Arbitration is the preferred method of dispute resolution in international trade. Naturally, a set of rules is necessary to govern the conflict&rsquo / s resolution. For cultural, political, economical or other reasons the parties&rsquo / national laws may not serve the individual interests and needs of that particular contract well. If one wants to avoid the application of both parties&rsquo / national laws, one can choose that the contract be governed by an a-national legal standard, e.g. general principles of International Trade Law or the general usages of a particular trade. These internationally accepted principles of law governing contractual relations are called lex mercatoria (law merchant).<br /> <br /> Lex mercatoria already existed in the Middle Ages and can even be dated back to antiquity. Later it disappeared through the nationalization of International Trade Law and was rediscovered in the 1950s, when international traders were again creating their own law and disputes were increasingly resolved outside of the national jurisdictions and applying a-national law. Lex mercatoria is being applied more and more by arbitrators and is therefore becoming increasingly important for dispute resolution in International Trade. Numerous different concepts and theories of lex mercatoria have been developed. Its being an autonomous legal system is questioned by some authors and the doctrine in favour of it called unfounded. The critics also argue that the authority to apply lex mercatoria may be a recipe for amateurism and the substitution of the arbitrator&rsquo / s private preferences for the parties&rsquo / intentions, for itis easy to proclaim common principles on the basis of limited knowledge. The lex mercatoria is said only to exist because scholars talk about it. However, these and other allegations can be refuted by critically analyzing the arguments that are supposed to underline those assumptions. Applying lex mercatoria to solve international trade disputes has many advantages. By choosing lex mercatoria the parties avoid rules which are unfit for international contracts, e.g. peculiar formalities, brief cut-off periods and special difficulties created by domestic laws. In addition to that, neither of the parties has the advantage of having the dispute governed by his own law. Since one of the central rules is the principle of good faith and fair dealing, lex mercatoria neither leads to arbitrary results nor does it favour the rich. Is it possible for the arbitrators to apply lex mercatoria if no law has been chosen by the parties? The failure of the parties to indicate a choice could well mean that they did not wish to have their contract governed by any of their national laws. In some awards arbitrators applied lex mercatoria as they considered the community of international merchants to be autonomous and to exist beyond national legislation. However, it cannot be deduced from the absence of such a choice that the parties have impliedly chosen lex mercatoria to be the law governing the conflict. Lex mercatoria is applicable only as a subsidiary law in cases where no national law has been chosen and seems apt.

Judicial enforcement of arbitral awards is necessary where there is no voluntary compliance by the relevant parties. Courts world-wide may refuse to enforce arbitral awards if such enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of their countries. This is known as ‘the public policy exception to the enforcement of arbitral awards’. It is enshrined in the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 (Model Law), which are two of the most prominent international instruments in promoting and regulating international commercial arbitration.The public policy exception is one of the most controversial exceptions to the enforcement of arbitral awards, causing judicial inconsistency and therefore unpredictability in its application. It is often likened to an ‘unruly horse’, which may lead us from sound law. The International Law Association’s Resolution on Public Policy as a Bar to Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards 2002 (ILA Resolution) endorses a narrow approach to the public policy exception – namely, refusal of enforcement under the public policy exception in exceptional circumstances only. The ILA Resolution seeks to facilitate the finality of arbitral awards in accordance with the New York Convention’s primary goal of facilitating the enforcement of arbitral awards. The courts of many countries refer to this as the New York Convention’s ‘pro-enforcement policy’, which demands a narrow approach to the public policy exception.This thesis explores the main controversies and complexities in the judicial application of the public policy exception from an Australian perspective. It is a critical analysis of the prevalent narrow approach to the public policy exception. It examines the extent of the ILA Resolution’s suitability and applicability in Australia, considering past problems experienced by the courts of other countries, the distinctive features of the Australian legal system, and future challenges confronting the Australian judiciary. It examines when and how the Australian judiciary may need to swim against the tide by departing from the narrow approach to the public policy exception. For instance, such departure may be appropriate for ensuring that their application of the public policy exception neither causes nor condones injustice, and thereby preserves the integrity and faith in the system of arbitration. The author’s perspective throughout this thesis is that of an academic lawyer, as she has not had the benefit of practical experience in this area of the law.The recommendations throughout this thesis are tailor-made for the Australian judiciary. They are Australian in perspective yet international in character. They canvass certain issues not addressed in the ILA Resolution, encouraging the Australian judiciary to participate in the ongoing debate and the ultimate resolution of those issues. In doing so, this thesis contributes to refining the judicial application of public policy in determining the enforceability of arbitral awards. The public policy exception to the enforcement of arbitral awards, or its application, need not be an unruly horse in Australia.“This version contains corrections of typographical errors identified in the original version of the thesis submitted for completion of the SJD program”.

