Dispute Resolution Strategies Research Articles

Human Rights and Religious Litigation—Faith in the Law?

This is the era of human rights and religious litigation. Recent years have witnessed an unprecedented rise in the number of cases where the principles of non-discrimination and equality have been pitted against the right to freedom of religion or belief. This article seeks to examine this development with regard to an issue that is particularly synonymous with controversy – legal conflicts between conservative religious believers and people from LGBTIQ+ communities. The article’s primary focus is on the adverse consequences of excessive litigation in this field. In order to tackle the problem of conservative faith/ LGBTIQ+ disputes it is suggested that a more holistic approach is needed, based on the principles of compromise, dignity and empathy. The proposed mechanism by which such an approach might be effected is that of ‘meaningful engagement’, a dispute resolution strategy that has been recognised by the South African Constitutional Court.

FAITH-BASED MEDIATION: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON THE APPLICATION OF SULH AND HO’OPONOPONO

The application of mediation can be traced in many culture and tradition across the world. Closely related to the faith of the people, mediation has essential roles in resolving disputes among the members of the society. While the faith-based mediation of Ho’oponopono is famous in Hawaii, the faith-based mediation of Sulh is famous among Muslims in South East Asia. The dispute resolution strategies which are used in Ho’oponopono and Sulh are comparatively analysed in this research. The practices of Sulh are evaluated based on empirical findings collected from Pasir Mas (Kelantan, Malaysia) and Indragiri Hilir (Riau, Indonesia). Meanwhile, the qualitative findings on practices of Ho’oponopono are collected from earlier researches that utilised empirical investigations. By employing a qualitative doctrinal analysis, this research identifies similarities and differences of faith- based mediations of Sulh and Ho’oponopono. At the same time, the said faith-based mediations’ potentials and challenges are explored. Focusing on an expeditious resolution, it is found that faith-based mediations are still applied among the members of the society in Malaysia, Indonesia and Hawaii.

The EU Approach to Consumer ODR

_The EU internal market has undergone several developments in the past decades. One of the main developments is the inclusion of a digital dimension. One of the fields in which these developments are very evident is the consumer market. A further development of e-commerce is however hindered because there are no suitable redress mechanisms for consumers involved in low-value, high volume claims typically arising from e-commerce transactions. In response to the ills of existing redress mechanisms, an emerging trend of consumer alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and consumer online dispute resolution (ODR) schemes has been identified throughout the Member States (MS) aimed to offer consumers a swift, cheap and simple procedure through which they can enforce their rightsThis paper outlines the EU approach to Consumer ADR/ODR, gives some observations of the functioning of the legislation in practice and concludes with some thoughts for the future._

Impact of Directive 2013/11/EU on Consumer ADR Quality: Evidence from France and the UK

One of the objectives of Directive 2013/11/EU was to promote high-quality consumer alternative dispute resolution (ADR) schemes in the European Union (EU) through the creation of certification processes and regular monitoring by Member States. To obtain and keep certification, ADR bodies must continuously comply with several binding requirements set down in the Directive testifying–among other things–of their impartiality, expertise, transparency, accessibility, as well as of the fairness, timeliness and effectiveness of their procedures. The objective of this regulatory architecture was to trigger some long-term effects on the procedural design and functioning of ADR bodies and to enhance their credibility and legitimacy vis-à-vis consumers and traders. As such, the new rules have aimed to respond to the criticisms sometimes expressed about the way ADR providers operate, in particular concerns regarding schemes’ lack of independence, limited accountability and possible effects on due process. Yet, doubts have been expressed about the ability of the Directive to secure a consistent approach fully supporting high-quality ADR in the EU. This paper intends to test these doubts against facts and evidence. Based notably on replies to a questionnaire sent to Competent Authorities, it zooms in on experiences in two Member States, namely France and the United Kingdom (UK) (more specifically for the latter in the civil aviation and non-regulated sectors). It highlights how the binding quality criteria have been working in practice and the impacts that the Directive has had on ADR bodies in those Member States and sectors. It sheds light on several persisting issues, and makes some policy recommendations, which may be relevant for policymakers not only in France and the UK, but also in other Member States and at the EU level when further developing a sustainable framework for high-quality ADR. In 2019, the European Commission is expected to publish a report on the implementation of the Consumer ADR Directive in all Member States. This contribution may be viewed as a first small step in that direction.

