Final Award Research Articles

Exploring student consensus about module-level ethnicity awarding gaps: a Delphi approach

ABSTRACT Attention paid to awarding gaps in higher education linked to ethnicity tends to focus on outcomes at the final award stage. Our project sought to scrutinise awarding gaps at module level where these gaps may emerge. Our aim was twofold: to identify the most important barriers to student success and determine strategies to reduce awarding gaps at module level, as perceived by students from various ethnic backgrounds and to investigate to what extent there is consensus amongst students of various ethnic backgrounds regarding these barriers and strategies. We employed a two-phase Delphi approach. The first phase involved data analytics to identify modules with awarding gaps in health and life sciences undergraduate degree programmes. The second phase employed a Delphi approach to collect student feedback on barriers to success and strategies to overcome them, focusing on culture, curriculum, and assessment. The study engaged 36 students in the first round and 53 in the second round. Our research confirmed the existence of awarding gaps at the module level. Students reached consensus on 55 out of 79 factors affecting their academic performance, with notable differences between White and racially minoritised student groups. This study suggests that, to close awarding gaps, both a module-level approach and a deep commitment to listening to our students is needed. Our study is the first to use a consensus-driven Delphi approach to identify key barriers and strategies at the module level, offering a framework for addressing awarding gaps and fostering inclusive, equitable education within and beyond the UK.

Contemporary Issues of Arbitration under UAE Law

Abstract This paper aims to discuss controversial issues encountered by arbitral tribunals assigned to decide a particular dispute under UAE law. These issues are mainly related to preserving principles of competence-competence and separability, which might adversely affect the validity of the procedures undertaken by arbitral tribunals or the validity of final awards rendered by an arbitral tribunal. The aforementioned problematic scenarios can be noted in the context of the formation of arbitral tribunal, ordering interim, arbitration costs and waiver of arbitration agreement. The study will deploy qualitative legal method, through which an analytical approach will be applied on the UAE Arbitration Law and Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) Rules in order to illuminate the gaps in both sets that may affect the evidential value of the procedures undertaken in the context of the abovementioned issues. This paper concluded with a set of suggestions aimed at filling the gaps observed in the UAE arbitration Law and DIAC Rules in terms of the aforementioned issues.

Analysis of the Effectiveness of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: A Case Study of PT. Bank Muamalat Indoneisa and PT. General Takaful Economy

This paper explains how arbitration functions in the Indonesian legal system. The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is a legal remedy that can be made by law to reach a final decision based on the principle of final and binding. This study aims to study the way sharia arbitration bodies handle economic disputes. The research method used is juridical-normative, using descriptive qualitative analysis. The results showed that, as an extra-judicial institution governed by international law that has been ratified by the Indonesian government, arbitration helps complement the Indonesian judicial system. And the absence of a legal remedy for a final award in accordance with the principles of final and binding And the absence of legal remedies for a final decision in accordance with the principle of finality and binding is one of the advantages of settlement through arbitration compared to the court, In conclusion arbitration is more effective in resolving sharia insurance disputes based on the principle of simple, fast, and cheap justice according to the mandate of the Law.

Yukos Capital Limited v The Russian Federation

In 2013, Yukos Capital Ltd. (Yukos Capital, formerly Yukos Capital Sàrl), a company incorporated in Luxembourg, brought claims of expropriation and breach of the fair and equitable treatment (FET) standard under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) against the Russian Federation (Russia). Russia objected to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction on several grounds. The arbitral tribunal dismissed Russia’s objections in an interim award dated 18 January 2017 and a final award dated 23 July 2021. Russia subsequently challenged the final award as well as the interim award before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (Supreme Court) on the grounds that the arbitral tribunal had wrongly upheld its jurisdiction and that the final award was incompatible with public policy. In its decision 4A_492/2021 dated 24 August 2022 (DFSC 4A_492/2021), the Supreme Court, having exclusive jurisdiction to hear the application for the setting aside of the two awards, rejected Russia’s application. This contribution discusses the key issues that arose before the Supreme Court resulting from Russia’s challenge of the arbitral award.

