision of the process. In weighing the importance of the appeal that seeks to oppose the court decision today by the numerous reforms that the procedural system has been through, it has ended up to transform the process ineffective or inconsistent, for it is much easier to have efficacy in a interlocutory decision for preliminary injunction than by judgment on the merits of the judge. This is due to the prevision of the resources and their effect to those decisions. That is, the interlocutory decision involves interlocutory appeal only in the devolved effect, allowing its provisional execution, and the sentence has as recourse to appeal the double effect, remanding and suspension, which necessarily prevents its provisional execution. But it undeniably shows a paradox, because as to give effect to a measure that is based on a mere probability by a summary cognition, partial and superficial, and stop it on a decision by a court that is closer to the truth and sure, for a full and depleting cognition? It is seriously affect the principle of effectiveness. Therefore, starting from this ineffectiveness, sought to defend the solution of this problem with the approval of the bill n. ? 3.605/2004 or the new Code of Civil Procedure project that modifies the general rule the effects of appeal. That is, remanding and suspensive, as to merely remanding effect to and thereby enable the provisional execution of the judgment of the court of the first degree of jurisdiction, giving effectiveness and enhancing the decision of the magistrate, making a fair distribution of time in the process and better guaranteed principle of access to justice / Na presente disserta??o, elaborada com base no m?todo dedutivo, mediante a utiliza??o de conceitos da Teoria Geral dos Recursos, dos principais tipos de decis?es judiciais existentes no C?digo de Processo Civil a decis?o interlocut?ria e a senten?a , bem com dos recursos e efeitos que impugnam essas decis?es, procuramos identificar um dos maiores males enfrentados pelo sistema de justi?a no mundo todo: a morosidade processual. Essa lentid?o na presta??o jurisdicional atinge gravemente o princ?pio da efetividade, um dos postulados do direito processual e da sociedade como um todo. Desse modo, o recurso de agravo serve para se combater a decis?o interlocut?ria e a apela??o ao recurso com que se impugna a senten?a do juiz. Trata-se de um recurso por excel?ncia no sistema recursal, j? que vai de encontro ? decis?o mais esperada do processo. Em que pese a import?ncia do recurso de apela??o que visa se opor ? decis?o de primeiro grau, hoje pelas in?meras reformas pelas quais passou, o sistema processual acabou por transformar o processo inefetivo ou contradit?rio, pois ? bem mais f?cil ter efetividade em uma decis?o interlocut?ria de antecipa??o de tutela que por meio da senten?a de m?rito do juiz. Isso se deve ? previs?o dos recursos e seus efeitos para essas decis?es. Ou seja, a decis?o interlocut?ria comporta recurso de agravo somente no efeito devolutivo, possibilitando sua execu??o provis?ria, e a senten?a tem como recurso a apela??o no duplo efeito, devolutivo e suspensivo, o que necessariamente impede sua execu??o provis?ria. Mas isso, inegavelmente, configura-se como um contrassenso, pois como dar efetividade a uma medida que tem por base uma mera probabilidade, por uma cogni??o sum?ria, parcial e superficial, e impedi-la numa decis?o por um ju?zo que se aproxima da verdade e da certeza, por uma cogni??o exauriente e plena? ? atentar gravemente contra o princ?pio da efetividade. Portanto, partindo-se dessa inefetividade, buscamos defender a solu??o desse problema com aprova??o do projeto de Lei n.? 3.605/2004 ou do projeto do novo C?digo de Processo Civil, que modifica a regra geral dos efeitos da apela??o, o devolutivo e o suspensivo, para efeito meramente devolutivo e, com isso, possibilitar a execu??o provis?ria da senten?a do juiz do primeiro grau de jurisdi??o, dando efetividade e valorizando a decis?o do magistrado, fazendo uma justa distribui??o do tempo dentro do processo e melhor garantindo o princ?pio do acesso ? justi?a / 2019-01-01