The BaTonga Traditional Dispute Resolution in Tonga Communities: Lessons from Lusulu Community

The article explores traditional perceptions of dispute resolution practices and strategies in resolving conflicts amongst the BaTonga communities in Binga which is in the north-western part of Zimbabwe. The paper follows a realization that the BaTonga community has an interesting dispute resolution mechanism which is predicated on the idea of African finding solutions to their problems in Africa’s wisdom. The study on Zimbabwe endogenous conflict resolution mechanisms has received scant attention. The nature of disputes within the BaTonga community emanate mainly from resources competition characterized by competition over grazing lands during summer season, water scarcity, community boundary conflicts on farm lands, conflicts over, migration, power disputes arising from succession disputes, gender violence cases, promiscuity, common crimes like murder, theft inter alia. The study observes that BaTonga people have unique mechanisms of solving conflicts predicated upon the values of community integration and oneness. Conflicts resolution in BaTonga community values the wisdom and long lived expertise of the respected elderly people. The study is qualitative in nature supported by key informant interviews such as traditional chiefs and elders and deploys in a broad sense of ubuntu philosophy as a theoretical framework. The methodological section of this paper was drawn from Lusulu area under Chief Sinamamgonde . The paper unpacks how BaTonga dispute resolution mechanisms protect women and help in strengthening family-community relations . It is observed that community is determined to use its endogenous methods of resolution despite the fact that this has been under threat and assault from globalization and modernization which to some extent has contributed to them losing faith in their dispute resolutions mechanism. Key words: dispute resolution, Resource scarcity, BaTonga, Ubuntu philosophy

Collective Redress: The Need for New Technologies

After many years of debate on collective redress, the European Commission has proposed to introduce a representative mechanism to be controlled by public bodies and consumer associations that satisfy certain criteria. However, the Commission has only considered a single mechanism (the litigation-based class or representative action), which is in fact “old technology.” There are several other mechanisms that deliver collective redress—new technologies. The first is the partie civile mechanism in which a civil claim “piggy backs” onto a criminal conviction. The most important mechanisms are “regulatory redress”—where a regulatory authority intervenes and agrees or orders redress to be paid—especially if coupled with an ombudsman scheme (not arbitration-based alternative dispute resolution (ADR) schemes). The regulatory redress mechanism was proposed by the Commission in the revised Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Regulation but what emerged was not ideal. All these mechanisms have recently been evaluated against criteria such as their speed, cost, and ability to deliver effective outcomes. The empirical data clearly demonstrate that the new technologies are better than the old technologies. The new technologies also deliver more functions than the old: not just resolution of a dispute or delivery of redress but also assistance to consumers and traders and the ability to aggregate data on trading issues that is fed back to improve compliance, behaviour, and performance in the market place. This evidence leads to the conclusion that the Commission’s proposals are unlikely to deliver effective collective redress for consumers. The proposed method is out of date technology, and other mechanisms are clearly preferable and should be adopted instead. Member States are permitted to maintain existing collective redress mechanisms. That will lead to considerable confusion and diversity, which does not support an integrated single market. Further, the proposal will lead to a diversity of available mechanisms between Member States and hence confusion and competition between intermediaries—forum shopping. The way forward is for the EU to adopt regulatory redress and consumer ombudsmen, rather than the old fashioned litigation model. The analysis also reveals that the Impact Assessment system has flaws.

