Dispute Board Research Articles

A nova lei de licitações e as modas de solução de conflitos nos contratos administrativos

The New Brazilian Law on Bids and Administrative Contracts provides in its own chapter about alternative means of resolving disputes, arising from the technique of the multi-door system of access to justice, where interested parts (public administration and private contractor) have at their disposal various forms of outcome for conflicting issues through extrajudicial means. This article brings as its object of study the consensual methods of resolving disputes provided for in Brazilian Federal Law nº 14.133/2021, with emphasis on the use of arbitration, conciliation, mediation and the dispute board, with the possibility of using other mechanisms arising from private autonomy, in addition to state jurisdiction itself. In this sense, the commitments and agreements signed for the consensual resolution of disputes can contribute to the correction of defects and the final delivery of the contracted object for the benefit of society, without the need for the issue to be submitted to the barriers established within the scope of the heterocompositive judicial process. There is, however, a need to move beyond the idea of unilateral, imperative administration, towards a new form of dialogical administration today, revisiting the concepts of unavailability of the public interest and reservation of jurisdiction, in order to reach the intended purposes.

Dispute Resolution Mechanism by Dispute Resolution Board According to FIDIC Contract Model and Experience for Vietnam

The article “Dispute resolution mechanism by the Dispute Board according to the FIDIC contract form and experience for Vietnam” researches the theoretical issues related to the FIDIC Contract and the Dispute Settlement Board of the FIDIC. In addition, the article also focuses on researching and analyzing the practice of applying dispute settlement mechanisms by Dispute Settlement Boards in various nations throughout the world. The article's usefulness stems from the knowledge gained while researching this dispute resolution mechanism in countries throughout the world, as well as the present situation of Vietnamese law, which provides solutions and recommendations based on Vietnamese law.

A cláusula de Dispute Board como instrumento de desenvolvimento sustentável na Amazônia

The objective of this article is to verify to what extent the dispute board clause (dispute resolution committee) can be used as an instrument for the sustainable development in the Amazon. To this end, an analysis was made of the origin of the said mechanism and its main characteristics, a brief history of its application in Brazil and in the state of Pará, a diagnosis of the paralyzed works in this federation unit and how harmful this is for sustainability. Of region. It is characterized as an exploratory, descriptive and deductive research, since, using the analysis of the referred data and studies, it is intended to demonstrate that the observed and inferred effects in the state of Pará can be repeated throughout the Amazon. With the data obtained, it was possible to verify that the dispute boards can avoid the stoppage of future works and how much this will be able to impact the sustainable development of the Amazon.

The Role of The Construction Dispute Board in The Settlement of Construction Disputes

This study aims to analyze the role of the dispute board in the construction dispute resolution system in Indonesia. This study uses descriptive research methods. This method is used to describe and explain the phenomena that occur. The dispute board exists as an alternative to resolving construction disputes that can provide various benefits, such as saving time. The settlement of construction disputes in Indonesia is regulated in Article 88 of Law Number 2 of 2017 concerning services. In the settlement of construction disputes, the dispute Board has an important role in the settlement stages, such as mediation, conciliation, and arbitration. The dispute board can also play a role in maintaining justice and resolving disputes in a simple and friendly manner. This study analyze the position of the dispute board in the construction dispute resolution system in Indonesia and assess the existing arrangements. The results show full construction disputes occur in a contract because of differences in perception between service providers and service users so that it is necessary for a third party to be used as a facilitator to explain to each party in determining the contents of the agreement and its It is hoped that the results of this study can provide a better understanding of the role of the dispute board in the settlement of construction disputes in Indonesia.

Uma nova perspectiva: a análise dos dispute boards como mecanismos alternativos de resolução de conflitos aplicado aos contratos de infraestrutura

This essay has as its object the analysis of dispute boards as a new perspective of Public Administration, with a more consensual performance, through models and acts with different actors of society. A brief introduction will be made on the current paradigm of Administration, without the objective of studying the models of Administration. After demonstrating the change in perspective, the essay will focus on the dispute board institute, a method for resolving disputes involving contracts of great complexity and economic importance, as with infrastructure contracts agreed by the Public Administration. Finally, this article will examine the use of dispute boards in public works using as an example a comparison between two works, one in which the mechanism was used (São Paulo City Metro) and one in which it was not used (Ponte Hercílio Luz in Florianópolis, Santa Catarina), intending to demonstrate that they can bring efficiency to infrastructure.

