Search

Copyright of Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences (2522-3380) is the property of Arab Journal of Sciences & Research Publishing (AJSRP) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Kufa Legal & Political Science is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of ABHATH is the property of ABHATH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Basic Education College Magazine For Educational & Humanities Sciences is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

There is a shortage in the International Relations (IR) literature on the Egyptian-Israeli dispute over the Taba Strip in the 1980s. There is also a shortage the IR literature on the in-tandem use of various third-party conflict resolution methods simultaneously. The Taba case was a remarkable border dispute, because it was solved through a mix of international arbitration and American mediation (a mix which will be called “med-arb-med” in this paper). Using a variant of the Strategic Selection Theory, the theoretical tradition set by Wiegand and Beuck, this paper argues that Egypt has used this mix of international arbitration and American mediation for three strategic reasons: First, to counterbalance Israel’s policy of imposing facts on the ground through military presence and illegal construction of buildings. Second, because of the benefits of using arbitration in increasing the probability of regaining Taba from Israel, given Egypt’s strong legal case. Third, due to the benefits of accepting American mediation, in terms of Washington’s so-called “reward power” and its power to guarantee fair arbitrational procedures and the implementation of the tribunal’s final ruling.

Copyright of Malaysia Journal Syariah & Law is the property of Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Arbitration is an alternative effort to resolve disputes outside the court whose decisions are final and have permanent legal force that binds the parties (final and binding). However, the Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Law, namely Law Number 30 of 1999, also regulates efforts to annul the arbitration award which has legal consequences for the disputing parties. This paper is a descriptive normative legal research. The types of data used are secondary data in the form of primary legal materials and secondary legal materials. This paper discusses the legal consequences of annulment of arbitral awards which are related to the principle of Final and Binding of Arbitral Awards. This paper is descriptive in that it describes the general description of the annulment of the Arbitration Award, then describes the Final and Binding Principles in the Arbitration Award. As well as matters relating to the annulment of the arbitral award and its legal consequences. In this paper, the author concludes that the legal consequences of the annulment of the arbitration award by the District Court are that the arbitral award is considered to have never existed. In addition, with the cancellation of the arbitral award in Law Number 30 of 1999, it gives a vague meaning to the principle of final and binding which in reality the losing parties or feel that their interests are not accommodated in the arbitral award makes the decision not final and binding due to an attempt to cancel the arbitral award

Arbitration is a form of alternate dispute resolution (ADR) in which the matters are settled outside the court. In Family matters, arbitration plays a vital role in overcoming the differences between spouses. In the Family Laws of Pakistan, a body is designed for the arbitration of disputing couples which is termed as arbitration council. Although it is stated in section 7 (4) of Muslim Family Law Ordinance and section 10 of Family Court Act that the chairman of the council will constitute an arbitration council and an attempt for the reconciliation will be conducted but the criteria for the representatives of the council and implementation of their decisions are not determined. In this work, doctrinal and non-doctrinal mood of research is conducted to evaluate the satisfaction of female litigants dealing with the process of arbitration council. The paper is divided into four parts. The first part discusses the authority and process of arbitration council in Islamic law. The second part describes the process of arbitration council in Pakistani law. The third part elaborates the empirical data collected from the female litigants in the Pakistani courts. The forth part of the paper provides the results of arbitration process from the courts ant its adequacy, The paper suggests that in Pakistan the process of arbitration in divorce cases is not satisfactory. Therefore, in divorce cases, suited criteria for appointment of arbitrators and arbitration process should be determined. Keywords: Arbitration Council, Arbitrators,, Muslim Family Law, Pakistani Law, Reconciliation.

Intellectual property (IP) is the branch of law that protects innovations and creations, such as new technological inventions, literary, artistic and musical creations, distinctive signs, computer programs, trade secrets, microchips and geographical designations. These creations and inventions may be protected by patents, trademarks, trade secrets and copyright, or other types of IP. These intellectual property rights (IPRs) can nevertheless give rise to many types of disputes. A number of these disputes relate to validity and ownership, whereas others concern licensing to use the protected types of IP. In a number of cases, these disputes relate to illicit copying or counterfeiting or agreements concerning the transfer of IP. This paper will examine two main issues. First, it explores the possibility of using different types of ADR, namely arbitration and mediation, to settle disputes concerning IPRs. In other words, can all disputes relating to patents and trademarks in particular be settled by arbitration or mediation? Second, if it is possible to use these mechanisms to resolve IP disputes, this paper will highlight the advantages for the parties of choosing arbitration or mediation over litigation, when confronted with such conflicts. In exploring the two issues, this paper will draw attention to a number of IP cases that have successfully been decided by arbitration.

Intellectual property (IP) is the branch of law that protects innovations and creations, such as new technological inventions, literary, artistic and musical creations, distinctive signs, computer programs, trade secrets, microchips and geographical designations. These creations and inventions may be protected by patents, trademarks, trade secrets and copyright, or other types of IP. These intellectual property rights (IPRs) can nevertheless give rise to many types of disputes. A number of these disputes relate to validity and ownership, whereas others concern licensing to use the protected types of IP. In a number of cases, these disputes relate to illicit copying or counterfeiting or agreements concerning the transfer of IP. This paper will examine two main issues. First, it explores the possibility of using different types of ADR, namely arbitration and mediation, to settle disputes concerning IPRs. In other words, can all disputes relating to patents and trademarks in particular be settled by arbitration or mediation? Second, if it is possible to use these mechanisms to resolve IP disputes, this paper will highlight the advantages for the parties of choosing arbitration or mediation over litigation, when confronted with such conflicts. In exploring the two issues, this paper will draw attention to a number of IP cases that have successfully been decided by arbitration.

