Arbitration is central to the settlement of transnational commercial disputes. This dissertation discusses arbitration as an alternative method of dispute settlement as opposed to litigation. The work surveys the difficulties relating to international commercial arbitration and the enforcement of awards, and efforts made to overcome them. The research is divided into four chapters. The first chapter introduces the reader to the work. It gives a general background to international commercial arbitration and briefly explains what the dissertation is all about. Chapter two is definitional. It examines some of the definitions of international commercial arbitration and contains the author's thoughts on this issue. The author is of the view that the traditional definitions do not properly address the concept. It is concluded that the question whether an arbitration is international should largely depend on whether international norms are used to resolve the dispute rather than by reference to geographical considerations. This chapter also weighs the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration as against litigation. Chapter three deals with recognition and enforcement of awards. This is considered crucial since at the end of the day, parties to arbitration would want to enforce their awards in a court of law, in the event of non-compliance. Since the award might be made in a foreign country, enforcement may be problematic. The chapter examines efforts made in intemational and domestic law to overcome such problems and achieve enforceable awards. A selection of multi-lateral, regional and domestic laws is examined. This chapter also discusses problems of enforcing awards against states and steps taken to overcome them. The final chapter deals with general conclusion and suggestions. It is suggested that efforts should be made to harmonise international commercial arbitration. This can be achieved both in domestic and international law. / Jurisprudence / LL.M. (Jurisprudence)

A indústria da construção é responsável por grande parcela da economia em todas as nações, quase sempre excedendo 10% do PIB - Produto Interno Bruto e sendo, inúmeras vezes, o setor responsável pelo maior número de empregos. Nas últimas décadas a globalização, com as suas exigências de adequação do Brasil aos padrões de competição internacionais em todas as áreas, as exigências de consumidores mais atentos, com mais liberdades e mais direitos (Código do Consumidor), a velocidade das mudanças sociais e culturais, tudo isto catalisado pela tecnologia da informação têm provocado um grande número, que não para de crescer, de disputas na construção civil. A insatisfação com os métodos tradicionais de solução dos conflitos na indústria da construção civil fez com que grande variedade de alternativas fosse e continuasse a ser explorada. A investigação das técnicas e procedimentos usados para gerenciar os conflitos, prevenir e solucionar as disputas, deles originados, nos empreendimentos de construção civil é necessária para a definição e criação de mecanismos que contribuam para seu eficaz gerenciamento, evitando a perda de tempo e dinheiro com intermináveis discussões e litígios nos tribunais. A existência de conflitos nos empreendimentos da construção é um fato e decorre diretamente da natureza das suas atividades: a singularidade de cada empreendimento, cada um deles constitui uma experiência sempre primeira e única, o tamanho e duração das obras, a complexidade dos documentos contratuais, as mudanças das condições, a limitação dos recursos, problemas financeiros, projetos inadequados, questões trabalhistas, despreparo dos gestores nestes temas. A revisão bibliográfica dos mecanismos existentes em outros países e no Brasil, comparando-os, serve de embasamento para outras pesquisas, seja na proposição de um sistema de gestão para estes conflitos e de solução para as disputas, adequado às características do Brasil, ou, ainda, na condução de um estudo de caso onde as técnicas poderão ser utilizadas e sua eficiência comprovada, ou ainda uma pesquisa para determinar as perdas provocadas por estas disputas. / The construction industry is responsible for great portion of the economy in all countries, almost always exceeding 10% of the GDP - gross domestic product and being countless times the largest employer. In the last decades the globalization, demanding Brazil adaptation to the international patterns of competition in all areas, the more attentive consumer\'s demand with more freedoms and more rights (Consumer\'s Code), and the speed of social and cultural changes, all of those, catalyzed by the information technology, have been provoking a great and growing number of disputes in the building site. The dissatisfaction with traditional methods of conflict resolution in the construction industry led to the use of a wide range of different alternatives, and new ones continue to be explored. The investigation of these new and alternative techniques and procedures used to manage conflicts, to prevent and resolve disputes in the civil construction projects is necessary for the definition and creation of mechanisms to contribute to the effective project management, avoiding waste of time and money with endless discussions and litigations in the tribunals. Because of the characteristic of their activities: the singularity of each project, each one of them is a first and only experience, the size and duration of the works, the contractual documents complexity, the variations, the resources limitation, financial problems, inadequate projects and labor subjects, the existence of conflicts in construction projects is a fact. Bibliographical revision and comparison of the techniques adopted in Brazil and other countries serves as basis for other researches, such as the proposition of a conflict management plan appropriated to Brazilian industry characteristics, or as a case study in which techniques can be used and its efficiency proven or, still as a research to determine the losses caused by these disputes.

