Search results

In the construction industry, various parties are involved in a project. Consequently, claims and disputes are inevitable in this industry. This paper aims to develop Integrated project delivery (IPD) practices including early involvement of stakeholders and multiparty contracts which its combination with advanced technologies such as blockchain can lead to better dispute management and improve the whole construction process.

Based on literature review, the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for IPD contacts were identified, and three formats of IPD contracts were selected, and the dispute resolution process of them has been analyzed. Then, based on blockchain review, a conceptual blockchain-based dispute management (BDM) model was generated for ADR in IPD. Model validation was done by an interview. Experts were asked to compare the BDM model with the traditional system regarding the ADR duration.

Analyses of the collected data from the experts demonstrated that the BDM model has better function in terms of time and cost for ADR process when the project is facing serious and considerable number of disputes. The relation between blockchain technology (BCT) and building information modeling (BIM) has been examined through a framework, and the ability of the proposed model for administrating dispute resolution process has been verified using four different scenarios of construction claims that show the system can run successfully.

The current study proposes a truthful model, reliable framework to address the problem of project dispute management in IPD contracts. The system combines the ability to being unchangeable and the reliability characteristics of BCT with informative and automation aspects of BIM together to improve dispute resolution issue in the IPD system.

This paper aims to seek to and understand how civil conflict and international claims inform one another. Does the existence of ongoing civil and international conflicts affect how a government addresses an international claim? The paper builds on existing literature that link international and domestic conflict. However, it suggests that the logic behind civil conflicts may be different from that for international ones as states decide how to deal with any one claim.

The paper posits that states faced with domestic conflicts and additional international claims are more likely to seek to resolve an international claim than those without similar conflicts. It develops a series of hypotheses about the likelihood of claim escalation and peaceful settlement attempts and proceed to test them quantitatively using the Issue Correlates of War data combined with the uppsala conflict data program/peace research institute oslo Armed Conflict Data.

On the one hand, the paper finds support for the argument regarding the difficulty states are faced with when seeking to resolve multiple international claims. On the other hand, it finds that the presence of civil conflicts incentivizes states to resolve international claims either by force or peacefully, suggesting internal violence can both lead to diversionary behavior and attempts at conflict resolution.

The findings have important implications for work considering the complexity of domestic and international conflict linkages.

While many studies of claim militarization and peaceful attempts focus on dyadic and international characteristics, this paper creates a more nuanced understanding of the complexities of this foreign policy decision process.

This paper aims to determine whether a connection can be formed between corruption, plea-bargaining and civil alternative dispute resolution.

Academic articles and textbooks are examined as are relevant reports by various academic institutions.

Despite the similarities between plea-bargaining and civil alternative dispute resolution, the differences between the two overwhelmingly supersede their similarities. As such, there is unlikely to be an interplay between corruption, criminal plea-bargaining and civil alternative dispute resolution.

There are limited data available in relation to the prevalence of corruption activities by Chinese officials within the Belt and Road Initiative. Any discussions within this study is based on the impressionistic observations of the author, which may not reflect the true state of affairs in China.

Those who are interested in examining the relationship between the criminal plea-bargaining and civil alternative dispute resolution will have an interest in this topic.

The value of the paper is to demonstrate the difficulties in cross-fertilizing criminal law procedures with civil dispute resolution.

This study aims to analyze notable distribution dispute cases from Islamic law history. The authors will assess these alongside resolutions proposed by historical authorities, some of which evolved into established Islamic case law. In addition, the authors intend to apply classic fair division rules to these cases, providing alternative solutions. Using a game-theoretical approach, the authors plan to compare Islamic solutions with traditional division rules through axiomatic analysis. The goal of this study is to systematically explore the unique principles underpinning Islamic distributions.

In this study, the authors collate Islamic inheritance law disputes involving conflicting claims, unresolvable by primary Islamic law sources, from historical and modern texts. The authors formally model these as claims problems, surplus-sharing problems and adapted claims problems. Concurrently, the authors gather the proposed solutions and historical backgrounds offered by the era’s authorities and jurists. These solutions are axiomatically generalized into rules, while the axioms characterizing distribution rules are checked if they are aligned with Islamic norms and values. This approach facilitates a comparison between Islamic distributions and classic division rules.

The 'Awl and Radd doctrines, used in Islamic inheritance law, are axiomatically equivalent to the Proportional Rule, a prevalent non-Jewish division rule. These doctrines present solutions impervious to manipulation by legal heirs through rights transfer, unlike other possible distributions. Ibn 'Abbas' solution for Awliyya cases uses sequential priorities and diverges uniquely from classic fair division rules in the literature. In addition, it is established that Abu Yusuf's (b. 729) distribution for a legal dispute is axiomatically identical to Abraham ibn Ezra's (b. 1089) division rule.

