Type Of Arbitration Research Articles

Digital Arbitration Is a New Way of Dispute Resolution for the Unified Digital Space of the EAEU: Political, Philosophical and Legal Aspect

The article discusses the theoretical legal foundations of a new type of arbitration – digital arbitration (or blockchain arbitration). The author formulated the concept of digital arbitration and analyzed the differences between digital arbitration and traditional arbitration from the point of view of theories about the legal nature of arbitration. In particular, the author believes that the term digital arbitration (blockchain arbitration) is used in three meanings. Firstly, the term digital arbitration refers to a way to protect the rights arising from smart contracts. This method is considered as an alternative to those methods that imply the need to seek judicial protection from the State or traditional arbitration. Secondly, digital arbitration refers to the body that organizes the digital trial of a legal dispute. And, thirdly, this concept denotes an artificial intelligence agent (robot), which considered the dispute submitted for its resolution. The author believes that due to its features, digital arbitration can be recommended as an alternative way to resolve disputes in the digital space of the EAEU.

Dispute Resolution in Business Sector: Comparing Indonesia and Singapore Arbitration Model

Dispute resolution within the business sector can be accomplished through either national arbitration institutions or international arbitration institutions. International arbitration serves as a process to settle civil disputes using a neutral third party, particularly in the context of business-related conflicts arising between parties engaged in international business agreements. Such arbitration is often specified through arbitration clauses included in these international business agreements, which are mutually agreed upon by the involved parties. One example of an international arbitration institution that specializes in resolving civil disputes, particularly those within the business sector, is the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) located in Singapore. The implementation of arbitration awards depends on the type of arbitration being conducted, whether it is a national arbitration award or an international arbitration award. During the preparation of this paper, the author utilized a normative-juridical research method, which involves relying on legal library sources and secondary legal materials to address existing legal issues. This paper aims to compare the legal foundations and the arbitration dispute resolution processes employed by the Indonesian National Arbitration Board (BANI) and the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). The research findings reveal that the legal basis for arbitration dispute resolution utilized by the Indonesian National Arbitration Board (BANI) differs from that employed by the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). Nevertheless, the processes and procedures for resolving arbitration disputes conducted by both institutions demonstrate notable similarities.

Legality Aspect Of Conducting Documents Only Arbitration In Indonesia

Documents-Only Arbitration (DOA) is a type of arbitration that is carried out entirely by written documents-only. DOA is beneficial when the burden and substance of the dispute are relatively simple and when there are obstacles to conduct a face-to-face proceeding (instance in the Covid-19 Pandemic or limitation of cost). This study examined the DOA trial method and how it is based on Law No. 30 Year1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution as the lex arbitri in Indonesia. Regulations, Rules, and Procedures from arbitration institutions, both national and international are also studied to better understand the problem. This study aimed to explain the legality of arbitration based on Documents-Only Arbitration in Indonesia. This study concluded that the conduct of DOA is very possible to be implemented in Indonesia and does not conflict with Law No. 30 Year 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Arbitration Law).

Impartiality and independence: fundamental and fluid

Abstract In this article, the author discusses the paradox between the fundamentality of arbitrator impartiality and independence and the fluidity of the applicable norms. These norms differ over time and place, and vary depending on the type of arbitration, the stage of the proceedings and the applicable rules and laws. While standards applicable to judges have some relevance for this discussion, they cannot be equated with the standards for arbitrators. The recent English Supreme Court decision in Halliburton v Chubb is used to illustrate various aspects of the discussion.

Emergency Arbitration: Mere Innovation or Vast Improvement

Abstract Effectiveness of emergency arbitration is a disputable question, which was touched by several commentators since it was first introduced in 2006. Concerns have been raised in relation to the enforceability of emergency reliefs under the New York Convention and the risk of concurrent jurisdiction between emergency arbitrators and national courts in granting interim measures prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. A more specific concern is related to the suitability of introducing this mechanism, to investment arbitration. This article argues that adopting an international instrument for enforcing emergency reliefs will be the best solution. As for investment arbitration, emergency arbitrators are no less important in this type of arbitration than in commercial arbitration. However, certain features of emergency arbitration shall be tailored to meet the distinct nature of investment cases. Although certain amendments are needed to enhance the effectiveness of this relatively new mechanism, the future of emergency arbitrator is still optimistic. Therefore, to avoid any duplication of fora, courts are expected to respect emergency arbitrator's jurisdiction and only intervene when the latter is not capable of granting a relief.