The culminating recommendations of the United States Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings’ 2006 Commission on the Future of Higher Education report demand greater access, affordability, quality and accountability in higher education. Student affairs, as well as their academic counterparts, must show that they function effectively and contribute to student learning and development. A promising program review process for student affairs to fulfill this expectation is found in the Education Criteria of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and its state-level equivalent, the Texas Award for Performance Excellence in Education Criteria. The purpose of this study was to determine the usefulness of the Texas Award for Performance Excellence Education Criteria, Progress Level, as the basis for a comprehensive program review in two diverse student affairs departments. Additionally, the study was to determine the potential usefulness of the Criteria as a management strategy for senior leadership in each department to focus on assessment, planning, improvement and change. The descriptive case study was conducted using naturalistic inquiry methodology with two student affairs departments. The researcher spent nine months in the field as a participant observer. Methodology included observations of training and team leader meetings; interviews with participants, department directors, and the Office of the Vice President; document review of both self-study reports; and the researcher’s reflexive journal. Student affairs departments are particularly well-suited for the quality concept of serving customers and, in this case, students as their primary customer. The researcher concluded that the Texas Award for Performance Excellence in Education Criteria serve as a useful basis for a comprehensive program review and as a management strategy for senior leadership under the following conditions: The department must be a mature and functional unit. Student affairs staff need a foundation in quality principles, in general, and the core values, Criteria and language of the Texas Award for Performance Excellence in Education before embarking on the self-study process. The Measurement, Analysis and Knowledge Category and the Planning Category provided the most introspection and action planning for both departments. The Process Category was the most challenging for both departments.

The majority of modern popular trophies seem to act as memorials to small victories. Foiled plastic figures sitting atop extruded tubes of holographic tape are given for everything from internationally recognized achievement to participation in regional events. These architectural sculptures are icons of success. This thesis explores the themes, processes, and contexts that inform the ways that we perceive value. Using the iconography of the popular modern trophy, this thesis and the artwork associated with it examines the constructs of value within visual culture. My goal is to display and understand the way we appreciate and define that which implies worth.

The culminating recommendations of the United States Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings’ 2006 Commission on the Future of Higher Education report demand greater access, affordability, quality and accountability in higher education. Student affairs, as well as their academic counterparts, must show that they function effectively and contribute to student learning and development. A promising program review process for student affairs to fulfill this expectation is found in the Education Criteria of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and its state-level equivalent, the Texas Award for Performance Excellence in Education Criteria. The purpose of this study was to determine the usefulness of the Texas Award for Performance Excellence Education Criteria, Progress Level, as the basis for a comprehensive program review in two diverse student affairs departments. Additionally, the study was to determine the potential usefulness of the Criteria as a management strategy for senior leadership in each department to focus on assessment, planning, improvement and change. The descriptive case study was conducted using naturalistic inquiry methodology with two student affairs departments. The researcher spent nine months in the field as a participant observer. Methodology included observations of training and team leader meetings; interviews with participants, department directors, and the Office of the Vice President; document review of both self-study reports; and the researcher’s reflexive journal. Student affairs departments are particularly well-suited for the quality concept of serving customers and, in this case, students as their primary customer. The researcher concluded that the Texas Award for Performance Excellence in Education Criteria serve as a useful basis for a comprehensive program review and as a management strategy for senior leadership under the following conditions: The department must be a mature and functional unit. Student affairs staff need a foundation in quality principles, in general, and the core values, Criteria and language of the Texas Award for Performance Excellence in Education before embarking on the self-study process. The Measurement, Analysis and Knowledge Category and the Planning Category provided the most introspection and action planning for both departments. The Process Category was the most challenging for both departments.

Arbitration is the preferred method of dispute resolution in international trade. Naturally, a set of rules is necessary to govern the conflict&rsquo / s resolution. For cultural, political, economical or other reasons the parties&rsquo / national laws may not serve the individual interests and needs of that particular contract well. If one wants to avoid the application of both parties&rsquo / national laws, one can choose that the contract be governed by an a-national legal standard, e.g. general principles of International Trade Law or the general usages of a particular trade. These internationally accepted principles of law governing contractual relations are called lex mercatoria (law merchant).<br /> <br /> Lex mercatoria already existed in the Middle Ages and can even be dated back to antiquity. Later it disappeared through the nationalization of International Trade Law and was rediscovered in the 1950s, when international traders were again creating their own law and disputes were increasingly resolved outside of the national jurisdictions and applying a-national law. Lex mercatoria is being applied more and more by arbitrators and is therefore becoming increasingly important for dispute resolution in International Trade. Numerous different concepts and theories of lex mercatoria have been developed. Its being an autonomous legal system is questioned by some authors and the doctrine in favour of it called unfounded. The critics also argue that the authority to apply lex mercatoria may be a recipe for amateurism and the substitution of the arbitrator&rsquo / s private preferences for the parties&rsquo / intentions, for itis easy to proclaim common principles on the basis of limited knowledge. The lex mercatoria is said only to exist because scholars talk about it. However, these and other allegations can be refuted by critically analyzing the arguments that are supposed to underline those assumptions. Applying lex mercatoria to solve international trade disputes has many advantages. By choosing lex mercatoria the parties avoid rules which are unfit for international contracts, e.g. peculiar formalities, brief cut-off periods and special difficulties created by domestic laws. In addition to that, neither of the parties has the advantage of having the dispute governed by his own law. Since one of the central rules is the principle of good faith and fair dealing, lex mercatoria neither leads to arbitrary results nor does it favour the rich. Is it possible for the arbitrators to apply lex mercatoria if no law has been chosen by the parties? The failure of the parties to indicate a choice could well mean that they did not wish to have their contract governed by any of their national laws. In some awards arbitrators applied lex mercatoria as they considered the community of international merchants to be autonomous and to exist beyond national legislation. However, it cannot be deduced from the absence of such a choice that the parties have impliedly chosen lex mercatoria to be the law governing the conflict. Lex mercatoria is applicable only as a subsidiary law in cases where no national law has been chosen and seems apt.