There is a noticeable dearth of comprehensive studies investigating contentious disputes concerning resource claims within Islamic law. Many of these studies are lacking in-depth analyses of diverse cases, casting doubts on their reliability. As a result, a robust focus is needed on case collection prior to any analytical process. Future research should concentrate on collating instances of fair division problems throughout Islamic history, as well as separately collecting methods of Islamic sharing. This procedure may lead to the characterization of various Islamic regulations, thereby emphasizing distinct Islamic principles. In forthcoming studies, conducting an exhaustive axiomatic evaluation of the cases and proposed resolutions is imperative.

This research illuminates existing knowledge gaps, setting a course for novel research trajectories. It underlines the fair division literature’s oversight of disputes within Islamic law, despite the plentiful existence of contentious cases. The research underscores the relevance of cooperative game theory as a tool for dissecting Islamic legal disputes. By accounting for unique Islamic norms and principles, this study lays a foundation for a nuanced comprehension of the dynamics and outcomes of legal disputes. By integrating an interdisciplinary approach, this research strives to bridge the gap between game theory and Islamic law.

Beyond addressing a significant research lacuna, this study carries extensive societal implications. By shedding light on enduring debates within Islamic law, it encourages a rejuvenated understanding of the evolution and interpretation of legal disputes. The axiomatic disparities between rulers’ and jurists’ methods provide invaluable insights within the Islamic context, bolstering the understanding of sociocultural dynamics that influence legal decision-making. This research has the potential to shape legal discourse, guide policymaking and spur scholarly, juristic and societal dialogue. Consequently, it may foster a more comprehensive and enlightened approach toward the resolution of legal disputes in Islamic law.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine Islamic law’s historical legal disputes from a game-theoretical standpoint. Existing studies rarely collect distribution disputes systematically, and none scrutinize the axiomatic rationales underlying authorities’ and jurists’ distributions, opting instead to focus on historical backgrounds. While the fair division literature extensively examines disputes, it often overlooks those originating from Islamic law, which presents a rich source of disputes that can be modeled as fair division problems. This research makes a distinct contribution by incorporating disputes from Islamic law into the existing body of cooperative game theory literature.

The dispute resolution process in the construction industry is known for delays in settlement, with some cases even escalating to complex arbitration and litigation. To avoid conflicts turning into disputes, the parties need to be proactive in identifying and resolving conflicts in their nascent stages. It is here that innovative lean construction practices can potentially act as a game-changer to avoid disputes, and this study aims to attempt to understand this phenomenon empirically.

A questionnaire-based empirical study, followed by semi-structured interviews, is conducted to understand the relevance of key tenets of lean principles in dispute avoidance.

Although stakeholders agree on the usefulness and practicality of lean principles in dispute avoidance, the extent of agreement is lesser when it comes to its implementation practicality. Moreover, there is a demographic influence observed on lean tenets such as “open communication”, “stakeholder collaboration” and “constraint identification”.

The results point towards an approach that combines contractual mandate, training and awareness creation to iron out the differences in the usefulness and practicality of lean approaches to avoid disputes.

Lean implementation is widely discussed in many construction contexts, such as sustainability, productivity improvement and planning. However, a discussion on lean philosophy’s role in dispute avoidance is muted. Therefore, this study assumes significance.

Judiciary plays a pivotal role in the overall development of a nation's economy and its involvement assures process transparency and impartiality. However, litigation is often expensive, uncertain and prone to delays. Notwithstanding such inherent challenges associated with litigation, it is observed that parties in construction disputes do resort to litigation. This study attempts to understand the potential paths triggering litigation of contractual disputes in construction. While extant researchers have identified focus areas or factors influencing litigation, the underlying paths connecting these focus areas, leading parties to litigation, is explored in this study.

Considering the framework of Rachlinski's “framing theory of litigation” and the mixed-methods approach (qualitative and quantitative approaches), this study proposes and validates a model that identifies the paths to litigation of contractual disputes in construction.

The results of in-depth interviews, followed by validation through structural equation modelling (SEM), reveal four critical paths, namely positional focus (PF) – contract and dispute characteristics (CDC) – decision to litigate (DTL), milieu influence (MI) – CDC – DTL, MI-PF-DTL and CDC-DTL.

The identified paths highlight the areas policymakers can consider while developing policy interventions to mitigate litigation.

Researchers have identified factors causing litigation in construction. However, attempts to examine the existence of multi-factor “paths” on the decision to litigate (DTL) have hitherto received a muted response, so this study focuses on identifying the project-level path(s) leading to the litigation of contractual disputes in construction.

This paper aims to investigate how and when different dimensions of trust and contracts interact to influence the development to negotiation strategies. Specifically, it explores how different dimensions of trust and contracts are combined to influence dispute negotiation strategies when cooperation parties have or do not have expectations of continuity.