International Commercial Arbitration and the Possible Application Thereof in Iraq

International commercial arbitration is a special judicial system based primarily on an agreement, be it an arbitration clause or an arbitration agreement (compromise), between
 parties to a dispute. It is therefore a system aiming at settling commercial disputes by submitting them to a single arbitrator, or an arbitral panel, or an arbitral tribunal (e. g. , the
 International Court of Arbitration). It is therefore also a means for settling an existing or future dispute that entails refraining from resorting to the competent judiciary. It is also
 an extra – judicial action aiming at establishing justice between people. The aim of arbitration is to bring justice to parties in conflict, but it is also designed to preserve peace
 among them, by providing solutions that are deemed satisfactory by each party, and through direct confrontation. It is a technical means for peaceful cooperation between
 countries with different systems. Resorting to international commercial arbitration is intended to solve a dispute based on a desire for reconciliation, to thereby avoid private
 retribution, without waiving the protection of the law, although it does entail waiver of state judges’ jurisdiction to rule over the dispute, since the parties choose their own
 judge.
 This type of Arbitration is called “international” if it relates to international commercial interests. Arbitration is also used in other areas, e. g. , personal status and tribal arbitration
 in Iraq. However, our study concentrates on international commercial arbitration and the possible application thereof in Iraq.

Instytucjonalna podstawa orzekania w ramach arbitrażu przymusowego

The courts of modern countries do not want to use the monopoly in the area of deciding about investments or sports cases. Henceforth, in time appeared a construction of alternative forms for solving such a dispute. They constitute an open category of proceedings solving sports disputes, which are undergoing a big evolution in some countries nowadays. Their common characteristic is the interference of a neutral third party (for example an arbitrator), with a purpose to present or propose to the parties a solution of a dispute. Arbitration is often thought as a quick and efficient method for determining controversies. The modern law prescribes formal and substantive requirements for the arbitration agreement, which must be made in writing. The requirement of a written form is also satisfied if in a contract between parties, they refer to a document containing a clause with a decision to resolve their dispute in arbitration, provided that such a contract is made in writing and the reference incorporates that clause into the contract. The principal problem related to the arbitration agreement “per relationem” or “by reference” lies in the consensual character of such agreement whereas the form of the agreement has been found to be a preliminary question to this matter. In the article the author analyses the institutional basis for obligatory arbitration in past and currently. This type of arbitration may be forced by a law, a third party (e.g. international sports federation) or a party of the legal relationship.

Reinterpreting the Arbitration Legislation for Online Awards in Indonesia

Objective - The use of online arbitration is more convenient for the disputing parties because their submissions can be archived by automated document management systems and be reviewed from any location, at any time. Yet, the process of online arbitration in Indonesia is questionable because the Indonesian Arbitration Legislation does not provide provisions relating to online arbitration. It is also questioned whether online arbitration awards are domestic or international under the Legislation. In order to answer the questions, this research examines and reinterprets the Legislation to establish arguments pertaining to the status of online arbitration and its awards in Indonesia. Methodology/Technique - It adopts a normative legal research by examining the existing legislation and literatures relating to arbitration. Findings - It found that the Legislation permits online arbitration because the IT Legislation facilitates the use of electronic communications and devices for this type of arbitration. Yet, the category of its awards may be vague. This is because Indonesia has not adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law. Consequently, the Legislation merely categorizes the online arbitration awards based on whether they are rendered in Indonesian territory (domestic awards) or outside Indonesia (international awards). Originality/value - The use of technology has penetrated business transactions and may result in legal disputes. Therefore, those who engage in online transactions should consider their dispute resolution mechnism. In the context of online business, it may be beneficial for disputing parties to settle their disputes through online arbitration because it can transcend national boundaries, and its awards may be enforceable. Type of Paper - Review Keywords: Online arbitration, awards, dispute resolution, arbitration law, Indonesia. JEL Classification: K2, K29

Towards power-elastic systems through concurrency management

This study describes power-elastic systems, a method for designing systems whose operations are limited by applicable power. Departing from the traditional low-power design approach which minimises the power consumption for given amounts of computation throughput, power-elastic design focuses on the maximally effective use of applicable power. Centred on a run-time feedback control architecture, power-elastic systems manage their computation loads according to applicable power constraints, effectively viewing quantities of power as resources to be distributed among units of computation. Concurrency management is demonstrated as an effective means of implementing such run-time control, through both theoretical and numerical investigations. Several concurrency management techniques are studied and the effectiveness of arbitration for dynamic concurrency management with minimal prior system knowledge is demonstrated. A new type of arbitration, called soft arbitration, particularly suitable for managing the access of flexible resources such as power, is developed and proved.

