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 purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive review of the neutrality literature and suggests areas ripe for future research.

The authors reviewed journal articles on the topic of neutrality in mediation, which included theoretical viewpoints and empirical research on practicing mediators’ understanding of neutrality.

The review of literature revealed that party perspectives are largely missing from current neutrality literature. Two potential concepts emerged from the authors' review of literature that could potentially influence parties’ attributions of mediator neutrality: symmetry and transparency. Symmetry refers to the equal treatment of parties, whereas transparency refers to providing an explanation of past or future behavior. Research on whether symmetry and transparency are key influences on party assessment of mediator neutrality could make a significant contribution to the field.

The authors call on researchers with diverse methodological perspectives to examine, from the party’s perspective, important questions regarding the meaning of neutrality, mediator strategies to successfully enact neutrality and the impact of neutrality on mediation outcomes.

Neutrality is arguably one of the most important concepts to the mediation field. Despite its significance to the field, only limited research has been conducted to better understand how neutrality is enacted in practice. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the literature and provides a launching point for future research.

The purpose of this paper is to debate on how to achieve, in countries that have invested in the North American model of the regulatory state, the greatest efficiency in creating norms for the organization of public and private activities in order to guarantee the autonomy and technical impartiality required for the proper functioning of regulatory agencies.

This paper describes the development of the legal framework regarding regulatory agencies in Brazil. The research was based on bibliographical data, media reports, and the Brazilian Supreme Court decisions.

The regulation dissemination through regulatory agencies in Brazil has given rise to a series of controversies concerning the limits of their performance and the extent of their technical discretion. According to the findings, it is concluded that these independent agencies should be guided by the following four pillars: (1) the legal rule of fixed-term in office; (2) the principle of lesser control intensity (deference) of the agency acts; (3) the prohibition of contingency of agencies’ budgetary resources; and (4) the prohibition of agency powers suppression. Otherwise, the institutional capacity of agencies will be diminished and their neutral action in technical matters will be compromised.

This paper shows how enhanced autonomy and technical impartiality can be useful for better regulatory governance in other countries, preventing them from suffering from the same problems that have occurred in Brazil.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the resources and capabilities required by manufacturers to develop and deliver multi-vendor solutions.

A multi-case design comprising six UK-based manufacturers: two from each of the aerospace/defence, information technology and telecommunications sectors.

Manufacturers can be characterized by their propensity to include products from other vendors in their solutions; single vendor solution providers (SVSPs) focus on solutions comprising their own products, while multi-vendor solution providers (MVSPs) fully embrace products from other manufacturers. Three capabilities were identified which distinguish MVSPs from SVSPs given the complexity of multi-vendor solutions (expertise specifying the solution, engineers trained in implementing/supporting the solution, partnerships with component suppliers of the solution). These capabilities are underpinned by both technical capability and impartiality in solution specification.

MVSPs need to be impartial when specifying customer solutions. They should be guided by the best interests of the customer rather than the interests of the product-based SBUs. Achieving impartiality can conflict with some manufacturers' product heritage. The research has focused on three sectors; further research is needed to test whether the findings are applicable beyond these sectors.

Solutions are a valuable approach in creating market differentiation, although not all manufacturers will possess the resources/capabilities to be successful.

A continuum of solution providers is proposed; SVSPs at one extreme and MVSPs at the other. The operant resource-based capability “impartiality” was identified as being particularly important to MVSPs in creating value for customers.

The intention of this chapter is to examine race and racism in the accounting industry in the context of neutrality. Objectivity and impartiality minimize the space for alternative voices, too often unheard from the margin, that speak of a differing racialized professional existence for the Black accountant. A Critical Race Theory (CRT) of accountancy is called for among a number of takes in the genre of Critical Accounting to begin a process of unpacking systemic processes within the profession, which encourage homogeneity and exclusion.

Belief in professional colorblindness as impartiality where race is concerned is critiqued as a tool of domination that fosters injustice because it hides racism from the institution while simultaneously allowing racist practice to go unchallenged.