Finance and fairness: enhancing the customer dispute resolution scheme (CDRS) in the Qatar financial centre (QFC)

The Customer Dispute Resolution Scheme (CDRS) is the primary dispute resolution mechanism for financial disputes involving retail clients in the Qatar Financial Centre (QFC). As the QFC has grown the CDRS has also correspondingly developed. The Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority (QFCRA) is currently reviewing the CDRS rules in an effort to further improve the performance of the tribunal. In support of this initiative, this paper reviews the regulatory framework underpinning the tribunal and offers recommendations as to how best to tighten and clarify the applicable rules and regulations. Similar tribunals are growing in popularity in many other parts of the world. As the prevalence of these tribunals increases, our understanding of the relationship between these bodies and the broader legal and regulatory environment also continues to develop. This paper contributes to the expanding body of research and literature on these types of forums, and places this emerging ADR trend specifically in the context of Qatar.

The four regions in settlement space: a game-theoretical approach to investment treaty arbitration. Part I: modelling

This article uses game theory to investigate investor–state dispute settlement and related dispute resolution strategies through international arbitration. When deciding whether either to bring or to defend a claim rather than pursue settlement, investors and states will select strategies to maximize their respective payoffs, either by securing compensation or successfully defeating a claim for compensation. This article develops a model decision-making strategy for claimant investors and defendant states based on the observed patterns of outcomes in actual investment treaty arbitration awards. Embedding the problem in the context of utility and hence risk-aversion, it will offer a general solution for the arbitration ‘game’. Four regions will be identified in the settlement space consisting of the respondent offer against claimant success probability. It will be shown that no settlement is possible in three of these four regions. The go-no-go probability of claimant victory below which it would not be reasonable for a potential claimant to proceed will be quantified. An algorithm is developed for calculating the settlement sum that the respondent may offer with a reasonable expectation of acceptance by the claimant.

THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MODEL OF VILLAGE HEAD ELECTION THROUGH NON LITIGATION

Article Number 6 of 2014 clauses 37 verses (5) and (6) provides that the regent in the district must resolve the dispute over the election result of the village head within 30 days. At the district level, the Regional Regulations governing the settlement of village head election disputes and regulations are effective in the dispute profession.However, the laws and regulations at the local / district level have not yet clearly defined the form / format of the outcome of the dispute over the election of the village mayors. The specific purpose of this research is to formulate the model form in the effort to solve the disputes of Village mayors Election by doing syncretism of existing strategy. The Urgency of this research that is (a) need to build juridical system in handling dispute of village head election; (b) the synchronization of district regulations governing the handling of village head election disputes both vertically and horizontally (c) needs a dispute resolution strategy by developing a model of settlement that provides protection of constitutional rights and ensures that government agenda.Research activities in Jember, Bondowoso and Lumajang districts, with a total sample of 150 people. Data collection techniques use Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Focus Group Discussion (FGD) methods. The Data analysis technique using qualitative analysis.The result of this research is the policy of settlement of disputes of village head election is set forth in juridical instrument at local level, result of settlement stated in peace agreement.This Agreement is then submitted to the Court for the issuance of the Deed of Peace in order to ensure the validity of the legal force for the parties.

Consumer vulnerability and complaint handling: Challenges, opportunities and dispute system design

AbstractEffectively designed complaint handling systems play a key role in enabling vulnerable consumers to complain and obtain redress. This article examines current research into consumer vulnerability, highlighting its multidimensional and expansive nature. Contemporary understandings of consumer vulnerability recognize that the interaction between a wide range of market and consumer characteristics can combine to place any individual at risk of vulnerability. While this broad definition of consumer vulnerability reflects the complex reality of consumers’ experiences, it poses a key challenge for designers of complaint handling systems: how can they identify and respond to an issue which can potentially affect everyone? Drawing on current research and practice in the United Kingdom and Australia, the article analyses the impact of consumer vulnerability on third party dispute resolution schemes and considers the role these complaint handling organizations can play in supporting their complainants. Third party complaint handling organizations, including a range of Alternative Dispute Resolution services such as ombudsman organizations, can play a key role in increasing access to justice for vulnerable consumer groups and provide specific assistance for individual complainants during the process. It is an opportune time to review whether the needs of consumers at risk of vulnerability are being met within complaint processes and the extent to which third party complaint handlers support those who are most vulnerable to seek redress. Empowering vulnerable consumers to complain presents specific challenges. The article discusses the application of a new model of consumer dispute system design to show how complaint handling organizations can meet the needs of the most vulnerable consumers throughout the process.

