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.

This paper aims to determine the adaptability of China’s legal system in recognizing and enforcing foreign judgements in China.

Academic articles, case law and books are examined as are relevant reports by various regulatory authorities and organizations.

Historically, Chinese courts have strictly adhered to “de facto reciprocity”, which made it difficult for foreign judgements to be recognized and enforced in China. Fortunately, Chinese courts have since abandoned their rigid adherence to de facto reciprocity, and have instead, used flexible tests of reciprocity such as de jure reciprocity, reciprocal commitment and reciprocal understand/consensus. Accordingly, this would facilitate the recovery of stolen assets, as there is a lower threshold for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgement.

There are limited data available in relation to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements pertaining to the recovery of stolen assets. Any discussions within this paper are based on the impressionistic observations of this author, which may not reflect the true state of affairs within the Belt and Road Initiative.

Those who are interested in examining the viability in recognizing and enforcing foreign judgements relating to stolen assets will have an interest in this topic.

The value of the paper is to demonstrate the difficulties in recognizing and enforcing foreign judgements in China in relation to stolen assets.

This paper aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the reforming Chinese arbitration judicial review process and supplement the corresponding suggestions and analyze the practical trends of Chinese arbitration.

This paper presents considerable evidence that includes the latest empirical data and iconic cases to demonstrate the Chinese judicial system’s acts of internationalizing Chinese arbitration. This paper then elaborates the Chinese Supreme People’s Court (hereinafter SPC) recent reforms of the mechanisms of arbitration judicial review.

The SPC’s efforts to coordinate Chinese arbitration practice with international standards are effective and fruitful. However, even after recent reforms, there are still inherent deficiencies and important omissions that hinder the efficiency of Chinese arbitration.

The major contributions of this paper are providing latest empirical data to evaluate effectiveness of current Chinese arbitration judicial review and analyzing latest SPC’s legal interpretations.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on some of the issues and problem of implementation of foreign arbitral awards in Bangladesh.

Based upon theoretical sources and empirical data, the legal provision concerning the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards was studied and the case‐law invoking the Arbitration Act 2001 discussed.

The finding of this research is to present the new framework of arbitration law in Bangladesh which came into force 10 April 2001 and discuss the legislative provision in the face of increasing foreign investment in Bangladesh in various sector.

The principal objectives were to study the general context of the arbitration mechanism in international commercial disputes.

The rationale for arbitration in international commercial disputes and the imperatives for resorting to arbitration as a tool for alternative dispute resolution are discussed.

This paper is an attempt to analyze how a foreign arbitral award is enforceable in Bangladesh and to what extent the recent legal development is effective in resolving international commercial disputes.

To identify and assess the current state of professionalism and operations in the field of bail recovery, or bounty hunting.

A multi‐method approach, which integrated information from interviews with bond agents with information taken from a survey of workers in the bond field.

Survey respondents averaged 51 years of age, and were mostly Caucasian males. Most were religious and conservative, and over 25 percent reported having obtained a four‐year college degree. Roughly one‐third of all survey respondents reported experience in law enforcement; nearly half indicated having specialized skills in weaponry. Money was the most cited reason for becoming a bail enforcement agent, and most respondents believed that bail enforcement agents are an under‐appreciated component of the criminal justice system.

These findings were taken from a small number of survey respondents. Consequently, these data are not assumed to be representative of the population surveyed. Additionally, the interviews with key individuals in the field are also not assumed to be representative.

This research has shown that bond agents are not yet professionalized, but a substantial number of them desire greater professionalism in their field, and believe that more professional behavior is necessary to receive greater respect from their fellow criminal justice practitioners.

Very little is known about the operations and attitudes of bond agents. This research has added some critical information to this knowledge base, and has helped to raise other questions which may stimulate further research in this under‐examined field.

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.

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.

This paper aims to present a comparative analysis of noncompliance with planning laws in advanced-economy countries. Most research to date has focused on the widespread phenomenon of “informal” construction in developing countries. However, advanced-economy countries also encounter illegal development, though at different scales and attributes. Because planning law is at the foundation of land-use and urban policies, it is time that the “orphan” issue of noncompliance be adopted by more researchers to enable cross-national learning. The two OECD countries selected for in-depth analysis – Portugal and Israel – probably fall mid-way in the extent of noncompliance compared with the range among advanced-economy countries. Like most OECD countries, the selected countries have generally viable planning-law systems. Their experiences can thus offer lessons for many more countries. Recognizing the limitations of enforcement mechanisms as prevention, the paper focuses on how each of these countries responds to illegal development.

The method relies on two main sources: analysis of official documents – laws, policies and court decisions in both countries – and field interviews about practice. In both Portugal and Israel, the authors held face-to-face open interviews with lawyers and other professional staff at various government levels. The interviews focused on four issues: the effectiveness of the existing enforcement instruments, the urban consequences of illegal development, the law and policy regarding legalization and the existence of additional deterrent measures.

In both countries, there is a significant phenomenon of illegal development though it is somewhat less in Israel than in Portugal. In both countries, efforts to reduce the phenomenon have been partially effective even though in both, extensive demolition is not exercised. Neither country has adopted a general amnesty policy for existing noncompliance, so both resort to reliance on ex-post revision of statutory plans of granting of variances as a way of legalization. The shared tension between local authorities and national bodies indicates that not enough thought has gone into designing the compliance and enforcement systems. In Israel, a recent legislative amendment enables planning authorities, for the first time, to set their own priorities for enforcement and to distinguish between minor and major infringements. This approach is preferable to the Portuguese law, where there is still no distinction between minor and major infringements. By contrast, Portuguese law and policy are more effective in adopting financial or real-estate based deterrence measures which restrict sale or mortgaging of illegal properties.

There is very little research on noncompliance with planning controls in advanced-economy countries. There is even less research on the legal and institutional responses to this phenomenon. This paper pioneers in creating a framework for looking at alternative types of government responses to illegal construction. The paper is, to the authors’ best knowledge, the first to present a systematic cross-national comparative analysis and critique of such responses. The authors thus hope to expand the view of the possible legal and policy response strategies available to planning authorities in other advanced-economy countries. The comparative perspective will hopefully encourage, expansion of the research to more countries and contribute to the exchange of experiences between jurisdictions.

The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the strengths and weaknesses of a new European Union (EU) initiative attempting an interesting paradigm shift in the field of cross-border asset freezing and confiscation. The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and lessons learned from the manifest failure of past EU initiatives (Framework Decisions 2003/577/JHA and 2006/783/JHA) have allowed for such a paradigm shift for the strengthening of mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders in the EU.

This paper draws on reports, legal scholarship and other open source data to examine a legislative innovation for the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders in the EU.

The EU legislative initiative that will be examined is innovative in nature and goes beyond international norms on cross-border asset freezing and confiscation. The new initiative needs to be integrated into the broader EU framework that targets criminal proceeds, and at the same time, to be anchored to respect for human rights.

This study examines the strengths and weaknesses of an important new EU initiative, its compatibility with human rights standards and its relationship to international standards of cross-border asset freezing and confiscation.