LL.M. (Commercial Law) / Please refer to full text to view abstract

L'environnement numérique et les échanges électroniques accélèrent et participent à la mondialisation et à la globalisation de l'économie, et par là multiplient la dimension internationale dans les litiges, tout en générant sans cesse de nouveaux problèmes juridiques. Des modes électroniques de règlement des litiges apparaissent afin de faire face à ce nouveau monde dont l'arbitrage électronique. Ce moyen de règlement, même s'il est techniquement praticable, juridiquement soulève nombre de questions : d'une part, l'arbitrage classique exige de nombreuses conditions de forme et de fond que l'arbitrage électronique par sa nature même ne peut totalement satisfaire ; d'autre part, la procédure arbitrale totalement dématérialisée présente des difficultés biens distinctes. Afin de surmonter ces difficultés, il faut présenter les textes juridiques régissant les procédures arbitrales traditionnelles et les confronter aux procédures arbitrales électroniques. De cette confrontation se dégageront les particularités de l'arbitrage électronique comme mode alternatif de règlement des litiges du commerce international en général, et électronique en particulier. / The digital environment and electronic exchanges contribute and accelerate globalization, and thus multiplies the international dimension in litigation, while constantly generating new legal problems. Electronic arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution. Even if it is technically feasible, it raises many legal issues. On the one hand, the classic arbitration requires many forms conditions that the electronic arbitration cannot totally satisfy. On the other hand, the fully dematerialized arbitration presents distinct properties.To overcome these difficulties, we should present the legal texts governing the classic arbitration and compare it with the electronic arbitration procedures. This allows us to identify the features of electronic arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution of the international commercial disputes and especially electronics.

History and Background: The history of statutory labour dispute resolution of South Africa dates back to 1909, when the Transvaal Disputes Prevention Act of 1909 was promulgated which applied only to the Transvaal. The Industrial Conciliation Act of 1924 established industrial councils and ad hoc conciliation boards and excluded black workers from the statutory definition of employee and this resulted in a dual industrial relations system that existed up to 1979. The history of statutory labour dispute resolution of Swaziland dates back to 1980 when the first Industrial Relations Act of 1980 was promulgated which established the first Industrial Court. Research Findings: The dispute resolution systems of South Africa and Swaziland contain both similarities and differences. Lessons for Swaziland include combining general and specific dispute resolution procedures, providing the right of a referring party to apply for condonation for late referral of a dispute, using conciliation-arbitration, making arbitration proceedings public hearings, influence of parties on the appointment of arbitrators, court adjudication, pre-dismissal arbitration, court adjudication by judges only, establishment of a constitutional court, full protection of protected strikes/ lockouts from interdicts, legalization of sympathy strikes, and removal of strikes/ lockout ballot. Lessons for South Africa include plural representation of parties at conciliation and arbitration, re-direction of some disputes by the Labour Court to the Commission for arbitration, reporting of labour disputes direct to the Head of State for determination.

No description available.

Alternative Dispute Resolution was developed as an alternative to the traditional dispute resolution mechanism, litigation, which had become costly, time-consuming, did not give the parties control over the outcome of their disputes and was generally cumbersome. ADR refers to a variety of techniques for resolving disputes without resort to litigation in the courts. The concept behind the introduction of ADR methods was, inter alia, to reduce the delays and costs associated with litigation; to introduce relatively less formal methods of dispute resolution; to introduce consensual problem solving and empower individuals by enabling them to control the outcome of their dispute and develop dispute resolution mechanisms that would preserve personal and business relationships. ADR processes were thus intended to produce better outcomes all round. From the time ADR appeared on the scene, its usage has gained international recognition with both common law and civil law countries following the trend. Being faced with similar problems associated with litigation, Zambia has followed the trend and adopted some ADR mechanisms. Most commonly used ADR mechanisms in Zambia are mediation/conciliation, arbitration and negotiation. The legal and institutional frameworks for ADR in Zambia are firmly in place. It is thus, not far fetched to predict a successful future for ADR in which it will enjoy the support of the major stakeholders and play a vital role in justice delivery in Zambia. This thesis has a section on the conceptual framework for ADR and discusses the development of ADR internationally and some processes in use. It examines selected institutions of justice delivery in Zambia with a view to evaluating their operations and contribution to justice delivery in Zambia. It traces the development of institutions of justice delivery in Zambia from colonial times up to the present and assesses their performance. ADR processes currently in use in Zambia are critically examined and their shortcomings reviewed. The legal and institutional frameworks for ADR and the role they play of providing the supporting structure for ADR in the country are evaluated. Future prospects for ADR are indicated and recommendations for successful implementation of ADR in Zambia are given. / Jurisprudence / LL.D.