The rapid progress in technology has opened up new opportunities in various fields, including dispute resolution. This study focuses on the emergence and importance of virtual hearings in arbitration, highlighting their potential to bring about significant changes in the digital era. Virtual hearings, also known as remote or online hearings, involve conducting arbitration proceedings through electronic means, using videoconferencing platforms and other digital tools. The use of virtual hearings in the arbitration process has revealed significant benefits, such as overcoming geographical limitations by allowing parties and arbitrators to participate from different locations without the need for travel. As a result, time and costs have been saved, in addition to an improvement in the procedural efficiency. However, some concerns related to virtual hearings have been raised such as technological infrastructure, cybersecurity, confidentiality, and their potential impact on the dynamics of the hearing process. Virtual hearings can ensure fair and accessible resolution of disputes in the digital age as we continue to adapt and integrate technology into the arbitration process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Al-Balqa Journal for Research & Studies is the property of Al-Ahliyya Amman University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Jordanian Journal of Law & Political Science is the property of Mutah University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In 2011, a series of decisions were rendered by the High Administrative Court at the Egyptian State Council in which the court considered void the privatization of a few public companies which had been transferred to foreign investors due to the invalidity of the procedures of tendering and bidding and the corrupt practices accompanying these transactions. The court also considered null the arbitration clauses inserted in these contracts. During this period, the climate of the Egyptian revolution of 25 January 2011 pushed public opinion to welcome these decisions as a sign of popular victory against the old corrupt regime. Yet, this trend made the foreign investors anxious about the legal security and the stability of their investments. Accordingly, the subsequent Egyptian government introduced a variety of legislative measures to assure the investors and to boost economic growth. These measures included the possibility of conciliation in financial crimes or crimes affecting the public fund and also forbidding third parties from challenging any public investment contract before the national courts. In 2015, new amendments were introduced to the investment law establishing a new ministerial committee to settle investment disputes. From all the above, it is clear that the legislative and executive authorities were keen to secure smooth procedures to settle investment disputes outside the umbrella of arbitration. In this paper, we try to evaluate the different measures introduced in the Egyptian law and analyze its relation with arbitration whether as a complementary or competing process.

Owing to the precipitous slump in world commodity prices, particularly fossil fuel, investors and other stakeholders have been trying to re-arrange, re-organize and re-position their investments and interests. The question that arises is: who bears the costs or burden of losses in the investments and the re-positioning? This allocation or rebalancing of costs and losses is predicted to generate disputes which would result in arbitration. Proposed mergers that may fall through, blocks and wells that may be abandoned, joint-venture partners that may not meet their obligations, insurance cover that may not be honored, etc., are likely to be sources of disputes. These will be in addition to “normal” resource disputes that revolve around resource nationalism, rights transfers, financing, development, operating, regulatory, corruption, environmental and social disputes, which occur in the natural resource business. This paper will explore the existing as well as the emerging or expected disputes in resource investment. It will argue that arbitration remains one of the most effective ways of resolving these disputes. However, there will be challenges. These challenges will challenge the very legitimacy of arbitration as the most appropriate forum or means of resolving the disputes. This is because issues of bankruptcy, intellectual property or data ownership, public regulatory violations and negligence do not lend themselves easily to arbitration. Furthermore, some of the defenses such as force majeure, impossibility of performance, necessity and sovereign immunity to be raised in such disputes may prove problematic for arbitration.

In 2011, a series of decisions were rendered by the High Administrative Court at the Egyptian State Council in which the court considered void the privatization of a few public companies which had been transferred to foreign investors due to the invalidity of the procedures of tendering and bidding and the corrupt practices accompanying these transactions. The court also considered null the arbitration clauses inserted in these contracts. During this period, the climate of the Egyptian revolution of 25 January 2011 pushed public opinion to welcome these decisions as a sign of popular victory against the old corrupt regime. Yet, this trend made the foreign investors anxious about the legal security and the stability of their investments. Accordingly, the subsequent Egyptian government introduced a variety of legislative measures to assure the investors and to boost economic growth. These measures included the possibility of conciliation in financial crimes or crimes affecting the public fund and also forbidding third parties from challenging any public investment contract before the national courts. In 2015, new amendments were introduced to the investment law establishing a new ministerial committee to settle investment disputes. From all the above, it is clear that the legislative and executive authorities were keen to secure smooth procedures to settle investment disputes outside the umbrella of arbitration. In this paper, we try to evaluate the different measures introduced in the Egyptian law and analyze its relation with arbitration whether as a complementary or competing process.

Owing to the precipitous slump in world commodity prices, particularly fossil fuel, investors and other stakeholders have been trying to re-arrange, re-organize and re-position their investments and interests. The question that arises is: who bears the costs or burden of losses in the investments and the re-positioning? This allocation or rebalancing of costs and losses is predicted to generate disputes which would result in arbitration. Proposed mergers that may fall through, blocks and wells that may be abandoned, joint-venture partners that may not meet their obligations, insurance cover that may not be honored, etc., are likely to be sources of disputes. These will be in addition to “normal” resource disputes that revolve around resource nationalism, rights transfers, financing, development, operating, regulatory, corruption, environmental and social disputes, which occur in the natural resource business. This paper will explore the existing as well as the emerging or expected disputes in resource investment. It will argue that arbitration remains one of the most effective ways of resolving these disputes. However, there will be challenges. These challenges will challenge the very legitimacy of arbitration as the most appropriate forum or means of resolving the disputes. This is because issues of bankruptcy, intellectual property or data ownership, public regulatory violations and negligence do not lend themselves easily to arbitration. Furthermore, some of the defenses such as force majeure, impossibility of performance, necessity and sovereign immunity to be raised in such disputes may prove problematic for arbitration.