Search

Campus grievance procedures, now mandated for most institutions by the Title IX regulations, ordinarily include informal measures to resolve a grievance, provision for a formal written complaint for the grievant, a grievance committee with a number of roles, a hearing committee for cases involving major policy issues and major sanctions, and a set of policies for the operation and guidance of the grievance system. Grievance procedures have two related functions; to determine whether an injury alleged by the grievant was the result of an error in an institution's policies and procedures or their administration, and if error is established, to determine an equitable redress for the grievant. In the light of the Title IX regulations specifically and of changing social and legal standards more generally, colleges and universities should reexamine their grievance mechanisms with particular attention to the following questions: (1) Is the structure of traditional grievance procedures adequate to today's requirements? (2) Who should participate if the procedures are to operate equitably and promptly? (3) Can informal grievance procedures be strengthened? (Author)

Erik Franckx and Marco Benatar consider the peculiar backlash in the form of states rejecting the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals (ICs). They discuss how the People’s Republic of China (PRC) rejected jurisdiction in the Philippines v PRC arbitration. The authors draw comparisons with how the Russian Federation rejected the jurisdiction of an arbitration panel in the Arctic Sunrise case. But both states participated in the peculiar form of forwarding ‘position papers’. This allows states new modes of influencing the bench without formally participating in the proceedings, argues Franckx and Benatar. This may tempt other states to apply a similar approach. For example, Croatia has presented its views to an arbitration panel in a dispute with Slovenia, despite its non-participation after irregularities by one of the arbitrators. The PRC and the Russian Federation have also issued a joint declaration encouraging non-participation in international legal proceedings.

These Discussion Papers are published to coincide with the commencement of UNCITRAL Working Group III's Phase III examination of potential reforms to the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system. In Phase I, the states identified numerous areas of concern in the ISDS system. In Phase II a consensus was reached that reforms to the ISDS system are desirable. WG III's mandate in Phase III is to develop relevant solutions to the areas of concern identified in Phase I. The issues identified fall under three main themes: efficiency, decisions, and decision makers. Efficiency encompasses concerns surrounding the cost and duration of disputes in ISDS. Decisions refers to the consistency, accuracy, predictability, and validity of the awards rendered in ISDS. Decision makers refers to the arbitrators themselves; who they are and how they are appointed. The purpose of these discussion papers is to present a basic overview of the issues under discussion in each thematic area and to show the varying and often opposing views that delegates must consider. These papers are designed to inform rather than persuade and to provide a starting point for meaningful conversations on ISDS reform among CIArb stakeholders.

Outlines key areas of the Government White Paper Fairness at Work. Identifies the training implications in the proposed changes in collective law and in the improvements in the individual rights of employees. Concludes that the most important training needs are likely to arise in the extension of unfair dismissal protection and the right for employees to have trade union representation in disciplinary and grievance hearings. Also examines the training needs arising out of the arbitration option in unfair dismissal proceedings and those arising out of the establishment of a National Minimum Wage and other legislative developments, including the Working Time Regulations. Examines also the issue of collective bargaining about training. This is an issue that the Government is considering, as opposed to proposing.

This scoping paper examines the balance between investor protection and the right to regulate in investment treaties and investment treaty policy. It notes the growing trend to analyse the impact of particular treaty rules rather than treaties as a whole. It also points to the importance of comparative analysis of balancing under other regimes. It then outlines issues in four areas: (i) the types of regulation potentially at issue in investment treaty claims by covered investors; (ii) the types and levels of investor protection; (iii) the degree of impact of treaties on regulation; and (iv) the processes and institutions that may be involved in balancing interests in investor protection and the right to regulate. While the paper recognises that dispute resolution institutions have a significant impact on the balance and the right to regulate, it focuses primarily on substantive issues in light of other ongoing work on dispute settlement.

In November 1920, James Young Simpson, Professor of Natural Science in New College, Edinburgh and Trinity College, Glasgow, was invited by the governments of Latvia and Lithuania to chair a commission which would settle the disputed border between the two newly‐independent states. Upon his return to Edinburgh in May 1921, Simpson deposited the papers and final report on the commission's decision with the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, of which he was an active member. This article will explain why and how Simpson came to be involved in diplomatic decisions so remote from his home life and work, and will analyse the significance of the results of Simpson's efforts on the arbitration commission.