The impact of early debut on scientists: Evidence from the Young Scientists Fund of the NSFC

Early career funding is usually the first prestigious funding young scientists receive, allowing them to make their debut on a nationally recognised foundation. In this study, we examined the impact of an early debut on young scientists' research productivity. First-movers and late-comers are distinguished based on the years between the first application to the final award of early career funding. We then explored the variations between 3353 first-movers and 4650 late-comers of the Young Scientists Fund sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. We find that an early debut has a strong positive short-term effect on research productivity in terms of both quantity and quality, and the positive effect amplifies with the increasing time span of the final award between first-movers and late-comers. However, the strong positive effect on long-term productivity presents only in the three- and four-year early debuts. These results suggest that the productivity gains of young scientists with an early debut tend to decrease over time. The significant gap between first-movers and three-, and four-year late-comers in the long term demonstrates a time threshold which distinguishes scientists' long-term research productivity. In addition, we find that the research productivity gap can be explained by the expanding research network and increasing funding opportunities.

Yukos Capital Limited V The Russian Federation The Swiss Federal Supreme Court Upholds Interim and Final Award in the Yukos Saga

In 2013, Yukos Capital Ltd. (Yukos Capital, formerly Yukos Capital Sàrl), a company incorporated in Luxembourg, brought claims of expropriation and breach of the fair and equitable treatment (fet) standard under the Energy Charter Treaty (ect) against the Russian Federation (Russia). Russia objected to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction on several grounds. The arbitral tribunal dismissed Russia’s objections in an interim award dated 18 January 2017 and a final award dated 23 July 2021. Russia subsequently challenged the final award as well as the interim award before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (Supreme Court) on the grounds that the arbitral tribunal had wrongly upheld its jurisdiction and that the final award was incompatible with public policy. In its decision 4A_ 492/ 2021 dated 24 August 2022 (dfsc 4A_ 492/ 2021), the Supreme Court, having exclusive jurisdiction to hear the application for the setting aside of the two awards, rejected Russia’s application. This contribution discusses the key issues that arose before the Supreme Court resulting from Russia’s challenge of the arbitral award.

Peaceful settlement of inter-state energy disputes: applicable law, defence arguments, and remedies in the ICC arbitration between Iraq and Turkey

Abstract At this critical juncture in the energy transition dominated by debates over armed conflicts, advisory opinions on climate changes, and investor-State arbitration, it is critical to also consider developments in the peaceful settlement of inter-State energy disputes. One central dispute between the Republic of Iraq and the Republic of Turkey arose out of the Crude Oil Pipeline Agreement for the supply and purchase of crude oil. Iraq filed a request for arbitration in May 2014 under the International Chamber of Commerce Rules of Arbitration. The Tribunal awarded Iraq nearly United States Dollars (USD) 1.5 billion. The Tribunal’s unanimous final award in 2023 discusses fascinating aspects of international energy transactions, including the choice of domestic law in a treaty dispute, defences under the law of treaties, a putative norm of jus cogens to prevent genocide, and possible remedies in an inter-State pipeline arbitration.

Whose Bond Is It Anyway? Interrogating the Tribunal Majority’s Application of Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention in Adamakopoulos v Cyprus

The Decision on Jurisdiction in Theodoros Adamakopoulos and Others v Republic of Cyprus is now three years old. Alongside Marcelo Kohen’s dissent, this decision triggered much discussion regarding (i) the alleged incompatibility of the relevant bilateral investment treaties (bit s) vis- à- vis the European Union (EU) treaties and (ii) the implications of mass claims brought under icsid Rules. With an award looming on the horizon, it is necessary to address a different aspect of the decision: the majority’s qualification of certain bonds and other indirect expressions of such assets as an ‘investment’ under Article 25 (1) of the icsid Convention. This article will argue that the Tribunal majority’s analysis – relying as it does on a series of incompatible decisions – manifestly fails to establish that contingent convertible Bank of Cyprus and Laiki Bank bonds held by Claimant bondholders qualify as an ‘investment’ under the icsid Convention. The Tribunal majority thereby undermined jurisdiction ratione materiae for a significant class of Claimants, creating an opening for adverse Annulment Committee review upon release of the final award.

