Search

As part of the recent proposal for a regulation that would overhaul the entire standard essential patents licensing system (SEP Proposal), the European Commission has envisaged a pre-trial mandatory FRAND determination by a conciliator. The paper investigates the relationship between the FRAND determination process under such a proposal and the test developed by the European Court of Justice (CJEU) in Huawei v. ZTE, which represents the current guiding framework for SEP licensing negotiations in the EU. The paper aims at demonstrating that even, if the SEP Proposal were not to displace Huawei, it endorses an anti-injunction approach which is inconsistent with the CJEU's stance and is essentially triggered by the German case law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abraham Lincoln's 25-year legal career dwarfed his four years as president. Many of the talents he exhibited as president--his strong sense of moral duty and a commitment to conciliation, whenever possible--were cultivated as a lawyer. Lincoln may not have known the term "ADR," but he certainly understood and captured its essence. He had a deep and intuitive understanding that lawsuits can stir up the worst in people, pit neighbor against neighbor, divide families, and splinter whole communities. He discerned the advantages of a negotiated settlement. His legal career is replete with intriguing examples of creative dispute resolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Internacional y Comparada de Relaciones Laborales y Derecho del Empleo is the property of ADAPT University Press 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.)

Liberal egalitarian jurisprudence and critical legal studies have often been at odds, despite sharing a core of set of political and analytical commitments. This paper makes the case for their conciliation in the 21st century on the basis that both traditions have much to offer one another. Liberal egalitarians offer the theoretical tools for developing an egalitarian normative approach to law, and critical legal theorists offer a vital realism about power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article introduces the state of mediation of commercial disputes in Morocco and demonstrates the potential role of Morocco in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in Africa with the adoption of the Arbitration and Conventional Mediation law. Topics discussed are ADR and legal culture of the Arab world, different forms of mediation practiced in Morocco such as conciliation by tribal and religious leaders and arbitration, and formation, legality and effects of mediation agreements.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, issued by the United States Supreme Court on June 24, 2022, overturned the groundbreaking cases of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In doing so, the Court sprinkled gasoline onto the fire of social polarization in America. In denying the constitutional status of a woman's right to bodily autonomy and--no less important--opening the door to the denial of other longstanding constitutional rights, the Court's decision emboldened conservatives, enraged liberals, and will roil American politics for years to come. However, as this Article argues, the significance of Dobbs goes well beyond constitutional or doctrinal questions: the decision undermines the status of the Court and the entire legal system as the last consensual arena for resolving complex and intractable disputes in American society. American society has been divided and polarized for decades over a host of fundamental issues, especially abortion. This social polarization has led to a decline in the legitimacy, perceived trustworthiness, and influence of the nation's social and political systems. As these systems lost their ability to serve as mechanisms for resolving disputes, the legal system became almost the only means in American culture for creating dialogue and building consensus. For decades, the Supreme Court has worked to preserve this status. When the Court is required to deal with rooted social disputes in American society, it has often chosen a strategy of conciliation--meaning that the victory of one side does not nullify the rights or delegitimize the worldview of the other. This pluralistic view adopted by the Court has elevated it above the storms of social polarization that have raged across the United States in recent decades. The Dobbs ruling, however, points to a change of strategy on the part of the Court in dealing with rooted disputes in American society. In Dobbs, the Court applied a "conflict strategy," in which a victory is granted to one party, at the cost of a declaratory violation of the values--and a practical violation of the rights--of the other. In this sense, the significance of Dobbs goes beyond the discussion of a woman's right to her body, as crucial as that is. The change in the Court's strategy for resolving in-depth disputes in American society indicates a retreat from the pluralistic view it has adopted and, no less significant, the infiltration of social polarization into the legal system as well. Continued implementation of the conflict strategy will lead to further violation of the civil rights of racial, gender, and sexual minorities (including possibly those rights previously recognized by the Court). It will also lead to rapid deterioration in the Court's status as an institution above the partisan fray and a decline in the ability of American society to obey the rule of law. Moreover, pursuant to the conflict strategy, the Court loses its objectivity, and therefore, its ability to resolve disputes conclusively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To safeguard marriage, the Law of Marriage Act of Mainland Tanzania, established marriage conciliation boards (MCBs) to reconcile disputing spouses. Divorce cases are referred to MCBs before they are filed in court. The divorce rate in Mainland Tanzania is increasing and case law indicates that some parties are by-passing MCBs without good cause. The authors were motivated to study the causes of this trend. Data were collected in Morogoro and Kilimanjaro regions through documentary review and in-depth interviews. They identified six factors limiting parties' access to MCBs: set-up of the boards; MCBs' regulatory framework; jurisdiction; costs; choice of forum; and inadequate provisions governing the process followed by MCBs. The study concluded that the government attaches minimal significance to MCBs and recommends that the government should intervene, including by reforming the law governing MCBs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article sets out in detail the proposition of investor-State mediation and examines recent developments in the field. The article also sheds light on practicalities such as the agreement to mediate, the necessity of an ongoing consent, timing issues, mediation rules, the process, criteria on how to choose the mediator and mediation counsel, etc. Moreover, the article analyzes the two main reasons for the limited uptake of ICSID conciliation. Also, it sets out current political and structural obstacles to settlement of investment disputes. Ways to overcome these obstacles in the future are being suggested. Furthermore, current discontent in ISDS is compared with what investor-State mediation is offering in this regard. Eventually, it is concluded that investor-State mediation, although no panacea to every dispute, can be a valuable addition to the ISDS toolbox. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Varia História is the property of Varia Historia 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.)

Before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may sue an employer for violating federal antidiscrimination law, it must first seek to engage the employer in conciliation. Conciliation offers employers an opportunity to resolve discrimination charges voluntarily in a setting analogous to settlement negotiations. In January 2021, EEOC promulgated a rule mandating that, as part of conciliation, employers be given certain information about the underlying charge. Congress subsequently rescinded the rule, however, citing its ostensible pro-employer/anti-worker bias. Congress’s nullification of the conciliation rule has generated considerable uncertainty not only for employers and workers but also for the Commission itself. That is because the rule was rescinded using the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which prohibits a rule from being issued “in substantially the same form” as one previously disapproved. Yet, the Act does not define “in substantially the same form” or otherwise specify what criteria should be used in assessing rules’ similarity. Nor has any court interpreted the phrase in the specific context of CRA. This article examines three possible methodologies for how the Commission might go about issuing a conciliation rule consistent with CRA— based on proposals from the academic literature, other agencies’ experience in reissuing disapproved rules, and procedures specified in CRA’s post-enactment legislative history—and demonstrates that while EEOC retains the discretion to issue a new conciliation rule, it is effectively barred from doing so absent further action by Congress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Veritas is the property of EDIPUCRS - Editora Universitaria da PUCRS 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 Revista Internacional y Comparada de Relaciones Laborales y Derecho del Empleo is the property of ADAPT University Press 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.)

The adoption of the Law of Ukraine «On Mediation» required analysis of mediation standards in various spheres of public life. Mediation in Ukraine is an alternative way to resolve dispute. However, its application is impossible without studying foreign experience in this area. In our article we have analyzed a number of foreign documents that define the standards of mediation. It is concluded that international regulations, which define the standards of mediation, are already recognized and used by a number of Member States of the European Union and require more implementation in Ukrainian legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]