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.

Procedural justice is important for fostering peoples’ willingness to cooperate with police. Theorizing suggests this relationship results because procedural justice enhances perceptions that the police are legitimate and entitled to be supported. The purpose of this paper is to examine how legitimacy perceptions moderate the effect of procedural justice policing on Muslims’ willingness to cooperate with police.

Survey data from 800 Muslims in Australia are used.

This study shows Muslims’ procedural justice perceptions are positively associated with two types of cooperation: willingness to cooperate with police in general crime control efforts; and willingness to report terror threats to police. Muslims’ perceptions of police legitimacy and law legitimacy also influence willingness to cooperate. Specifically, police legitimacy is more important for predicting general willingness to cooperate with police, while law legitimacy is more important for predicting Muslims’ willingness to report terror threats. Importantly, legitimacy perceptions moderate the relationship between procedural justice and both types of cooperation. Specifically, procedural justice promotes cooperation more strongly for those who question the legitimacy of police or the legitimacy of counter-terrorism laws, but the moderation effects differ across the two cooperation contexts. The findings have implications for procedural justice scholarship and for counter-terrorism policing.

The current paper examines an under-explored aspect of legitimacy; it examines police legitimacy perceptions, but also examines how people view the legitimacy of laws police enforce (i.e. law legitimacy). It is argued that perceptions about law legitimacy can also impact people’s willingness to cooperate with police.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the remedies available under Iranian investment treaties for settlement of investment disputes. This includes the obligation of the Iranian Government to provide foreign investors access to international arbitration. The sensitivity of the controversial Iranian nuclear program and the imposition of economic and financial sanctions on Iran will lead to the termination of many contracts between companies from Europe and the West and Iran, therefore, a viable solution must exist to address the rights and remedies of foreign investors. This article aims to provide an insight into Iranian treaties.

The main method was a survey of different treaties signed by Iran.

The discussion revealed that there are currently more than 50 treaties signed and ratified by Iran which provide arbitration as a dispute resolution forum. There are many treaties between the member countries of the European Union which make it important for the research. Iranian treaties guarantee international law remedies to foreign companies with investment in Iran by allowing them to seek redress in an international forum.

Iran has not signed the ICS1D Convention, meaning that the arbitration proceedings will be subject to ad hoc arbitration rules of UNCITRAL. Furthermore, ICSID rules on enforcement of the award do not apply. Therefore, the winning party must go through the Iranian courts to enforce its awards.

The value of the paper is to government organization, international institutions and multinational companies with substantial economic interest in Iranian energy and natural resources. For the first time, the topic has been covered in a research paper. There are no articles in Iranian bilateral investment treaties (BITs) addressing dispute resolution through arbitration. This is the first piece of work that actually conducted a thorough analysis of Iranian BITs.

The measures enacted so far at European level to address the global financial crisis are likely to have limited effects as they are still market efficiency oriented. Accordingly, this study aims to explore how the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights may be useful to achieve a more human right dimension in EU regulatory law.

The work departs from the current commodification of housing worldwide and the limited capacity of EU to tackle new housing challenges. The work takes the link already established by the CJEU between EU consumer law and the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights one step further and addresses the potential implications concerning residential mortgage lending.

The main finding is the potential influence that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights may have on EU regulatory mortgage lending, as there are indicators of a bifurcation of mortgage law regimes at the EU level, separating home loans from other mortgages.

The influence of the Charter of Fundamental Rights on EU regulatory law, mainly consumer law treated in a human rights dimension, could be a first step to treat housing as a social good and not as a commodity in the EU. This could lead to a completely new approach concerning the traditional rules governing residential mortgage loans.

The potential constitutionalisation of consumer law and the impact of the CJEU cases on national procedural rules have already been addressed by scholarship. The present work goes one step further as it addresses the potential implications of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on EU regulatory law in terms of the potential bifurcation of EU rules on mortgage lending.

The purpose of this paper is to provide Korean merchants and practitioners who are not English native speakers with the practical advices and suggestions in drafting arbitration agreements.

The doctrine of separability of arbitration and the competence-competence principle are studied based on the rules of international conventions and internationally recognized arbitral institutes. In addition, the laws of two common law jurisdictions, which are the USA and the UK are discussed with the Korean arbitration law, which follows the civil law system. This study also includes analysis of cases in order to show application of these two principles to practice and to give practical advices and implications to practitioners.

Most national legislatures and jurisdictions approve the doctrine of separability of arbitration agreement and the competence-competence principle under international commercial arbitration. When there is a dispute regarding the existence or the validity of arbitration agreement, it is determined based on the prima facie test without being affected by the main contract in which the arbitration agreement is inserted. In practice, however, there are many occasions where the arbitration agreements are void or inoperable because of its contents. Many practical advices and suggestions are provided.

This paper analyzes arbitration agreements which are used in practice so that it provides many practical advices to practitioners in terms of legal effects of languages and linguistic use.