Lone Pine Resources v Canada Award: Steps towards a Recognition of Sustainable Development Principles in Energy Investment Arbitrations

Lone Pine Resources Inc. v. The Government of Canada 1 is the first investment arbitration case in the oil and gas sector in which the host state has taken measures to enforce its domestic sustainable development laws and regulations. In this case, the Canadian government prohibited fracking in the St. Lawrence River basin in Quebec, despite having previously issued a permit, by placing the precautionary principle, which is a principle of sustainable development, as the criterion. The tribunal did not find the host government's action to be a violation of the investor's rights, although it was unable to answer the question of whether the implementation of the precautionary principle constitutes a public purpose according to the NAFTA expropriation standard. However, it is notable that in the submissions of the parties and amicus curiae, reference has been made to the precautionary principle on the basis of applicable domestic and international law. Another feature of this case is that the arbitral tribunal decided to grant the request for participation of amicus curiae by an environmental NGO, and in distinct sections of the final award, it mentioned the views of the environmental group. The implementation of sustainable development is crucial in the field of petroleum arbitrations, given the extent of environmental degradation caused by these projects. Even though this case pertains to North America, it may mark the beginning of a global transformation that affects the petroleum producing countries throughout the world. Additionally, it may open a door for arbitration tribunals to establish compatibility between the standards of investor protection and sustainable development principles such as precaution and public participation.

Pogled na odabrane slučajeve novije švajcarske sudske prakse u oblasti međunarodne arbitraže

This article discusses four selected issues that were subject of recent decisions of the Swiss Federal Tribunal in the context of international arbitration seated in Switzerland. The first case examines the scope of the parties' duty of curiosity when it comes to challenging an arbitrator's independence and impartiality, specifically in the context of online resources. The case further touches upon the possibility for a review of an award if such grounds for challenge of an arbitrator were discovered after the 30-day time limit for setting aside the final award. The second case concerns a successful challenge to a partial award, in which the Swiss Federal Tribunal confirmed that an arbitration agreement cannot be extended to a non-signatory subcontractor based on its interference in the execution of the main contract. In the third case, the Swiss Federal Tribunal clarifies that a blanket dismissal of overly broad and vague document production requests as fishing expedition does not violate a party's right to be heard. Finally, in the fourth case, the Swiss Federal Tribunal dealt with the interpretation of a waiver clause in the arbitration agreement that excludes all appeals against arbitral awards.

Mr. Bedri Selmani v. Republic of Kosovo, Case No. 24443/MHM/HBH Final Award 1 August 2022

Mr. Bedri Selmani v. Republic of Kosovo, Case No. 24443/MHM/HBH Final Award 1 August 2022

Horthel Systems B.V. Tesa Beheer B.V. Poland Gaming Holding B.V. the Republic of Poland, PCA CASE No. 2014-31 Final Award 16 February 2017

Horthel Systems B.V. Tesa Beheer B.V. Poland Gaming Holding B.V. the Republic of Poland, PCA CASE No. 2014-31 Final Award 16 February 2017

The Russian Federation PCA Case No. 2015-35 Final Award 12 April 2019

The Russian Federation PCA Case No. 2015-35 Final Award 12 April 2019

Güriş Construction & Engineering, Inc. v. Syrian Arab Republic (Int'l Comm. Arb.)

On August 31, 2020, an arbitral tribunal sitting in the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) rendered its final award in Güriş Construction & Engineering, Inc. v. Syrian Arab Republic (Güriş). The tribunal held that the Respondent had breached its obligations under the Agreement Between the Republic of Turkey and the Syrian Arab Republic Concerning the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (the Turkey–Syria BIT).

