Search results

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

The relative merits of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) over conventional methods of dispute resolution, namely litigation and arbitration, is well documented, but as yet, the various ADR procedures currently available are not being extensively utilized within the construction industry in the UK. The purpose of the present paper was to discover from UK experts in dispute resolution why ADR has not become a more frequently used technique for resolving disputes in the UK construction industry, and to suggest ways in which this problem can be overcome. The findings indicate that there is a lack of understanding of the principles behind ADR and a lack of experience in dispute resolution in general. The findings strongly suggest that the lack of understanding and experience in ADR can best be overcome by educating and training. This should be carried out early on in the working lives of professionals by universities, professional institutions and specialist bodies such as the CEDR.

The paper articulates common organizing narratives which recur within alternative movements in law, and posits the art of dispute resolution as an experimental reconstructive methodology for engaging conflicts, while incorporating a critique of classical liberal thought. The paper offers a reading of conflict resolution approaches, including Alternative Dispute Resolution; Therapeutic Jurisprudence; Restorative Justice, and Transitional Justice, in search of a new legal culture or jurisprudence which emerges from the following narratives: emphasis on process; emphasis on constructive conflict intervention; deconstruction and hybridization; a search for an underlying layer; emphasis on relationship and acknowledgment of emotions; community work and bottom-up development.

This paper investigates the adoption, structure, and function of dispute resolution procedures in the nonunion workplace. Whereas grievance procedures in unionized workplaces have been an important area of study in the field of industrial relations, research on dispute resolution procedures in nonunion workplaces has lagged behind. As a result, our knowledge of the development of nonunion procedures remains relatively limited. Similarly, with a few noteworthy exceptions (e.g. Lewin, 1987, 1990), our knowledge of workplace grievance activity is almost entirely based on research conducted in unionized settings. Given the major differences in the institutional contexts of union and nonunion workplaces in the United States, existing ideas about workplace dispute resolution developed in the unionized setting will likely require significant modification in order to understand dispute resolution procedures and activity in the nonunion workplace. Issues relating to dispute resolution in the nonunion workplace are of increasing importance to public policy given the combination of continued stagnation in levels of union representation and mounting concerns over rising levels of employment litigation in the courts. Knowing what nonunion dispute resolution procedures look like and how they function will help answer the question of what role these procedures may play in the future governance of the workplace.

The paper aims to examine significant developments in the institutional framework for dispute resolution in the Islamic finance industry in Malaysia. Malaysia, as part of its efforts to consolidate its enviable Islamic finance industry, has strengthened its institutional framework for dispute resolution.

Data for this study were collected from both primary and secondary legal sources. Through a conceptual legal analysis, the institutional frameworks of dispute resolution in the Malaysia’s Islamic finance industry are studied.

The study finds that Malaysia is far ahead of other jurisdictions by a significant margin in spearheading reforms in the emerging global Islamic finance industry. The dispute resolution framework has been largely affected by the recent reforms.

Other jurisdictions may borrow a leaf from Malaysia’s initiative in providing a robust legal framework for dispute management in the Islamic finance industry.

Apart from adopting Malaysia’s framework and possibly adapting it to suit their specific local variations, other jurisdictions may also encourage Islamic financial institutions to incorporate effective dispute resolution processes in Islamic finance contracts.

This study critically discussed most recent developments in the institutional framework on dispute resolution in the Islamic finance industry in Malaysia.

The purpose of this article is to propose a conceptual framework for elucidating cross‐cultural paradoxes in dispute resolution and present a case study of a hybrid process that combines aspects of interest‐based mediation and indigenous dispute resolution in order to inform the design of conflict management systems in multinational enterprises (MNEs). Design/methodology/approach – A case study approach utilizing participant observation and informant feedback is used to present an organizational intervention in the Sri Lankan subsidiary of a European MNE. Discussion of the case is framed by theories of culture and conflict and a literature review of indigenous dispute resolution in Sri Lanka. Findings – The case illustrates how one MNE developed a culturally appropriate conflict management system in its subsidiary by crafting an innovative, informal channel for managing conflict and systematically embedding it into the organization alongside its formal conflict management process. Research limitations/implications – The case study approach limits the generalizability of the results. Future research should include a larger sample of countries, organizations, and dispute resolution practices, and incorporate feedback from employees to better assess the efficacy of the intervention. Practical implications – MNEs have an untapped opportunity to develop innovative approaches for managing conflict in their subsidiaries by melding interest‐based and indigenous mediation processes to develop culturally appropriate conflict management systems. Originality/value – This paper contributes to the literatures on cross‐cultural conflict management and conflict management systems design by presenting an innovative approach to the application of hybrid dispute resolution mechanisms in MNEs. This study provides valuable insights for international managers, conflict systems design practitioners, and cross‐cultural conflict scholars.