Judicial enforcement of arbitral awards is necessary where there is no voluntary compliance by the relevant parties. Courts world-wide may refuse to enforce arbitral awards if such enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of their countries. This is known as ‘the public policy exception to the enforcement of arbitral awards’. It is enshrined in the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 (Model Law), which are two of the most prominent international instruments in promoting and regulating international commercial arbitration.The public policy exception is one of the most controversial exceptions to the enforcement of arbitral awards, causing judicial inconsistency and therefore unpredictability in its application. It is often likened to an ‘unruly horse’, which may lead us from sound law. The International Law Association’s Resolution on Public Policy as a Bar to Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards 2002 (ILA Resolution) endorses a narrow approach to the public policy exception – namely, refusal of enforcement under the public policy exception in exceptional circumstances only. The ILA Resolution seeks to facilitate the finality of arbitral awards in accordance with the New York Convention’s primary goal of facilitating the enforcement of arbitral awards. The courts of many countries refer to this as the New York Convention’s ‘pro-enforcement policy’, which demands a narrow approach to the public policy exception.This thesis explores the main controversies and complexities in the judicial application of the public policy exception from an Australian perspective. It is a critical analysis of the prevalent narrow approach to the public policy exception. It examines the extent of the ILA Resolution’s suitability and applicability in Australia, considering past problems experienced by the courts of other countries, the distinctive features of the Australian legal system, and future challenges confronting the Australian judiciary. It examines when and how the Australian judiciary may need to swim against the tide by departing from the narrow approach to the public policy exception. For instance, such departure may be appropriate for ensuring that their application of the public policy exception neither causes nor condones injustice, and thereby preserves the integrity and faith in the system of arbitration. The author’s perspective throughout this thesis is that of an academic lawyer, as she has not had the benefit of practical experience in this area of the law.The recommendations throughout this thesis are tailor-made for the Australian judiciary. They are Australian in perspective yet international in character. They canvass certain issues not addressed in the ILA Resolution, encouraging the Australian judiciary to participate in the ongoing debate and the ultimate resolution of those issues. In doing so, this thesis contributes to refining the judicial application of public policy in determining the enforceability of arbitral awards. The public policy exception to the enforcement of arbitral awards, or its application, need not be an unruly horse in Australia.“This version contains corrections of typographical errors identified in the original version of the thesis submitted for completion of the SJD program”.

Die Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel hat diese Arbeit im Jahre 2006 als Dissertation angenommen. / Includes bibliographical references and index.

No description available.

Providing strategic leadership for global Not-for-Profit organisations poses great challenges to the leadership structures of these voluntary organisations. This study looks at the phenomenon of strategic leadership in the Duke of Edinburgh’s (DOE) International Award Association (IAA) as a global Not-for-Profit Organisation (NPO). The main aim of the research was an in-depth examination of the processes involved in leadership at the top level in a global NPO. Eight strategic leaders from the top management team were interviewed. Further information was generated from a study of the Annual Reports spanning the 15 year period (1988/9 – 2003/4), and key strategic documents were used as supporting material. The research was conducted in a phenomenological paradigm, using the case study research method. Care was taken to minimize possible researcher bias and interpretations, as the researcher has been associated with this organisation for the past 18 years. It was found that the Royal Family play extremely valuable and multifaceted roles in the organisation. The triumvirate of The Royals; The Secretary General’s; and The Trustees; works well as individual ‘great groups’ yet when necessary, they form a collective collaborative grouping to effect strategic leadership for the IAA. The two main themes to emerge from the findings were the nature of the DOE as a global NPO and the role of strategic leadership in the DOE Award. The DOE Award has demonstrated that it has many unique strategic leadership features and is using these features to become more business-like in the application of its new strategic vision. The individual ‘great groups’ offer sound leadership throughout the process of overseeing and running the business of the DOE Award yet, when necessary and appropriate, these great groups appear to work collectively, perhaps in an unstructured manner, as the triumvirate of power. Their collective collaborative leadership is a unique feature of the DOE Award. The highly interactive role of the Royal Family is unique and sets the DOE Award apart from other similar youth organisations globally. The nature of the loose association of National Award Authorities all subscribing to the rules and conditions of association is also a very unique feature of this NPO. The DOE Award is not a movement organisation but is guided by its service ethic. The DOE Award is a service organisation in which the strategic leadership plays a crucial role yet the constitutional power resides with the International Award Association membership. This IAA membership meets every three years at the World Forum Triennium to approve all new policy and procedures.