Brčko District of B&H: Between Simulacrum and Reality

For years, the public speech on the Brčko District of B&H, established in 2000 based on The Final Arbitration Award, has been all about political phrases that have lost all connection with reality. Therefore, it is high time to speak competently about what was the socio-cultural and political novelty made by the Final Award, which has been disintegrating for years in a way that calls into question the very survival of the District. The Final Arbitration Award produced "an area under new political jurisdiction." "Bosnian new space" can be reduced to several important characteristics. The establishment of the District created: New constitutional structure of B&H; A new political model has been established in the District (civil), as opposed to those in Bosnian entities (ethnonational); A democratic unitary government has been established, unlike the consociational government in B&H and FB&H; Consistent insistence on multiethnicity (multiculturalism) in all spheres of public life. All these elements are interconnected and form one whole, so questioning any one of them endangers the survival of the others. Unfortunately, all of these elements are questionable today. On the hand, that is thanks to the changes made to the District’s Statute by Supervisor Gregorian. On the other hand, that is thanks to the disregard of the Final Award, the Statute, and the law by local politicians. It is high time to point out all of these problems that the District faces to get the professional and political attention that this specific socio-cultural and political model deserves.

Malpractice litigation in elective lumbar spinal fusion: a comprehensive review of reported legal claims in the U.S. in the past 50 years

BACKGROUND CONTEXTIn the U.S., medical malpractice litigation is associated with significant financial costs and often leads to the practice of defensive medicine. Among medical subspecialities, spine surgery is disproportionately impacted by malpractice claims. PURPOSETo provide a comprehensive assessment of reported malpractice litigation claims involving elective lumbar spinal fusion (LSF) surgery during the modern era of spine surgery instrumentation in the U.S., to identify factors associated with verdict outcomes, and to compare malpractice claims characteristics between different approaches for LSF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGA retrospective review. PATIENT SAMPLEPatients undergoing elective lumbar spinal fusion surgery. OUTCOME MEASURESThe primary outcome measure was verdict outcome (defendant vs. plaintiff verdict). Secondary outcome measures included alleged malpractice, injury/damage claimed, and award payouts. METHODSThe Westlaw legal database (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY, USA) was queried for verdict and settlement reports pertaining to elective LSF cases from 1970 to 2021. Data were collected regarding patient demographics, surgeon specialty, fellowship training, state/region, procedure, institutional setting (academic vs. community hospital), alleged malpractice, injury sustained, case outcomes, and monetary award. RESULTSA total of 310 cases were identified, yielding 67% (n=181) defendant and 24% (n=65) plaintiff verdicts, with 9% (n=26) settlements. Neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons were equally named as the defendant (45% vs. 51% respectively, p=0.59). When adjusted for inflation, the median final award for plaintiff verdicts was $1,241,286 (95% CI: $884,850–$2,311,706) while the median settlement award was $925,000 (95% CI: $574,800–$1,787,130), with no stastistically significant differences between verdict and reported settlement payouts (p=0.49). The Northeast region displayed significantly higher award payouts compared to other U.S. regions (p=0.02). There were no associations in awards outcomes when comparing alleged malpractice, alleged injuries/damages, institutional setting, surgical procedures, and surgeon specialty or fellowship training. The most common claims were intraoperative error (28%, n=107) followed by failure to obtain informed consent (24%, n=94). In the analyzed cohort, the most common injuries leading to litigation were refractory pain and suffering (37%, n=149) followed by permanent neurological deficits (26%, n=106). There were no differences in alleged malpractice or injury sustained between cases in which the outcome was favorable to defendant versus plaintiff. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) cases were 2.75 times more likely to be cited for excessive or inappropriate surgery (OR: 2.75 [95% CI: 1.14, 6.86], p=0.02) when compared to posterior surgical approaches. CONCLUSIONThe results of our analysis of reported claims suggest that medical malpractice litigation involving elective LSF is associated with jury verdicts over $1 million per case, with the most common alleged malpractice being intraoperative error and failure to obtain informed consent. Surgeon specialty, fellowship training, procedure type, and institution type were not associated with greater litigation risks; however, ALIF surgery had a significantly higher risk of involving claims of excessive or inappropriate surgery compared to posterior approaches for lumbar fusion. In addition, claims were significantly higher in the Northeast compared to other U.S. regions. Efforts to improve patient education through shared-decision making and proactive strategies to avoid, detect, and mitigate intra-operative procedural errors may decrease the risk of litigation in elective LSF.