Leaders are challenged with the efficient and effective management of their own and their employees’ disputes. These are often managed inadequately using “fight”, “flight”, or management intervention. This paper aims to present the findings of a study into an effective alternative, “one‐to‐one dispute resolution”. The method involves two employees resolving their dispute through face‐to‐face communication and without direct intervention by management.

Using the Critical Incident Technique, incidents of one‐to‐one dispute resolution (n =249) were reported by 88 employees. The contents were analysed, and skill‐related findings were validated using a questionnaire (n =106).

The findings are presented in a descriptive model of the skilful process of one‐to‐one dispute resolution. The model is built on eight skill‐sets that were central to the dispute resolution process.

How and when to effectively coach employees in the use of one‐to‐one dispute resolution, and the resulting personal and organisational outcomes, need to be examined. In addition, research into the practical application of the model, and in specific organisational contexts, is required.

The study highlights the potential for more employees (including both the leaders and the led) to effectively “face” their own disputes without using “fight” or “flight”. It challenges those leaders, who often act as third‐party interveners, instead to coach their employees in the one‐to‐one resolution of disputes, while modelling the method themselves.

Employees are offered a research‐based model of dispute resolution that differs from problematic models in the dispute resolution literature and skills‐training programs. A workable alternative to the methods of fight, flight and intervention is provided.

Since its inception in the 1970s, procedural justice has taken center stage in research on the outcomes of alternative dispute resolution. Such perceptions of procedural fairness, while important, are fairly transient whereas relationships between disputants endure. In the following chapter I argue that more research should explore the relational outcomes of dispute resolution, highlighting relevant insight from social exchange and organizational behavior on affect, attribution, and conflict. In discussing how each can add to the study of alternative dispute resolution, a paradox emerges – arbitration may be better for ongoing relationships than mediation, although the latter is considered more procedurally just.

The purpose of this research is to discover the behavior of dispute resolution in the Malaysian construction industry by analyzing factors that affect the selection of dispute resolution methods using factor analysis approach.

Preliminary interviews and a questionnaire survey were conducted. Dispute resolution methods were grouped and discussed together, based on the similarity of their characteristics, and used for the questionnaire survey. This research approach is different from the earlier studies that mostly focused on a single dispute resolution method. The data were further analyzed with factor analysis. This improved the data interpretation.

Seven latent factors were extracted and revealed that the contractors and developers preferred alternative dispute resolution (ADR). However, the appreciation of the outcomes of ADR was perceived to be very low. Arbitration and litigation were in part accepted and agreed upon by the respondents.

The combined results from the literature review on the stages of dispute resolution and the latent factors affecting the selection of dispute resolution methods could assist in decision making. The selection of ADR or non‐ADR itself is not a major issue; rather, there is a concern for increased efficiency and an appreciation of the methods in the construction industry are more demanding.

The purpose of this study is to examine the legal framework for court-annexed dispute resolution in courts with Sharī‘ah jurisdiction in Nigeria, Malaysia and Singapore. The major part of the study is dedicated to propose reforms in the administration of justice system in the courts with Sharī‘ah jurisdiction in Nigeria and the relevance of such reforms to the ongoing reforms in the Middle East and North African (MENA) countries.

This is an integrative literature review, which adopts a comparative approach in analyzing the conceptual framework of amicable dispute resolution in the modern world with particular reference to the Sharī‘ah court.

The findings of this research illustrate the adaptability of the practices in Malaysia and Singapore in the courts with Sharī‘ah jurisdiction in Nigeria and the MENA region.

An exposition of the dispute resolution processes in Islamic law reveals the relevance of these processes in modern reforms of the administration of justice system. The practical implications of this study include the streamlining of the rules and procedures of modern Sharī‘ah courts in post-revolution Arab countries to allow for court-annexed amicable (alternative) dispute resolution initiatives.

As far as it is known, this is the first conceptual study on the court-annexed dispute resolution frameworks of Sharī‘ah courts in three commonwealth jurisdictions.