This paper theoretically identified and empirically examined the interaction effect of trust and contract on dispute negotiation strategies in contractor–subcontractor relationships, by developing a conceptual framework and conducting a questionnaire survey comprising more than 300 disputes in the Chinese construction industry. Hierarchical regression analysis was mainly used to test the hypotheses.

This paper finds that contractual control may weaken the effect of goodwill trust in fostering interest-based strategies in the presence of expectations of continuity, while it may strengthen the effect in the absence of expectations of continuity. Contractual coordination negatively moderates the relationship between goodwill trust and interest-based strategies only when parties have little expectations of continuity. Moreover, contractual control enhances the effectiveness of competence trust on fostering interest-based strategies.

This paper provides insights for practitioners to wisely use different governance mechanisms to manage negotiation strategies and generate desired outcomes of dispute resolution.

This paper provides a nuanced understanding of how the two types of governance mechanisms interact, by considering trust and contract as multi-dimensional constructs. It explicit the boundary conditions of both the substitute and complementary relationship between them.

Contract risk management has become a critical mission, as contract issues may lead to a loss of vast amounts of money to parties involved or cause project failure. This study sought to identify effective management strategies to mitigate construction contract issues that might emerge during construction.

A quantitative research approach was adopted for the study. Structured questionnaires made up of close-ended questions were distributed to construction professionals in South Africa via the SurveyMonkey platform. The data were then analysed using descriptive statistics.

The findings indicate that the critical sources of contract-related disputes are ambiguous definitions of the contract parties' scope of their rights and obligations, lack of precise arrangements regarding the calculation of contractual penalties for failure to meet the deadline, lack of detailed specification of the works and specific milestones, lack of provisions regulating changes to the project documentation during the construction stage, an excessive amount of contractual penalties on contractor's side and lack of provisions regarding the rules of performing additional and replacement works and their settlement. However, for these disputes to be effectively managed, strategies such as reduction uncertainties in project's phases, setting up contingency plans, construction guarantee, extension of time claims, payment guarantee, retention and escalation clause should be implemented by the parties involved.

Even though the empirical study focused on construction professionals in South Africa, the findings could be applied to other countries outside of South Africa.

To effectively manage and prevent contract disputes from averting project failures and losses to parties involved in the contract, construction professionals need to be aware of strategies that must be implemented before and during the project execution. If well implemented, these strategies will help a construction project be successful and experience fewer contractual disputes.

The study has identified the knowledge gap concerning suitable contract risk management strategies available for implementation to effectively prevent any contract parties from losing money, time and project failure.

Various studies have been conducted to explore the factors that are important to be considered for the effectiveness of construction contract administration (CCA) but lack in the context of graduate architects. The purpose of this study is to identify factors influencing the effectiveness of graduate architects in CCA and possible methods to enhance their work efficiency through developing the relevant skills in a changing construction environment.

This paper identified the factors that influence the effectiveness of graduate architects in CCA through the quantitative methods. General skill elements that are perceived as essential for the effectiveness of CCA had been investigated through a survey of graduate architects in the construction industry. One hundred and twenty-seven completed questionnaires returned were analyzed and tested using descriptive analysis and relative important index (RII).

The result from the study showed that the factors influencing the effectiveness of graduate architects as CCA are building construction skills, design management skills, project management skills, soft skills and dispute resolution skills.

The contribution of this study can be utilized for developing models/tools in the future that would improve the work performance of graduate architects in CCA. Educators may utilize this study to improve their syllabus to cater to the market's demand and facilitate students' entry into the labor market.

States have intervened with legislation to improve cashflow within construction project supply chains. The operation of the UK’s Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 leads to payment obligations stated either as a contract administrator’s certificate (or equivalent) or an adjudicator’s decision. The purpose of the intervention would be defeated unless there are speedy ways of transforming these pieces of paper into real money. The combination of the legislation, contractual provisions and insolvency law has produced a minefield of complexity concerning enforcement of payment obligations stated in these documents. Unfortunately, the knowledge and understanding required to navigate these complexities have been sorely lacking. The purpose of this paper is to plug this gap.

Legal research methods and case study approaches, using relevant court decisions as data, were adopted.

The enforcement method advised by the court is the summary judgment procedure provided under the Civil Procedure Rules. An overdue payment obligation, either under the terms of a construction contract or an adjudicator’s decision, amounts to a debt that can be the subject of insolvency proceedings. Although the insolvency enforcement method has been successfully used on some occasions, using it purely as a debt collection weapon would be inappropriate and likely to be punished by the court.

The paper contributes to knowledge in two ways: (i) it maps out the factual situations in which these payment challenges arise in language accessible to the construction industry’s professions; and (ii) comparative analysis of payment enforcement methods to aid decision-making by parties to construction industry contracts. It is relevant to the other common-law jurisdictions in which similar statutory interventions have been made.