Governments are facing an increasing number of arbitration claims by foreign investors relating to important public policies or seeking substantial damages, and many governments are taking a greater joint interest in how such cases are resolved in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). This scoping paper has supported inter-governmental dialogue about ISDS at several OECD-hosted investment Roundtable meetings.Part I compares ISDS with other international and domestic processes for resolving disputes including the WTO and European Court of Human Rights, and considers how ISDS may affect domestic policy making processes.Part II examines eight current and emerging issues in ISDS: (i) investors’ access to justice; (ii) the costs of ISDS cases; (iii) remedies for foreign investors under investment treaties and their possible impact on a level playing field for domestic and foreign investors; (iv) the enforcement and execution of ISDS awards; (v) third party financing of ISDS; (vi) the characteristics, selection and regulation of arbitrators in ISDS; (vii) forum shopping and treaty shopping by investors; and (viii) the question of the consistency of decision-making in ISDS. Part III outlines key findings from a statistical survey of ISDS provisions in 1,660 bilateral investment treaties.Public comment on this paper, including 46 investment policy questions (as outlined in the paper), was obtained in May-July 2012 and is available on the OECD website.

The 2011 volume of Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation - The Fordham Papers is a collection of important works in the field written by the speakers at the 2011 Fordham Law School Conference on International Arbitration and Mediation.

There is broad recognition, across the political spectrum and in both 'northern' and 'southern' countries, that justice reform, and more generally the promotion of the 'rule of law', are central to development policy, particularly in conflict-affected, fragile and violent contexts. More recently an increased focus on global security and the interaction between security and development as put a renewed emphasis on such efforts. However, while legal, regulatory and 'justice' institutions are now seen as key part of the 'solution' to problems of conflict, fragility and development, this recognition is not matched by a correspondingly clear sense of what should be done, how it should be done, by whom, in what order, or how 'success' may be determined. There often tends to be a clear misunderstanding of both the nature of the problem and (thus) of the solution. In this paper, the author seek to provide some insight into these questions and sketch out a practical conception of effective justice reform in situations of conflict and fragility that may provide the basis for effective programming.

Strengthening the rule of law is widely regarded among traditional donors, multilateral institutions, and a growing number of middle income and fragile states as a necessary precondition for sustainable peace, poverty alleviation, and development. Crime and violence deter investment and lower employment, undermine social institutions, and divert resources through direct and indirect costs, all of which hinder development. It is likely to disproportionately affect poor and marginalized populations by limiting access to basic services. The formal criminal justice system is seen in many environments as failing to deliver justice. Most states experiencing fragility do not have the capacity to effectively prevent crime, enforce laws, or peacefully resolve disputes across the whole of their territories. There is another powerful deterrent for communities to seek redress through state criminal justice institutions: they are frequently a primary instrument for the government and elites to maintain power and control through the perpetration of injustice. The informal system, however, is alone insufficient to handle the pressing justice requirements of fragile states, not least for preventing and responding to inter-communal conflict, to serious organized and cross-border crime, and to public corruption and other 'white collar' crime.