A comparative examination of the Qatar Financial Center (QFC) consumer dispute resolution scheme

في عام 2016 ، أطلق مركز قطر للمال برنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء ضمن الفصل الثامن من قواعد مزاولة الأعمال 2007 . ويعتبر هذا البرنامج آلية بديلة للتقاضي يمكن لجميع العملاء في مركز قطر للمال (سواء كانوا أفرادا أو شركات) اللجوء إليها عندما ينشأ نزاع بينها وبين شركة مسجلة في المركز. وقد روعي عند وضع برنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء أن يكون وسيلة مستقلة واقتصادية في تكلفتها وملزمة للمحتكمين إليها وأن يصبح فاصلا بين المرحلة التي يعجز فيها مقدمو الخدمات والعملاء عن تسوية النزاع مباشرة وبين مرحلة التقاضي. والهدف الرئيسي من هذا البرنامج هو حماية المستهلك. وسوف تتناول هذه الورقة نطاق وطبيعة برنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء ومقارن سماته البارزة بأنظمة مماثلة في هونج كونج وأستراليا وغيرها من الاختصاصات القضائية المشابهة. إن برنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء هو أحد أشكال الوسائل البديلة لتسوية المنازعات التي لا تتضمن الكثير من الإجراءات الرسمية التي توجد في التحكيم والتقاضي. ومن منظور الوسائل البديلة لتسوية المنازعات، فإن برنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء يقع في مكان ما فوق الوساطة وتحت التحكيم. وعلى النقيض من الوساطة، فإن القرار النهائي في مسألة تخضع لبرنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء يتم اتخاذه في الواقع من قبل محكم مستقل، وعلى النقيض من التحكيم، فإن القرار النهائي، على الأقل في قطر، لا يصبح واجب النفاذ إلا من قبل طرف واحد في النزاع (العميل أو الطرف الأضعف) ضد الشركات المسجلة لدى مركز قطر للمال. إن العميل هو النقطة المحورية في كل ترتيبات برنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء. وفي العادة لا يمكن البدء في شيء إلا من خلال العملاء حيث يتم احتساب التكاليف وتحديد الإجراءات بما يناسب العملاء الأفراد ومستهلكي التجزئة. والتمثيل القانوني في قطر مجاني ولا تكلفة عليه. إن طبيعة الحكم المراعية للمستهلك، إلى حد ما، تخفي الاختصاص المالي المهم لبرنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء في قطر. ويبلغ الحد الأقصى لما يمكن أن يحكم به المحكم في مسألة يشملها برنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء 400 ألف ريال قطري. وهو ليس بالمبلغ الضئيل. وفي ظل وجود أموال كثيرة عرضة للخطر، فإن الفهم التام لوضعية برنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء في مركز قطر للمال يمثل أمرا بالغ الأهيمة. وتتطلب اعتبارات السياسات التي تواجهها هيئة تنظيم مركز قطر للمال والتي تضفي الحيوية على برنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء في قطر، تتطلب تحقيق التوازن بين مصالح متنافسة. أولا، هناك الاعتبار الأساسي وهو تعزيز ثقة المستهلك وحماية المستهلكين من التصرفات المجحفة أو المفتقرة إلى روح التجارة. ثانيا، يجب على صانعي السياسات أيضا تحقيق التوازن في التطلعات المشروعة بأن تنأى الشركات العاملة تحت مظلة مركز قطر للمال بنفسها عن الإجراءات الكيدية وتخضع للمحاكم العادلة وغير المنحازة. وسوف تستكشف هذه الورقة كيف تقارن قطر أنماطا أخرى من برنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء في مراكز مالية رائدة أخرى حول العالم. وعلى الرغم من أن نتائج التحكيم في المنازعات تتسم بالسرية، فقد أصدرت هيئة تنظيم مركز قطر للمال توجيهات موضوعية بشأن أنواع المنازعات التي يتم تقديمها للفصل فيها. وفوق ذلك، فقد نشرت أيضا مجموعة من دراسات الحالة غير الوصفية من أجل تعريف السوق بأنواع النزاعات التي يتم النظر فيها وطريقة تسويتها. ولذلك، فإن هذه الدراسة تستند إلى تحليل وثيق للموارد المتاحة وتقوم على دراسة للوثائق القانونية ذات الصلة في ضوء الاتجاهات والممارسات الناشئة في الاختصاصات القضائية المشابهة.