Study One: Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunals (SENDIST) provide independent adjudication of parental appeals against Local Authority (LA) decisions. The Parent Partnership Service (PPS) and Disagreement Resolution Services (DRS) are both arranged to reduce disagreements and, specifically, to prevent tribunals. Study One aimed to explore parental experiences of Local Disagreement Resolution Services (LDRSs) including the PPS and DRS. A secondary aim of Study One was to identify barriers to and facilitators of disagreement resolution from a parental perspective. Methods: Study One utilised semi-structured interviews as a means of exploring seven parents' experiences and constructs. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis in order to specify key themes relating to the resolution of disagreements about SEN. Results: Parents reported a sense of embattlement with the Local Authority that appeared to act as a barrier to the resolution of disagreements. Parents also identified a number of facilitators of disagreement resolution including: Feeling 'listened to'; Having access to a 'legitimate decision-maker'; and becoming better informed. A number of barriers to disagreement resolution were also reported, including but not limited to: a perception that no one is listening to them; a perception that LA staff lack independence; a perception that the LA cannot be trusted to deliver SEN provision. Study Two:Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunals (SENDIST) provide independent adjudication of parental appeals against Local Authority (LA) decisions. The Parent Partnership Service (PPS) and Disagreement Resolution Services (DRS) are both arranged to reduce disagreements and, specifically, to prevent tribunals. Study Two aimed to explore experiences of professionals working within Local Disagreement Resolution Services (LDRSs) including the PPS and DRS. A secondary aim of Study Two was to identify barriers to and facilitators of disagreement resolution from a professional perspective. A final aim of Study Two was to synthesise the perceptions reported by professionals in Study Two with those reported by parents in Study One. Methods: Study Two utilised semi-structured interviews as a means of exploring six LA-employed professionals' experiences and constructs. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis in order to specify key themes relating to the resolution of disagreements about SEN. Findings emerging from Study Two were integrated with findings from Study One using the themes generated through thematic analysis. Results: Professionals reported a number of parental factors that were perceived to act as a barrier to disagreement resolution. These included but were not limited to: weak understanding of SEN systems and a lack of confidence to engage in mediation processes. Professionals did not identify any parental factors perceived to be conducive to disagreement resolution. A smaller number of facilitators of disagreement resolution were reported, including: early intervention; and face-to-face meetings. Synthesis of findings from Studies One and Two resulted in the creation of clusters of themes that can inform future policy and practice. Findings from Studies One and Two indicate that disagreement resolution is best supported where Local Authorities can promote: collaboration, information-sharing, and reassurance for parents.

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

實務上，我國勞資爭議行政處理機制雖可分為協調、調解與仲裁三種。但絕大多數之爭議係透過協調解決，並非透過勞資爭議處理法所定之調解或仲裁機制，在調解制度約只處理10﹪之爭議，而仲裁制度更是少見。換言之，實際上確實有一定比例之勞資爭議無法透過前開紛爭處理制度解決，勞工必須循曠日費時之訴訟程序方能獲得救濟，甚且以陳情抗爭方式凸顯爭議，認為制度之設計無法確保應有權益，且相關配套措施亦欠周延。面對勞資爭議件數有逐年增加趨勢，如何強化現有勞資爭議處理機制或創設新的解決機制，使各級勞工行政人員處理爭議時有一遵循依據，成為重要課題。 另一方面，行政機關在處理勞資爭議案件，長久以來迭遭質疑「主管機關介入私權」問題，有失公平性及中立性。本文爰將重心置於調解、仲裁機制，乃至於未有法律依據之協調機制之應有定位問題，同時如何在「效率性」、「程序保障」以及「紛爭解決」等要求間取得最佳之平衡進行探討。同時針對調解、仲裁制度設計之各個環節，例如調解、仲裁委員會之組成、委員之資格、選任、程序進行所應遵循之法理以及調解、仲裁成立之效力等問題併與探究，因其彼此間均具有緊密之連動關係。 基上，本文之第一章主要敘明本文之研究動機、目的及方法與範圍。其第二章，探討ADR發展之歷史契機，說明ADR之核心機能，再針對不同之角度與標準，對ADR的形式和類型進行劃分，進而說明ADR之基本理論。其第三章，從行政機關之勞動統計數字及司法機關之受理爭議案件，驗證我國勞工在勞資爭議事件程序選擇上有其偏好，多數均選擇ADR機制，何以如此，則有必要就勞動關係之本質及勞動訴訟之特性予以論述及檢視。其第四章，介紹現行調解機制之相關規範，再就現行規範予以檢討及評析，並加以歸納，提出如何建構完善調解機制。其第五章，介紹現行仲裁機制之相關規範，再就現行規範予以檢討及評析，並加以歸納，提出如何建構完善仲裁機制。其第六章，彙整前述各章節所得之結論，最後提出具體之建議。