The Impact of the Seat of Arbitration on Judicial-Interference: Do Sections 67, 68 and 69 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 regarding Challenges of Awards Make London An Attractive Hub?

There are various determinants that induce London to be the favourable seat. In this regard, the grounds for challenging an award have some severe implications on determining London as the arbitral seat.1 Arbitrations with a London seat are exercised under the ‘supervisory jurisdiction’2 of the English courts and the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996).3 That is to say, any challenge to an interim or final award made by the arbitrators may be fulfilled in the courts of the location chosen as the arbitral seat. The consensual nature of international arbitration depends on certain core principles such as party autonomy, judicial nonintervention and finality of the arbitral awards. Nonetheless, the binding aspect of the arbitral award and its enforceability akin to that of final judgements of national courts necessitate some “balanced” degree of judicial supervision.

The Impact of the Seat of Arbitration on Judicial-Interference: Do Sections 67, 68 and 69 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 regarding Challenges of Awards Make London An Attractive Hub?

There are various determinants that induce London to be the favourable seat. In this regard, the grounds for challenging an award have some severe implications on determining London as the arbitral seat.1 Arbitrations with a London seat are exercised under the ‘supervisory jurisdiction’2 of the English courts and the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996).3 That is to say, any challenge to an interim or final award made by the arbitrators may be fulfilled in the courts of the location chosen as the arbitral seat. The consensual nature of international arbitration depends on certain core principles such as party autonomy, judicial nonintervention and finality of the arbitral awards. Nonetheless, the binding aspect of the arbitral award and its enforceability akin to that of final judgements of national courts necessitate some “balanced” degree of judicial supervision.

Post award arbitral tribunal's mandate under the UNCITRAL Model Law and national laws based thereon

The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration provides for the extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal post issuance of the final award for the issuance of correction, interpretation, additional award, and remittance of the award back to the arbitral tribunal to remove grounds for challenging the award. Using a doctrinal approach, this paper examines the deviations of the national laws of adopting jurisdictions from the Model Law in regards to this extended mandate, and evaluates the improvements and drawbacks in these deviations. Mainly, the findings of this paper are that, of the many deviations, the positive changes are those that provide comfortable and lenient default provisions for the benefit of inexperienced parties, and since correction, interpretation, additional award, and remittance are useful provisions that are designed to help self-rectify the arbitral process, without adversely delaying it, then the changes that increase the efficacy of these provisions are welcomed. On the other hand, unnecessary deviations are seen as drawbacks that hinder the harmonization of national arbitration laws aimed at by the Model Law. The adopting jurisdictions shall be limited to those acknowledged as such by the UNCITRAL.

The Advance on Costs in Arbitration: Reimbursement of Substituted Payment

This article explores the issues arising from the refusal of a respondent to pay its share of the advance on costs in an arbitration, the claimant’s substituted payment in respect of it, and the claimant’s entitlement to immediate reimbursement by the respondent before the final award is rendered and costs are allocated. The article will discuss the position under various institutional rules and draw a comparative analysis between them. It will also explore the legal basis of a claim for reimbursement, consider the approach that arbitral tribunals should adopt when granting relief, and examine a recent partial award in a Doha-seated International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration which ordered the immediate reimbursement of a substituted payment of the advance on costs. arbitration, advance on costs, substituted payment, immediate reimbursement, award, order