Matching From the First Iteration: An Iterative Switching Algorithm for an Input Queued Switch

An iterative switching algorithm for an input queued switch consists of a number of iterations in every time step, where each iteration computes a disjoint matching. If input i is matched to output j in a given iteration, a packet (if any) is forwarded from i to j in the corresponding time step. Most of the iterative switching algorithms use a Request Grant Accept (RGA) arbitration type (e.g. iSLIP). Unfortunately, due to this particular type of arbitration, the matching computed in one iteration is not necessarily maximal (more input and output ports can still be matched). This is exactly why multiple iterations are needed. However, multiple iterations make the time step larger and reduce the speed of the switch. We present a new iterative switching algorithm (based on the RGA arbitration) called π-RGA with the underlying assumption that the number of iterations is possibly limited to one, hence reducing the time step and allowing the switch to run at a higher speed. We prove that π-RGA achieves throughput and delay guarantees with a speedup of 2 and one iteration under a constant burst traffic model, which makes π-RGA as good as any maximal matching algorithm in the theoretical sense. We also show by simulation that π-RGA achieves relatively high throughput in practice under uniform and non-uniform traffic patterns with one iteration and no speedup.

Salient Issues in the Law and Practice of Arbitration in Nigeria

Nigeria is one country that has never really had any hesitation in its embrace of commercial arbitration and the ADRs as far better means of dispute resolution than litigation. Nigerians have always had a warm and vigorous recourse to arbitration and the ADRs in one form or the other. In the traditional societies that preceded the Nigerian state, customary law arbitration and ADRs were much more in use than customary litigation. Then, as now, arbitration and the ADRs were generally conciliatory by aiming at the preservation of existing relationships instead of the mere declaration of rights and liabilities that might not necessarily achieve effective and enduring justice. Arbitration and the ADRs were therefore more in agreement with the African philosophy of each person being his brother’s keeper, than litigation which was confrontational even in the traditional society. The English law of arbitration was also introduced into Nigeria early in the life of the country then as a colony of Britain. Even though the Imperial Government concentrated on litigation as a favoured means of settling disputes in the colony of Nigeria and, even if unwittingly, hampered the growth of the law and practice of the English (Western) type of arbitration and the ADRs, customary law arbitration and ADRs were in marvellous prosperity. After its independence from Britain in 1960 Nigeria took firm and excellent steps at the earliest opportunities it got in 1965 and 1967 to facilitate the growth of the law and practice of international arbitration within and without her borders. It was the first country to accede to the ICSID Convention in 1965, quickly following that up with the enactment of the ICSID (Enforcement of Awards) Act,1 in 1967. Ever since, it has normally modernised and updated its laws and striven in other ways to make itself a conducive place for arbitrations. In fact, the law of arbitration has grown in content and quality over the years even in the midst of daunting infrastructural limitations. In this article we shall survey the development of the trade in the country in the light of certain usual developmental signposts in arbitration. We shall first

The Kuwaiti Judicial Arbitration Act 1995

AT THE beginning of this year, a new act entitled ‘Act on Judicial Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Matters’1 was issued in Kuwait. This law has several characteristics the main ones being: The new Act abolishes Article 177 of the Kuwaiti Code of Civil Procedure and replaces it.5 Article 177 of the Code of Civil Procedure6 provided for the constitution, by the Ministry of Justice, of one or several Councils chaired by a judge and whose members would be merchants. These councils were entitled to examine disputes which were referred to them by parties having an agreement in this respect. The Explanatory memorandum of the Bill specifies the following concerning the replacement of Article 177 CCP: > The practical implementation of the provisions of this article showed that little use was made of this type of arbitration. Perhaps, this is due to the image given by this article to optional arbitral proceedings in general, and judicial arbitration in particular. This image did not seem to satisfy the required objective, i.e . speed, as the choice of the arbitrator took too much time and effort and as a challenge of an arbitrator would lead to a suspension of the proceedings until this had been …

The Finality of Arbitration Involving States: Recent Developments

arbitration involving States is a subject which raises many and highly diversified issues. Depending upon the circumstances, this type of arbitration may involve disputes between States (or for that matter between States and international organisations1), or it may relate to disputes between a State and private parties. Either type of arbitration may cover a variety of topics, including among others, questions relating to the procedural aspects of the proceedings or to the determination of the law applicable to the dispute.2 Beyond arbitral issues, issues of sovereign immunity may become relevant also at the time of enforcing the arbitration agreement or in connection with the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.3 Clearly, an exhaustive analysis of the many facets of the subject would require separate treatment. All that is possible in the present article is to single out certain issues that have arisen in recent years and show some of the advantages of arbitration as a means of settling disputes involving states, as well as some of the pitfalls that may hinder the effectiveness of that machinery. One encouraging factor concerns arbitration between states. Two recent examples come readily to mind. One is the Greenpeace arbitration between France and New Zealand,4 in which France admitted liability for the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior , a ship owned by Greenpeace, and also agreed to refer to the Secretary General of the United Nations other issues specifically related to its relations with New Zealand. The other case concerned the Taba arbitration between Israel and Egypt,5 which put an end to the boundary dispute between the two countries and has been reported recently as being practically settled.6 These encouraging signs are not the only ones. Significant results have also been achieved by the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. However, …