Critical Issues Affecting Dispute Resolution Practice in Infrastructure Public–Private Partnerships

Infrastructure public–private partnership (PPP) projects across the world have suffered early termination, premature change of ownership, cost and time overruns, among others, often resulting from a number of issues some of which are related to poorly managed dispute. Despite this, literature revealed that no process-centric attempt had been made to highlight the critical issues affecting dispute resolution (DR) in infrastructure PPPs. Through event sequence analysis (ESA) of 158 data sources (including 63 journal articles), this study examined the critical issues affecting infrastructure PPP DR practice, with the motivation of unveiling areas of potential improvement to the DR practice. Among other findings, the multiple roles of the public partner in the DR process were found to result in ambiguity on who was responsible for overseeing their actions. Relatedly, the effectiveness of dispute boards was on some occasions undermined when they were assigned multiple functions. Besides this study adding to the theoretical body of knowledge through application of ESA in infrastructure PPP DR research, it clarified the critical issues affecting current infrastructure PPP DR practice, thereby enhancing infrastructure PPP practitioners’ understanding of potential barriers to successful infrastructure PPP DR. Although the researchers acknowledge the plausibility of an in-depth investigation into ways in which the critical issues in DR practice can be addressed, the main focus of this study was to provide clarity on the critical issues affecting DR in infrastructure PPPs. A separate study focusing on improvements to DR in infrastructure PPPs is recommended.

Binding Power of Dispute Board Judgment in Construction Dispute Settlement

Construction work in its implementation is carried out based on a contract. If there are problems in carrying out construction work, a dispute between the parties, in this case the service user and the service provider, will occur. Indonesia Law No. 2/2017 about Construction Services (hereafter called UU 2/2017) provides a new dispute resolution model option if problems occur in the construction sector, namely through the Dispute Board. The Dispute Board was created by the International Federation of Consulting Engineers / Federation Internationale des Ingenieurs-Conseils or FIDIC which was adopted into UU 2/2017. However, the regulation regarding the Dispute Board in UU 2/2017 needs to be studied further, especially regarding the nature of the final binding decision, because it still raises problems in its implementation. The purpose of this study is to examine the development of dispute resolution in the field of construction and the implementation of the final and binding nature of dispute board decisions. This study employed legal research methods with a conceptual and statute approach. The results of this study found that construction disputes can be resolved through litigation or non-litigation. The presence of the Dispute Board still does not provide legal certainty for the parties because the nature of the decision is final and binding but is not supported by an implementation mechanism.

Dispute Board in Construction Services: A manifestation of the principles of quick, simple, and affordable dispute resolution

Dispute Board (DB) was formed in the latest Construction Law to resolve construction disputes, however the regulation of DB in the Construction Law is far from adequate in manifesting the principle of quick, simple, and affordable dispute resolution. Few norms have manifested the principle by giving no opportunities to resolve disputes through litigation and regulate period to file an objection towards DB's decisions. However, there are few of criticism: (1) The concept of DB is unclear, (2) no period for the DB to make decisions, (3) the decision of BD can be contested.

Conflict Avoidance and Alternative Dispute Resolution in the UK Construction Industry

This article focuses on conflict avoidance and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the United Kingdom (UK) construction industry. It seeks to place the use of ADR in the UK in context and to analyse the dispute prevention techniques in standard form contracts. The article also considers the importance of, and processes involved in, mediation and statutory adjudication in construction disputes. It also discusses the key feature of dispute boards and their use in the UK.
 Keywords: United Kingdom; conflict avoidance; ADR; adjudication; mediation; dispute boards; DABs; Construction Act; HGRA; HGCRA; NEC3; NEC4; BE Collaborative Contract; PPC2000.

AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON EXPERT DETERMINATION AND DISPUTE BOARDS?

AbstractThis article makes a case for an international convention on expert determination (ED) and Dispute Boards (DBs) that would require its Contracting States to recognise agreements on ED/DBs and enforce ED/DB decisions. Whilst strong, the case for the convention may not be compelling as there are arguments against it. But at least the time has come for the international legal community to start thinking about and debating the need for such an international regime. This article takes the first step towards imagining this international regime by evaluating a number of key issues relating to its scope of application.

Lessons Learned in the Use of Dispute Boards to the Settlement of Construction Service Disputes

AbstractThis study examines library research concerning the legal perspective of using dispute boards as an alternative for settling new construction service disputes not regulated in Law Number 30...

Framework for the Successful Implementation of Dispute Boards in Construction Projects

Framework for the Successful Implementation of Dispute Boards in Construction Projects

A aplicação dos dispute boards nos contratos empresariais no Brasil

The present work aims to analyze, from a legal point of view, the application of dispute boards in the Brazilian legal system, focused on private business contracts, so that, initially, the use of these types of business in Brazil was studied, and later, the application of extrajudicial means of conflicts applied to business transactions, with a view to the principles of autonomy of will and cooperation, in view of the slowness and legal uncertainty faced by entrepreneurs when resolving their disputes. Finally, it was possible to examine the execution of dispute boards in the legal system, demonstrating their compatibility with local laws and the advantages that their use can bring, which, however, still suffers an obstacle due to its lack of regulation, which prevents decisions have bound.