The engineering and construction industries, out of practicality and necessity, are constantly refining and improving current processes and creating new ones to provide efficiency, predictability, and cost savings to every project. Management and settling of disputes also require innovations and continued enhancements. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is big business in the engineering and construction industries. Consequently, the American Arbitration Association has been invited to organize a special issue on alternative dispute resolution for the Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, scheduled for November 2012. Innovative ADR processes, critical analysis of current ADR systems, discussions regarding how ADR can prevent disputes or minimize costs associated with resolving conflicts on construction projects, and the application and effects of ADR processes in new fields such as green building are especially welcomed. Subject areas in this special issue may include but are not limited to • The use of industry professionals as dispute resolution experts— how are they used and what roles do they play in avoiding delays and resolving conflicts that may cause delay and increase cost? • Discussion and analysis of current ADR processes in specific projects or sectors of the construction industry, examining those procedures that work and offering suggestions on refining the dispute resolution system to provide more practical, effective, or efficient resolutions. • Cultural analysis of ADR processes used on projects—what are the assumptions and differences, and what effects do they have (if any) on mediation, arbitration, or any other dispute resolution process in different cultures internationally? • Do new innovations and trends in the industry, such as the interest in green/sustainable building or the increasing popularity of building information modeling (BIM), give rise to new areas of conflict, and if so, can ADR processes assist in minimizing disputes? Types of papers accepted by this journal include letters to the editor, synopsis of court verdict, historic cases, forum articles, feature articles, case studies, scholarly papers, legal notes, book reviews, and conference reviews. For descriptions of each type of paper, please visit http://www.editorialmanager.com/jrnlaeng/. Architecture and engineer professionals, construction and commercial attorneys, DRB board members, construction neutrals (mediators and arbitrators), and other industry practitioners, from the United States and internationally, are invited to submit wellwritten, original papers within the theme of “Construction and Engineering ADR.” To ensure consistency, authors should refer to the following definitions of terms: • Mediation: Dispute resolution process whereby the parties, either by contract agreement or voluntarily after a dispute arises, agree to use a third-party neutral mediator to help the parties find a resolution to a dispute (or series of disputes). The mediator acts as a neutral facilitator for all parties and does not render any decisions for the parties. If all the parties negotiate terms to settle their disputes, they will often draft an agreement that all parties sign and agree to abide by after the mediation. • Arbitration: Dispute resolution process whereby parties, usually through a contract agreement, will engage a neutral arbitrator (or a panel of three arbitrators) to serve as an informal judge to decide the resolution of a dispute. More formal than mediation, arbitration resembles an informal litigation (conducted outside of a court system), whereby parties will present evidence and argue their side of a dispute before the arbitrator(s). The arbitration award is issued at the end of the hearing and can be converted to a judgment in court through a simple court proceeding. • Facilitated negotiation: A process in which the parties to a dispute, who have identified the issues to be negotiated, contract with a dispute resolution practitioner (facilitator) to negotiate the outcome. The facilitator has no advisory or determinative role on the content of the matters discussed or the outcome of the process but may advise on or determine the process of facilitation. • Project neutral(s): On-site neutral(s) who are engaged before the start of the construction project to assist all parties in the identification of potential issues and provide advice to the parties on issue resolution. Typically the project neutrals are experienced in the design and/or construction that is the subject of the project. The project neutral either reviews the project periodically or is on call to the parties to raise or discuss potential issues and possible solutions with the parties before the issues become emerging disputes. The project neutral uses his or her experience to assist the parties to avoid disputes and can be a predecessor to other forms of alternative dispute resolution. • Dispute resolution board (DRB): On-site neutral(s) who are engaged before the start of the construction project to assist all parties in the quick resolution of disputes during the project. The DRB meets at regular intervals at the job site to conduct an on-site visit and meets with all the parties (owner, architect, contractor, and major subcontractors) after each site visit. All emerging and pending issues—and possible solutions—are discussed between the parties with the DRB member(s), who are present but not participating unless there are clarification questions requested by the members to understand the nature of the dispute. Any disputes not voluntarily resolved by the parties may be submitted to the DRB, which may offer either nonbinding or binding opinions on resolutions. A DRB may be employed as part of an overall dispute resolution process for a project, and the DRB’s scope of authority, meeting schedule, and other conditions are all agreed upon by the parties before the start of the project.

Production in 2004 was actually running higher than consumption prior to 1995 and this has caused the existence of a world surplus of baled cotton in the form of stocks in warehouse. It is the existence of these “ending stocks” that has a large effect on the international price of cotton. Consumption began to outpace production in 2001 to 2003 period and this, mixed with crop disasters in various regions, caused the international price to rise. The reaction from many countries was to increase production in reaction to this. Cconsumption failed to match this increase in production, causing a fall in prices and a renewal of the world’s ending stocks.