A comparative examination of the Qatar Financial Center (QFC) consumer dispute resolution scheme

في عام 2016 ، أطلق مركز قطر للمال برنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء ضمن الفصل الثامن من قواعد مزاولة الأعمال 2007 . ويعتبر هذا البرنامج آلية بديلة للتقاضي يمكن لجميع العملاء في مركز قطر للمال (سواء كانوا أفراداً أو شركات) اللجوء إليها عندما ينشأ نزاع بينها وبين شركة مسجلة في المركز. وقد روعي عند وضع برنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء أن يكون وسيلة مستقلة واقتصادية في تكلفتها وملزمة للمحتكمين إليها وأن يصبح فاصلاً بين المرحلة التي يعجز فيها مقدمو الخدمات والعملاء عن تسوية النزاع مباشرة وبين مرحلة التقاضي. والهدف الرئيسي من هذا البرنامج هو حماية المستهلك. وسوف تتناول هذه الورقة نطاق وطبيعة برنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء ومقارن سماته البارزة بأنظمة مماثلة في هونج كونج وأستراليا وغيرها من الاختصاصات القضائية المشابهة. إن برنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء هو أحد أشكال الوسائل البديلة لتسوية المنازعات التي لا تتضمن الكثير من الإجراءات الرسمية التي توجد في التحكيم والتقاضي. ومن منظور الوسائل البديلة لتسوية المنازعات، فإن برنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء يقع في مكان ما فوق الوساطة وتحت التحكيم. وعلى النقيض من الوساطة، فإن القرار النهائي في مسألة تخضع لبرنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء يتم اتخاذه في الواقع من قبل مُحكم مستقل، وعلى النقيض من التحكيم، فإن القرار النهائي، على الأقل في قطر، لا يصبح واجب النفاذ إلا من قِبل طرف واحد في النزاع (العميل أو الطرف الأضعف) ضد الشركات المسجلة لدى مركز قطر للمال. إن العميل هو النقطة المحورية في كل ترتيبات برنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء. وفي العادة لا يمكن البدء في شيء إلا من خلال العملاء حيث يتم احتساب التكاليف وتحديد الإجراءات بما يناسب العملاء الأفراد ومستهلكي التجزئة. والتمثيل القانوني في قطر مجاني ولا تكلفة عليه. إن طبيعة الحكم المراعية للمستهلك، إلى حد ما، تخفي الاختصاص المالي المهم لبرنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء في قطر. ويبلغ الحد الأقصى لما يمكن أن يحكم به المُحكم في مسألة يشملها برنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء 400 ألف ريال قطري. وهو ليس بالمبلغ الضئيل. وفي ظل وجود أموال كثيرة عرضة للخطر، فإن الفهم التام لوضعية برنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء في مركز قطر للمال يمثل أمراً بالغ الأهيمة. وتتطلب اعتبارات السياسات التي تواجهها هيئة تنظيم مركز قطر للمال والتي تضفي الحيوية على برنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء في قطر، تتطلب تحقيق التوازن بين مصالح متنافسة. أولاً، هناك الاعتبار الأساسي وهو تعزيز ثقة المستهلك وحماية المستهلكين من التصرفات المجحفة أو المفتقرة إلى روح التجارة. ثانياً، يجب على صانعي السياسات أيضاً تحقيق التوازن في التطلعات المشروعة بأن تنأى الشركات العاملة تحت مظلة مركز قطر للمال بنفسها عن الإجراءات الكيدية وتخضع للمحاكم العادلة وغير المنحازة. وسوف تستكشف هذه الورقة كيف تقارن قطر أنماطاً أخرى من برنامج تسوية منازعات العملاء في مراكز مالية رائدة أخرى حول العالم. وعلى الرغم من أن نتائج التحكيم في المنازعات تتسم بالسرية، فقد أصدرت هيئة تنظيم مركز قطر للمال توجيهات موضوعية بشأن أنواع المنازعات التي يتم تقديمها للفصل فيها. وفوق ذلك، فقد نُشرت أيضا مجموعة من دراسات الحالة غير الوصفية من أجل تعريف السوق بأنواع النزاعات التي يتم النظر فيها وطريقة تسويتها. ولذلك، فإن هذه الدراسة تستند إلى تحليل وثيق للموارد المتاحة وتقوم على دراسة للوثائق القانونية ذات الصلة في ضوء الاتجاهات والممارسات الناشئة في الاختصاصات القضائية المشابهة.