Joint venture and production sharing agreement: an analysis of arbitration and dispute boards as method of conflict resolution

Joint venture and production sharing agreement: an analysis of arbitration and dispute boards as method of conflict resolution

Nota de medidas de mitigação dos efeitos do Covid-19 da Corte da cci e recomendações sobre procedimentos remotos de Resolução de Conflitos da CIArb

In the first months of 2020, the world was staggered by a new reality, a pandemic caused by the new coronavirus, with a dramatic number of infected people and social distancing determinations in order to delay the spread of the virus, which heavily affected global economy. These health and safety measures, as could not have been expected otherwise, also affected the ongoing arbitral proceedings and the request of new ones. Hence, the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (“CIArb”) published the Guidance on Possible Measures Aimed at Mitigating the Effects of Covid-19 (“ICC Guidance”) and the Guidance Note on Remote Dispute Resolution Proceedings (“CIArb Note”) to propose measures to mitigated the effect of the coronavirus in arbitration, in the case of the ICC Guidance, and in mediations, adjudications, negotiations, expert determinations, dispute boards and arbitration, in the case of the CIArb Note.

Odbor za razmatranje/rešavanje sporova - još jedna alternativa državnim sudovima

Dispute board is a relatively new, internationally recognised ADR method, a regular feature of international construction and infrastructure contracts. It is composed of three independent and impartial persons selected by the contracting parties. It's basic function is not only to resolve disputes among the parties, but also, if at all possible, to prevent them from happening. So, the board members help the parties avoid or overcome any disagreements or disputes that arise during the implementation of the contract. They also serve to ensure that, where differences between parties escalate into disputes, issues are resolved equitably and as expeditiously and cost-effectively as possible, so that relationships are enhanced (rather than harmed) for the future. The DBprocess is designed to be fast, cheap and well suited for construction disputes. The parties care fully pick their own panel based on integrity, knowledge of the work, and experience in dispute settlement. Dispute boards are certainly not new but experience over the last twenty years has proven them to be highly successful, relatively inexpensive and the only proactive form of ADR which promotes the avoidance of disputes.

Are Dispute Boards the Future of Dispute Resolution in the International Construction Industry?

This paper will seek to determine the future trends of dispute boards in the international construction industry. Its focus shall be on the FIDIC books as the drafting standard for the international construction industry. The discussion will be in two parts. The first part of the article analyses the scope of dispute boards. This is done by examining the different types of dispute boards and trying to identify why a party may select one type over another. The purpose of this analysis is to appreciate the functioning of dispute boards in the international construction industry. The second part proposes a future of the international construction industry with regards to the challenges faced by the implementation of dispute boards. It looks at several practical issues and identifies the most likely future trends of dispute boards in the specified industry. Finally a conclusion shall be made, taking into consideration the discussion and analysis in the first and second part.

The Effectiveness of Dispute Resolution in Construction Services Outside of the Court

Construction service is a sector which is quite vulnerable to dispute. Stated on Law Number 2 of 2017 on Construction Services Article 88 paragraph 2, namely in terms of deliberations if the parties cannot reach an agreement, they must go through the construction work contract. Government Regulation No. 29 of 2000 on Provision of Construction Services, Article 49 states in the implementation of dispute resolution in construction services outside of the court can proceed through the third party in the form of mediation, conciliation, arbitration through arbitration institution or ad-hoc arbitration. The method used in this research was normative juridical research derived from the literature study. This type of research, by its nature, is descriptive-analytical research. The interviewees included BANI (BANI arbitration centre), BADAPSKI (The Indonesian Centre for Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution for Construction service), and the dispute board. The data analysis method was the statute approach. The results showed that according to study conducted by Sondra Dwiputra Paiding Lewa and Harijanto Setiawan, arbitration and APS occupied the top 4 ranking position in the dispute settlement of construction services compared to solving it through the court. It meant that ADR and arbitrations were more effective at resolving construction services disputes than solving it through courts. Unfortunately, in provinces and counties/cities, there were a lot of construction services contracts that proceeded through the courts to resolve service disputes Construction mainly for projects using the budget of regional income and expenditure.

Dispute boards in Turkey for infrastructure projects

We contribute to the literature on alternative dispute resolution through dispute adjudication boards, including their suitability and acceptability, with reference to the Turkish construction industry. Local customs and undertakings are examined as they differ from international practices, which are relatively new to Turkey. Actual dispute cases which have been referred to dispute boards are examined. We also focus on a megaproject, as these experience disputes without exception. Interviews with local professionals on the use of dispute adjudication boards are presented. Findings and recommendations are provided.

Comparison of dispute boards and statutory adjudication in construction

The objective of this study is to present the issues encountered by construction industry practitioners resolving disputes through the adoption of the dispute board (or DB) and statutory adjudication (or SA). This research is significant due to the often adversarial working environment in a typical construction and engineering project, as well as substantial adverse consequences resulting from disputes that have not been adequately resolved between two or more of its stakeholders. This paper presents the historical background and aims of and main principles behind the introduction of DB and SA. Stakeholder practitioners involved in three case study projects were then interviewed to reveal issues encountered with their adoption of DBs and/or SAs. Their perceived effectiveness, as well as suitability, to resolve disputes within construction then underwent comparative analysis. Barriers were found which had contributed towards a general apprehension by practitioners in the major case study projects to adopt either of these dispute-resolution methods. This paper suggests that these barriers significantly relate to the perceived formality of their procedures, potentially expensive legal costs involved and subsequent harm to future working relationships.