O processo civil brasileiro tem sido objeto de diversas reformas, baseadas em teses doutrinárias, no intuito de aumentar a celeridade processual. Essas reformas acabaram por dar origem a contradições e inconsistências no sistema do Código de Processo Civil de 1973, criando novos problemas e aumentando a litigância em torno de questões processuais. Um novo Código de Processo Civil está sendo elaborado, reorganizando o sistema processual civil, modificando a recorribilidade das decisões intercalares e adotando algumas práticas do direito anglo-americano. Uma análise de direito comparado envolvendo as normas processuais adotadas no direito medieval português, na Justiça do Trabalho, nas cortes federais dos Estados Unidos e nas cortes estaduais de Nova Iorque sugere que algumas das modificações propostas podem não ser efetivas para obtenção de celeridade processual. Além disso, uma análise empírica de decisões do Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo demonstra que 44,33% das decisões intercalares recorridas são anuladas ou modificadas, sugerindo ainda ser importante a supervisão do juízo de segundo grau sobre este tipo de decisão. Os dados também demonstraram que apenas 22,27% dos agravos de instrumento implicam em alguma suspensão do processo, indicando que este recurso não é uma causa significativa de atraso no processo em primeiro grau. Conclui-se que, na realidade, algumas das inovações propostas para o novo Código de Processo Civil podem não ser a maneira mais eficiente de lidar com os problemas atuais do direito processual / Brazilian Civil Procedural Law has been subject to several statutory reforms based on legal theories in order to reduce judicial proceedings length of time. These reforms had produced contradictions and inconsistencies in the Civil Procedure Code introduced in 1973, creating new problems and increasing litigation on procedural matters. A new code is being drafted reorganizing the civil procedure system, redesigning appellate review on interlocutory orders and adopting some practices from common law. Comparative analysis involving procedures adopted by Portuguese medieval Civil Courts, Brazilian Labor Courts, U.S. Federal Courts and New York State Courts suggest that some of the proposed modifications on appellate review may be not effective to reduce procedural length. Moreover, empirical analysis of decisions from São Paulo Court of Appeals demonstrates a reversal or modification rate of 44,33% on appealed interlocutory orders, which suggest the second instance supervisory role over these orders is still important. The empirical data also shows a stay of proceedings rate of only 22,27% while interlocutory appeals are being decided, suggesting it is not a major cause for procedural delay. In fact, comparative and empirical analysis indicates that some statutory innovations to be introduced by the new Civil Procedure Code may be not the most efficient way to cope with the actual Brazilian Procedural Law problems

The manner by which courts view performance appraisals in relation to the outcome of case is certainly a topic worthy of discussion. Utilizing the framework used within the work of Werner and Bolino (1997), the following study was able to accomplish two main goals: (1) update the information of Werner and Bolino (1997) by evaluating modern cases, and (2) to evaluate new data regarding age discrimination utilizing the same framework as Werner and Bolino (1997). Utilizing chi-square analysis to test all of the hypotheses, it was demonstrated that there was statistical significance in performance appraisals with the presence of a job analysis regarding court outcome. Other variables such as appraisal basis (trait, behavioral, MBO), triangulation, and appraisal frequency did not have any statistical significance. Out of the six new hypotheses tested, all showed statistical significance except for one. These hypotheses showcased the immense differences in how different forms of discrimination are viewed by the court even with respect to the performance appraisal. This was especially true with age discrimination in comparison to every other form of discrimination. In conclusion the following study accomplished its two main goals by displaying consistency with Werner and Bolino’s work and successfully evaluating new variables to support the hypotheses that involve differences between different forms of discrimination and the outcome of the court case.

Many studies have been completed on factors affecting judicial decisions. Studies have focused on civil rights cases, economic cases, criminal cases, sexual discrimination and obscenity cases, but no work has specifically looked at religious liberty cases. This work examines the factors affecting United States Courts of Appeals judges' decision-making in religious liberty cases. I hypothesize that gender, race, religious background, prior judicial experience, circuit, region and litigant status will all influence the way judges vote in religious liberty cases. The explanatory power of this study is relatively low, but the results indicate that judges follow the law when making decisions in religious liberty cases.