Search results

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.

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 analyze the specific legislative and judicial approaches of each of the BRICS countries toward recourse to public policy exception in the context of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Further, it points out the critical areas which need immediate attention to make these countries attractive destinations for parking of investments by international parties.

The study is a conceptual paper that provides knowledge of the critical areas which needs immediate attention to make BRICS countries attractive destinations for parking of investments by international parties. The first part of the paper examines a guide map to the international business community to devise their dispute adjudication strategies before committing investments in any of BRICS economies. The second part examined the variegated notions of the concept of public policy exception and the existence of differences in judicial approaches. The next parts analyzed the specific legislative and judicial approaches of each of BRICS countries toward recourse to public policy.

The BRICS countries need to spell out the universal principles applicable to construing the notion of public policy. It would reduce conflicts between national laws and help the municipal courts in determining the issue of enforceability of foreign awards by reference to a common yardstick. Hence, until a harmonized approach to public policy toward foreign awards is developed at an international level, the BRICS countries may take initiative to set up an inter-regional arbitration council to resolve intricate cases occurring in the field of application of public policy exception to foreign arbitral awards.

The paper is an original work of the author.

Every employer, unless he or she has no pool of applicants or potential applicants to choose from, engages in hiring choices. While the hiring process may vary, both from one employer to another and from one job to another, some form of screening occurs. In recent years, students of management have noted the proliferation of screening practices in the hiring process, especially in bringing new technologies such as medical and drug testing procedures. Testing and other screening practices, while wide‐ranging both with respect to their ends and means, have raised consistent patterns of concern among job‐seekers, public policy makers and managers themselves. In this monograph a variety of methods of screening and issues of public policy raised by screening procedures are discussed. An overview of United States law regulating the screening process is provided, together with future directions in the area of screening in the US.

Discusses public policy exceptions for the majority (43 out of 50) of states in the USA, as against at‐will employment. Lists the 11 states that recognise good faith and fair dealing. Comments on public policy exception, implied contract exception, and good faith and fair dealing exception, with explanations of these. Gives some recommendations for employers such as a well‐written employee manual and the use of preventative measures. Sums up that firms should review how they extend job offers to future employees and how they communicate promotion offers to existing employees.

Why is social action politically so difficult to manage, especially in the field of health and above all when it concerns health care for immigrant populations? This article examines this question by analysing public policies concerning the situation of migrants living with HIV/Aids in France.

Employers in the USA often use employment‐at‐will statements in the employment application process to minimize their vulnerability in post‐discharge litigation. Reports survey results of job seekers′ attitudes towards such statements. The findings suggest that applicants would prefer to join organizations that do not include employment‐at‐will statements in the application process and that job‐seekers′ perceptions of the greater risk involved, greater expectations of employees, and a lack of company concern regarding its employees would significantly influence their views of an employment‐at‐will organization.

Marriage is often compared to a “contract.” This analogy purports to proceed from a settled concept called “contract,” under which legitimate obligations derive from consent. The analogy creates confusion when applied in the legal context. In law, “contract” refers to a broad category of legal obligation. Many legal theorists believe “contractual” enforceability should be based solely on consent. But as a matter of positive legal doctrine, consent is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish enforceability. A contract's enforceability also depends on its relationship to public welfare.

Thus the “contract” analogy does not constitute a legal justification for an approach to marriage based solely on the consent of the parties. It merely expresses a normative preference for a consent-based approach. The chapter illustrates this point using examples of current marriage-related issues, such as covenant marriage, prenuptial agreements, and same-sex marriage.

This article aims to deal with international investment disputes, with a focus on the nature of the law applicable to the merits of such disputes.

The procedure for determining the law applicable in investment disputes, the phases of determination and the impact thereof on the applicable law were analyzed. The diagonality of the disputes and its impact on the law applicable to the merits from the perspective of the interaction between national and international law were also analyzed. Further, the authors focused on the nature of the host state's breach of obligations towards the investor anchored in the investment treaty, and the effect thereof on the law applicable to the merits. In this respect, the notion of the investment itself was analyzed according to the relevant BITs and MITs. Finally, the authors analyzed the applicability of the Ordre Public concept to investment disputes.

The study provided practical demonstrations and examples of choice of law and application issues as resolved by the tribunals established under the ICSID.

The article deals mainly with the ICSID proceedings. Another should be also analyzed.

The paper provides a new insight into issues of the law applicable to investment disputes by analyzing this problematic in relation to all stages of investment arbitration proceedings. Particularly it took an innovative approach in shedding light on and analyzing the applicability of the Ordre Public concept in relation to investment protection, especially in relation to Article 52 of the ICSID Convention, and the recognition and enforcement proceedings of arbitral awards issued in the course of investment arbitration.

The market’s reactions to six decisions that dealt with the employment‐at‐will doctrine were examined with event study methodology. Three hypotheses were tested, all three of which were supported clearly by the data. Shareholder returns to a sample of California firms fell in response to the three California decisions that provided at‐will employees with causes of action to challenge their discharges; returns to those same firms rose in response to the Foley decision, which cut back on the employment‐at‐will erosions in California; and, returns to a sample of firms in New York rose in response to the two decisions from New York that affirmed the supremacy of the employment‐at‐will doctrine in New York. These results support the view that employment‐at‐will is beneficial for employers and that erosions to that doctrine are costly to employers.