Stuart Scheingold's The Politics of Rights provided a path-breaking theoretical analysis of what he called the “myth of rights.” Scheingold's key insight was that even though rights were a myth, rights ideologies nevertheless left a significant imprint on American politics. The book charted a research agenda that has now been followed by a wide range of sociolegal scholars. Looking across that diverse body scholarship, I find convergence on two points. First, scholars claim that law and legal ideology contribute to processes of legitimation and to political acquiescence. Second, and seemingly in tension with the first, most people do not appear to believe in idealized legal myths and express only qualified commitments to legal ideals. Most scholars have responded to this tension by downplaying evidence that people have doubts about legal ideals, often treating expressions of doubts as evidence of confusion. As a result, scholars still conclude that residual commitments to legal myths help to explain legitimation and acquiescence. Such moves produce accounts of legal myths that are insufficiently attentive to politics and power. Scholars would do better to return to Scheingold's more ambivalent perspective on the politics of rights in order to understand the political consequences of commitments to rights’ ideologies.

Party autonomy is a core tenet of the arbitral process which bestows certain contractual freedoms upon the disputing parties. This paper aims to utilise both doctrinal analysis and theoretical conceptualisation to examine the principle of party autonomy in international commercial arbitration. It examines the extent to which certain exceptions to this principle, such as public policy and natural justice, where autonomy impedes on matters of justice and delocalisation, have restricted the principle in practice.

Party autonomy is a core tenet of the arbitral process, which bestows certain contractual freedoms upon the disputing parties. However, in spite of its appeal as an unfettered right, it has been challenged by an array of exceptions that have rendered it largely unqualified in international commercial arbitration. This paper utilises both doctrinal analysis and theoretical conceptualisation to examine the principle of party autonomy in international commercial arbitration. It examines the extent to which certain exceptions to this principle, such as public policy and natural justice, where autonomy impedes on matters of justice and delocalisation, have restricted the principle in practice. Furthermore, approaches to party autonomy in two distinct legal systems, the Common law system in England and Sharia law in Saudi Arabia, are examined to ascertain the extent to which party autonomy has been hindered by these exceptions.

Arbitration continued to grow throughout the forgone centuries, with key philosophers, such as Aristotle, advocating the advantages of arbitration over litigation. In addition, the emergence of party autonomy occurred in the sixteenth century, with Dumoulin proposing that the parties’ will in contracts is sovereign. Thus, party autonomy began to develop into a significant aspect of contract law, which plays a pivotal role in arbitration. This is because the principle has its roots in the autonomous will of the parties to conduct the arbitral process as they wish. The paper explored the debate regarding party autonomy and its development into the contemporary world of arbitration. It examined its origins and how it has grown into the core fabric of arbitration today. Emphasis was provided in relation to the nature of the principle, which was highly relevant to the debate. This is because it is vital to appreciate issues such as freedom of contract to have a deeper insight into the principle and what it entails. The limitations of party autonomy were extensively examined, and the public policy exception was found to construe narrowly by a vast number of States. As a result, it was suggested that the exception should be more than merely a theoretical defence. Thus, it should be exercised where enforcement of an arbitral award would disregard unjust or improper results. Furthermore, the natural justice principle was observed as a double-edged sword that protected the parties in the arbitral process. However, it also hampered the effectiveness of party autonomy by impeding upon the parties’ freedom to contract, which ultimately limited the principle. Thus, it is concluded that the principle of party autonomy is not absolute. While it would be desirable if it was, certain issues cannot be resolved so easily. Limitations to party autonomy have existed since its inception and are most likely to continue. Although this is not the ideal situation for proponents of autonomy, it nevertheless appears to be the case. However, it is proposed that limitations to party autonomy should be chipped away as much as possible. This would enable the autonomy of the parties to be upheld at a much higher rate.

This paper utilises both doctrinal analysis and theoretical conceptualisation to examine the principle of party autonomy in international commercial arbitration. Secondary sources were also used.

The purpose of this chapter is to explore the possible relation between public policy measures, particularly relating to currency exchange rates, capital flow mechanisms and cross-border insolvency by describing the current state of insolvency regulation in Latin America and some cases that exemplify this public-private dynamic.

The first part of the chapter is based on literature review and content analysis to show the current situation of the regulation of insolvency in Latin America and the evolution of policies shaping the flow of capital and the exchange rates. The second part illustrates the proceedings in selected countries, particularly for Colombia and Venezuela.

The analysis led to the finding that some countries’ policy mechanisms such as in the case of Venezuela might lead to a problem regarding national companies involved in an insolvency proceeding, particularly when the company alleges that public policy in force have changed circumstances leading to the impossibility of paying foreign-located liabilities.

The chapter is based largely on literature review and available data, public legal documents and cases relating public policy and cross-border insolvency; however, insolvency proceedings are not of public domain; thus, there is a large amount of information related with the mentioned cases that remain undisclosed.

This chapter provides a theoretical and practical perspective to analyze cross-border insolvency from a local regulatory framework. It also demonstrates the possible link between public policy and cross-border insolvency.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the issue of mutual legal assistance (MLA) within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in combating money laundering.

This paper first examines the scenario of money laundering (ML) in Southeast Asia and the ASEAN's response. It then discusses the legal framework and practice of regional MLA in anti‐money laundering (AML). Statistic and hypothetical cases will be provided to illustrate the arguments.

Despite the strongly political commitment, ASEAN States have failed in response to ML effectively. MLA that is one of the most important forms of regional cooperation in combating ML has confronted a range of barriers. Insufficient capacity of law enforcement across the region and disparities among national criminal laws are the utmost barriers. Among the ASEAN State authorised agencies, police is a crucial one in processing MLA for AML.

This paper would be beneficial for the regional policy makers and law enforcement agencies in order to make the regional cooperation in combating ML more effective.