Suchergebnisse

This article is devoted to a number of issues relating to the functioning of international commercial arbitration as a non-State mechanism for the settlement of international commercial disputes in the Republic of Uzbekistan. In article also found a brief introduction on the history of arbitration in Uzbekistan since its independence. Special attention is paid to the rules introduced since the entry into force of the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan "On international commercial arbitration". Moreover, the author highlights some problematic issues and inconsistencies that exist in the legislation on legal proceedings in arbitration courts. The author also addresses several issues regarding the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.

In The Politics of Arbitration Law and Centrist Proposals for Reform, I explained how issues surrounding consumer and other adhesive arbitration agreements became divisive along predictable political lines (progressives vs. conservatives) and proposed an intermediate (or centrist) position to resolve those issues. However, The Politics of Arbitration Law did not argue the case for my proposals. It left those arguments for this Article, which makes the case against current (conservative) arbitration law, and a third article, which will make the case against progressive proposals to reform arbitration law. In other words, this Article stands out from the many other articles critiquing current arbitration law because this Article's critique comes from a centrist, rather than progressive, perspective. For that reason, this Article's critique may be more likely than progressive critiques to gain traction with lawmakers.

This article argues that there is no normative conflict between IIL and international cultural law, but a conflict between the cultural interest of host states and the interest of foreign investors ( the culture-investment conflict of interests ) instead. Beyond, this article puts forth, and aims at shedding light on, the 'sensitiveness' of IIL to cultural heritage, i.e. the fact that the conventional granting of rights to foreign investors does not result in a regulatory chill with respect to the protection/promotion of cultural heritage. At the core of this claim lies the fact .

The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in Action examines and evaluates the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, its practice and awards in order to discover whether and to what extent it has been successful in settling inter-state, primarily commercial, but also politically charged disputes and whether, as a process, it offers a workable solution for future difficult circumstances of a similar nature. Because of its unique features, such as a private and public law nature, the magnitude of its case-load (ca. 3800 cases) and the diversity of matters brought before it, the Iran-US Claims Tribunal will certainly leave its mark on the international legal community

A bird's-eye view --Fundamentals of international arbitration --The nature of guerrilla tactics in international arbitration --Factors that may encourage or facilitate guerrilla tactics --Mechanisms to control guerrilla tactics in international arbitration --Guerrilla tactics in court : a study of the use of judicial sanctions in Hong Kong --Curbing guerrilla tactics in international arbitration : a critical review of solutions and directions --Concluding remarks --Arbitration and COVID-19 pandemic : virtual guerrilla tactics.

"This chapter lays out the main questions of the book. It starts by asking, why arbitration is significantly understudied and underutilized despite its superior record of success compared mediation - the most popular method peaceful third party intervention in territorial dispute. This chapter introduces the reasons for the recourse to arbitration and the motivations of states to comply with the arbitration award or defy it. The chapter also introduces the main argument of the book - the reclaiming of the sui generis of arbitration as the only peaceful method of dispute settlement which allows for the consideration of non-legal matters (e.g. historical, political, equity) within a legally-binding framework. In other words, it combines the political and the judicial in a unique process that maximizes state choice and autonomy but yields a binding decision. The remaining of the chapter sets out the qualitative comparative methodology applied in the book, and outlines structure of main contributions of the remaining chapters"--