The article examines the potential impact of FAR Subpart 3:10, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct on the system for regulating defense procurement integrity. The article argues that the adoption of the new Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct will not change the already heavy emphasis placed on full compliance with criminal and civil statutes directed at protecting procurement integrity. The article also argues that the defense procurement integrity program should devote equal attention to adoption of non-criminal standards of conduct directed at assuring the impartiality and objectivity of contractor employees. Finally, the article argues that in order to rebuild public trust in contractor employees the FAR Council should require contractor employees who perform duties similar to full-time federal employees to comply with a new uniform set of non-criminal standards of conduct rules directed at assuring the impartiality and objectivity of contractor employees.

The purpose of this essay is to survey the ethical guidelines Red Cross personnel use to determine the appropriate course of action when faced with morally dilemmatic situations, such as whether or not to accept private donations to fund humanitarian operations.

A review of the principles which buttress and guide all Red Cross action is presented along with two case studies – one in which the Solomon Islands Red Cross Society refused money from a controversial mining company, which could have been used to assist flood victims, and the other in which the Nigerian Red Cross Society accepted money from oil companies that have been historically ethically-challenged – which illustrate the necessity of contextual analysis in making these decisions.

The principles upon which all Red Cross actions are based – humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence – provide the guidelines by which to evaluate whether or not to accept private, corporate donations. The Red Cross principles-based ethics allows for seemingly contradictory decisions to be reached in different countries and contexts, but in manners which are ethically coherent and transparent.

This paper sets the foundation for future research into what guides humanitarian organizations as they carry out their life-sustaining operations. Organizations which use such ethical principles to determine the appropriateness of their actions should benefit from transparently demonstrating this.

Case studies from recent disasters demonstrate the value of using ethical guidelines to evaluate donor suitability. This rigor and transparency benefits not only the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations, but most importantly those rendered vulnerable by disaster around the world.

This paper aims to explore the appropriate role and approach of mediators and investigate whether mediator neutrality and party autonomy should prevail over mediators’ obligations to remain neutral where non-intervention would result in unfair settlements.

The paper arises from polarising and paradoxical opinions of the legitimacy of mediator intervention. This paper relies upon theories proposed in peer-reviewed journals, together with secondary data.

Mediator neutrality has no consistent or comprehensible meaning and is not capable of coherent application. Requirements for mediator neutrality encourage covert influencing tactics by mediators which itself threatens party autonomy. Mediator intervention ensures ethical and moral implementation of justice, removal of epistemological implications of subjective fairness and compensation for lack of pure procedural justice in the mediation process. Party autonomy requires mediators to intervene ensuring parties adequately informed of the law and equal balance of power.

Peer-reviewed journals and secondary data give meaningful insight into perceptions, opinions and beliefs concerning mediator neutrality, party autonomy and fair outcomes. These data comprised unstructured-interviews and questionnaires containing “open-ended” questions.

Mediator neutrality and party autonomy are less important than fair settlements.

Mediator neutrality should be given a contextual meaning; mediation should be more transparent affording the parties opportunity to select a particular type of mediator; transformative and narrative approaches to mediation should be further developed.

This paper exposes the myth of mediator neutrality – a popular concept demanded by and anticipated by the parties but which is practically impossible to deliver. It also shows the need for mediator intervention to ensure a fair outcome.

Is public administration neutral? Scholarship does not interpret public administration as neutral, even though, on moral–ethical grounds, it frequently advises neutrality for practitioners. Five main schools of thought are surveyed. Neutrality and alternative expressions of it, such as nonpartisanship, expertise, impartiality or facilitation, are role prescriptions for practicing public administrators, and are typically offered as appropriate comportments in interacting with citizens and groups. At the same time, public administration is undeniably a political institution having political purposes and constitutive impacts. Indeed, the very existence of the administrative state is politically contestable. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Critical reflection, political philosophy, political theory.

Scholars across the various schools of thought in public administration do not presuppose the presence of a neutral public administrator. However, there is sometimes an admonition to practitioners to behave as if they were politically neutral.

Advising practitioners that their practices are neutral masks the fact that public administration is an inherently political institution.

Neutral public administration is revealed as empty cant.