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.

A somewhat underappreciated aspect of the burgeoning rush to regional trade agreements (RTAs) is a discrepancy between the dispute settlement procedure (DSP) embodied in the original World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) and that found in the language of many RTAs. This chapter explores the issue in the context of a dynamic repeated game of trade agreements. As is well known, the institutional alternatives available in negotiating multilateral freer trade agreements – regional agreements, side agreements, trade dispute settlement punishments, and so on – can proscribe the limits and shape the nature of self-enforcing trade agreements. Here, we suggest the extent to which deviations from the WTO DSP embodied in RTAs – for example, “private interest access,” “third party procedures,” and “choice of forum” – can not only work against the interests of “weaker parties” but furthermore undermine multilateral agreements closer to free trade.

Presents an updated version of a paper given by the author at an international conference in Athens 2000. Briefly outlines the development of the internet and e‐commerce and the effect of globalization. Considers the potential for the EU to standardize rules and advance its economic integration agenda. Looks at present EU laws in this area. Covers the unicitral model law on electronic commerce, its merits and its problems. Discusses personal jurisdiction under traditional rules and cyberspace transactions. Concludes that existing legislation must be re‐evaluated in the light of technological advances, the need for a more mobile kind of legal person and the worldwide nature of transactions across territorial boundaries, paperless contracts and digital signatures and the use of self‐regulation are also covered.

The phenomena of arbitral forum shopping to resolve a commercial investment dispute is still under development and more complicated in many states. However, for Pakistan, it seems in an evolutionary phase, where the country is struggling hard to adopt the best practice of dispute resolution through forum shopping clauses. This struggle is even more inflated with huge Chinese investment through China Pakistan economic corridor (CPEC) projects in Pakistan, which come alongside with commercial investment disputes. For this purpose, the current treaty or contract-based system between China and Pakistan and litigation based domestic civil court structure look obsolete, hence, appear to require reinstatement of forum shopping clauses under concerned treaties or contracts for CPEC investment-related issues.

The authors choose a legal research method. The research design is a comparative analysis between CPEC contracts and dispute resolution mechanism between China and Pakistan and also the domestic civil court’s litigation system. This analysis selected by the authors due to inefficient bilateral investment arrangements and efficient resolution of future commercial disputes in CPEC. While the international arbitration system is included in the assessment were particular in the time and space context. The comparison comprises on dispute resolution clauses in free trade agreement (FTA) and bilateral investment treaties (BIT) between China and Pakistan and the system of resolving disputes by CPEC clauses.

The authors finds that in the absence of CPEC forum shopping clause under dispute resolution system, Pakistan is highly at risk to lose foreign investors, and therefore, set back the goal of long term economic sustainability in the region. However, China has already made its investment policies safer with establishing three international commercial courts (also referred to as Belt and Road courts), one in Xi’an for the land-based Silk Road Economic Belt, one in Shenzhen for the Maritime Silk Road and one in Beijing that will serve as the headquarters. These courts will be offering litigation, arbitration and mediation services. According to one view, China aims to have all belt and road initiative (BRI) disputes resolved by these courts. This makes Pakistan position more awkward and needs proactive measures, as CPEC investment is based on Pakistan foreign direct investment policies and legal structure. Therefore, it will be complicated and less favourable for Pakistan to deal with such cases under Chinese Courts.

The paper’s primary contribution is finding that comprehensive analysis of alternative dispute resolution mechanism between China and Pakistan over CPEC investment is inevitable. A socio-legal research combine with an examination of Singapore International Commercial Court functions and mechanism and CPEC plans further contributes to ascertain the best model of the settlement of commercial disputes under investments in Pakistan. This research paper anticipates future economic and legal problems, which Pakistan may encounter.

Looks at the practice of stipulating in international contracts which country’s law should govern any disputes that arise, using a governing‐law clause. Considers the regulations relating to contractual matters of conflict of laws laid down by the 1980 Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, which exclude bills of lading unless they are regarded as non‐negotiable instruments. Outlines the treatment of conflict of laws relating to bills of lading under Greek, US and English law, citing legal cases as examples, and reveals that in all three legal systems the choice of the applicable law, set out in the contract itself, is included in the bill of lading. Uncovers contradictions in the Greek and English approaches to the contractual role of bills of lading, and suggests that a uniform approach must be adopted, following the lead of US legislation, which clearly specifies that the bill of lading is the contract of carriage in which the choice of law is explicitly stated.

This research aims to explore the possibility of raising and adjudicating Shari'ah issues in Islamic financial contracts before the secular courts with specific reference to the UK and Malaysia.

This is a legal research, and therefore, the paper uses the qualitative research methodology whereby a content analysis, in-depth case study, and library-based research were mainly used.

Shari'ah issues raised before the UK courts, and arguably, before the secular courts in other Western jurisdictions, would not be adjudicated and enforced. English courts, in particular, would decide Islamic financial contracts according to the English law, disregarding Shari'ah issues. Conversely, Shari'ah issues raised before Malaysian civil courts would be duly adjudicated and enforced. The civil court is bound, by the new Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009, to refer those issues to the Shari'ah Advisory Council of the Central Bank of Malaysia for them to be ascertained. The subsequent ruling of the SAC is binding on the courts.

The Malaysian model for the adjudication of Shari'ah issues in Islamic financial contracts is very effective. Therefore, the research proposes to the parties in international Islamic financial contracts to choose Malaysian law as the law of reference and Malaysian courts as the forum for settlement of disputes. The Malaysian model, being already tested, can also be successfully exported to other countries wishing to introduce or develop Islamic finance.

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.

To explain the background, controversy and possible future developments related to the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) increased use of administrative proceedings (APs), rather than court actions, in bringing enforcement matters.

Discusses the SEC’s historic forum selection process, the home court advantage APs may give to the SEC, changes the SEC has proposed to the Rules of Practice governing APs, arguments challenging the constitutionality of APs, a jurisdictional hurdle faced by respondents challenging APs before federal courts, and possible future developments.

Critics consider the SEC’s expanded use of APs to be procedurally biased, unconstitutional, and unfairly advantageous to the SEC. In response, the SEC has offered guidance explaining its forum selection process, proposed procedural changes, and its belief that its systems are fair.

Practical guidance from experienced financial services and securities litigation lawyers.

The voluntarily childless woman is constructed in Western cultural consciousness as an aberration. Against her will, she is perceived as defective, deviant, unnatural and incomplete. However, online community spaces are providing opportunities for childfree women to connect with one another, take hold of the narrative of their lives and in doing so write into being a new way of doing womanhood that intentionally claims deviance as its defining characteristic. In this chapter, I explore the ways in which women participants in online childfree communities write their identities against hegemonic markers of ‘good’ womanhood, recasting the heroes and villains of Western culture's persistent myth of mandatory motherhood.

Considerable controversy has arisen in recent years over the management of customer‐broker conflict in the securities industry. Attention has been focused on the supposed voluntariness and neutrality of the conflict management processes. Arbitration, which is the standard form of conflict management in the securities industry, has received particularly strong criticism. This article explains the basis for customer‐broker conflicts, the controversy surrounding the use of arbitration as a means of conflict management, and the case law regulating securities disputes.