Foreword from the Editor-in-Chief

Dear authors and esteemed readers, It is with honor that I write this foreword for the International Review of Law (IRL) Special Issue of the Future of Alternative Dispute Resolution conference held in Qatar University, College of Law (QU Law), in May 2017. QU Law continues a tradition of bringing together researchers, academics and professionals from all over the world. In this special issue, we have abstracts from 11 experts in law. Abou El Farag asks whether ADR is suitable for the resolution of intellectual property disputes. Alshorbagy and Elattar co-author an abstract and specifically focus on the rise and fall of international administrative arbitration from an Egyptian law perspective. Anani studies ADR from the perspective of economic disputes. Botchway takes us through the current and future trends of arbitrating natural resource disputes. Dahdal's abstract is on a comparative examination of the Qatar Financial Center (QFC) consumer dispute resolution scheme. El Shazly discusses resolving invest...

Prospects for a Sports Ombudsman in Canada

This article examines the potential of using an Ombudsman to resolve sports related disputes, and further researches underway in Canada to incorporate an Ombudsman scheme. The article looks at the various types of Ombudsmen, the existing Ombudsman or Ombudsman-like dispute resolution schemes concerning sport, and provides guidance on the establishment of a nation-wide scheme for Canada. The article finds that the addition of a sports Ombudsman to ADR services already provided by the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada would be of benefit to athletes and the sports community.

Are Bondholders Investors? Sovereign Debt and Investment Arbitration afterPoštová

AbstractAs a result of the 2010 sovereign debt crisis and the subsequent restructuring operations, bondholders have pursued different dispute resolution strategies. Litigation before US courts has proved to be a viable option, as demonstrated by the Argentine cases. State court litigation, however, is not the only available forum: in some cases, bondholders have commenced arbitration proceedings against the issuing state.Arbitral case law has been consistent in concluding that the holders of sovereign bonds issued by the host state qualify as investors and thus have standing to bring investment treaty-based claims. The recentPoštováaward, however, casts doubts over whether holders of sovereign bonds qualify as investors for the purposes of international investment law.This article illustrates the main problems revolving around the qualification of sovereign bonds as investments for the purposes of international investment law. The article summarizes the relevant legal framework and the solutions adopted by arbitral case law so far. Subsequently, the contents of thePoštovádecision are addressed in detail and the consequences of this decision are scrutinizsed.

