When examining the evidence in favour of resolving disputes through arbitration - in which parties take their conflict to an impartial third party, who provides them with a resolution (Schellenberg 1996, p 196) - rather than adjudication - resolution of a dispute through the court system - both the identity of the involved parties and the scale of the dispute must be taken into account…
These three sets of circumstances demand specific considerations and pose their own set of problems. I would like to begin, however, by briefly outlining some important qualifications for a study of these two methods of conflict resolution.
One of the most problematic issues that arise when considering the efficacy of arbitration, as compared to adjudication, is the comparative lack of detailed information regarding the involved parties. In fact, as Walter Matti remarks, "the study of the practice of international commercial arbitration is like peering into the dark" (2001, p 919). Such cases by nature tend to be far less publicised than those settled through litigation, and indeed, many of the parties - be they individuals or companies - who seek private arbitration do so precisely because they wish to avoid the risk of having private information made public. The information used to argue either for or against the inherent superiority of arbitration cannot, therefore, be considered exhaustive.
At the same time, however, Matti points out that the popularity of arbitration, particularly as a means of resolving international disputes, has increased exponentially over the past thirty years (2001, p 920). Since it may be assumed that the number of cases settled through arbitration would not have increased were arbitration not an effective method of resolution, it can be reasonably concluded that an increasing number of parties find arbitration to be more appealing than adjudication as a means of resolving disputes. In addition, arbitration possesses an inherent degree of flexibility that is not present when going through the legal system: "Unlike judges in public courts, who must follow fixed rules of procedure and apply the laws of the land, arbitrators can dispense with legal formalities and may apply whatever procedural rules and substantive law best fit a case" (Matti 2001, p 920). On the other, this flexibility carries with it considerable risks. Since arbitrators are not bound by legal formalities, they may of course exploit this flexibility, to the unfair advantage a party that cannot appeal to a court for clarification or support (Bonn 1972, p 257). Although this risk is always present, there are nevertheless significant benefits to pursing arbitration.
In the case of arbitration as a means of conflict resolution between private individuals, the arguments in favour of arbitration appear to be quite strong. The emotional and financial demands on both the plaintiff and the defendant are considerably reduced, the overall resolution process is conducted in a less stressful environment, and decisions are often rendered more quickly. Arbitration is routinely used as a means of settling disputes between landlords and tenants, divorcing spouses, and accident victims suing for damages (Bonn 1972, p 256). In additional the arbitration process holds additional appeal because, although it is an alternative to the court system, is not entirely cut off from the it - rather, the two systems are complementary since "the provisions of an arbitrator's award can be enforced judicially under common or statutory law" (Bonn 1972, p 256). In addition, Plaintiffs therefore have the additional security of knowing ...
Cite this document
(“Arbitration and Adjudication Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/law/275014-arbitration-and-adjudication
(Arbitration and Adjudication Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words)
“Arbitration and Adjudication Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/law/275014-arbitration-and-adjudication.
Dispute Resolution and “The Merchant of Venice”.
Shakespearean literature has been long commended by scholars for its incorporation of legal discourse into its plot structures that further paves way for interdisciplinary study of law. Practically all of Shakespearean texts are known to have tangential relation and relevance to legal practice; however, the substance of this prose will focus on the plot structure of “The Merchant of Venice” and assess the dispute resolution tactics that could have been effective in dealing with the conflict.
While engaging in business within a country is based on the laws of the country in which the business is conducted, when borders are to be crossed the nation under which the law is enforced becomes a more difficult prospect. The New York Convention of 1959, made under the authority of the United Nations, put into place structures through which contracts and consequential disputes could be addressed and through which an agreement to honour arbitration was put into place.
Accordingly, an agreement is considered an arbitration agreement when it constitute an arbitration clause or has provided arbitration as the ultimate method of dispute resolution1. Arbitration does not arise automatically as a possible method for resolving the dispute unlike seeking courts assistance.
Conflicts are very common between individuals, groups, regions and nations. When it comes to world level, especially between nations, conflicts can be resolved by use of threat through compellence and deterrence, conquest, forcible submission etc and through diplomacy, negotiated compromise, third-party mediation or arbitration and adjudication etc.
What are "Good" Industrial Relations?
Industrial relations take place in a given industry between employees and employers, including relations between trade unions themselves, unions and the state, and between employers and the government. They can also be defined as a part of management concerned with the manpower of the enterprise, whether it is machine power, skilled power, or managers.
Arbitration is more like a court-based adjudication considering its adversarial nature2. What this means is that the parties involved in the dispute make presentations to prove that they are right and the other party is wrong. In the United Kingdom, arbitration is governed by the Arbitration Act of 1996.
The second principle states that the construction Act of 1996 will only be applicable to the only contract that is related to construction. The main standards applied here is that the contract work should be associated with structures, installation, and buildings which are part of the land through the Act does not cover fittings and moveable structures.
Recent surveys found that organizations across all divisions refer as many business disputes to international arbitration as they do to litigation or court processes (Price water house Coopers and Queen Mary and University of London 2008, p.8). International arbitration in international businesses is always based on the agreement amongst parties that whenever a dispute arises on any matter in the business contract, the parties must submit the dispute to a tribunal appointed to arbitrate on the matter rather than resort to litigation.