ADR in Japan's Financial Markets & the Rule of Law

One practitioner recently described the number of cases resolved in private alternative dispute resolution in Japan simply as “unsatisfactory”. That statement aptly describes efforts to mediate disputes arising between financial service providers and their customers up to 2008. But in 2008 things changed: Japan amended each of the statutes regulating its principal financial industries, including the banking, insurance, and securities industries. In doing so, it established Japan’s Financial ADR System. Claimants have used this system in large numbers: in some industries, they are mediating more claims than they are filing in the courts. And they do so voluntarily. There are no mandatory mediation or arbitration clauses that require a customer to arbitrate or mediate instead of litigate. The system is far from perfect: practitioners and scholars find much to dislike. But there is also evidence to suggest that there are meaningful benefits: it offers speedy and inexpensive resolution of claims that are unlikely to be litigated. And the resolution is, on average, reasonable when measured against litigated outcomes. It reaches this result not by limiting the role of legal professionals and access to the courts, as found in previous statutorily-imposed alternative dispute resolution schemes. Instead, it does so by relying on legal professionals and judicially established norms. The numbers suggest Japan’s Financial ADR System warrants a closer look, which is what this article does.

Understanding International Business Negotiation Behavior: Credible Commitments, Dispute Resolution, and the Role of Institutions

Developed mainly in the broad field of negotiation, the existing literature on international business negotiation has adopted theoretical perspectives that focus on differences between negotiating parties. In this article, we argue that opportunism is more fundamental than differences in our understanding of international business negotiation behavior. Parties’ concerns over how to mitigate opportunism are the fundamental force that drives such negotiation behavior, and the likelihood of opportunism is affected mostly by the economic nature of the asset parties committed to the business exchange. By synthesizing transaction cost economics and new institutional economics, this paper develops an alternative theoretical model that complements the existing negotiation literature to explain negotiation behavior. Our model theorizes relationships between parties’ ex-ante credible commitments and ex-post dispute resolution strategies and explores how institutions moderate such relationships in shaping international business negotiation behavior and process.

The Potential Role of ADR in the Context of Access and Benefit Sharing Over Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge

Access and Benefit Sharing aims at promoting sustainable development and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. ABS processes are required to be conducted under Mutually Agreed Terms between parties, a requirement that poses a lot of implementation challenges which often results in disputes that require effective and efficient resolution mechanisms. This paper explores the potential for the use of alternative dispute resolution strategies for settling Access and Benefit Sharing disagreements. The paper examines the peculiar features of Access and Benefit Sharing disputes which conventional litigation cannot effectively address. It identifies a specific form of Alternative Dispute Resolution that can address these challenges more effectively and efficiently than litigation. In conclusion, the paper recommends an interest-based mediation as the preferred form of ABS dispute resolution and argues that due to its features, interest-based mediation would respond effectively to ABS disputes.

Dispute Resolution and Negotiation Strategy in Thailand: The Perspective of Hofstede's Cross-Cultural Management Theory

Dispute Resolution and Negotiation Strategy in Thailand: The Perspective of Hofstede's Cross-Cultural Management Theory

Analysis of Differing Site Condition (DSC) Litigation Reasoning Through Statistical Modeling

ABSTRACTDiffering Site Conditions (DSC) is considered to be one of the most prominent reasons for claims within the construction industry. Thus, the purpose of this article is to facilitate decision making related to DSC claims through analysis of the judicial reasoning in such cases by identifying significant legal concepts and implementing statistical modeling. The implemented methodology utilizes 60 DSC cases from the Federal Court of New York, extracts legal concepts upon which verdicts are based through content analysis, and develops a binary choice probit regression model to identify (1) the effect of each concept, (2) the associations and precedence of concepts to each other, and (3) the probabilistic change due to parametric variation in these concepts. The findings provide better means of assessing the legal ramifications based on the identified factors. Such evaluation allows disputing parties to make more informed decision about their dispute resolution strategies. In addition, the current research provides knowledge to contractors about factors to which emphasis should be given while bidding for new projects and upon which control should be maintained while performing a project. Finally, this research creates a solid foundation for the development of robust construction legal decision support systems for DSC disputes.