Suchergebnisse

This study examines the adoption of arbitration for the definitive solution of conflicts between Brazilian Public Administration and its citizens. Despite strong sociological reasons against adopting the institute in Brazil, surprisingly, legal scholars assimilated it with ease. Dogmatic reasons, however, prevent its adoption. The thesis that it is possible when it comes to the secondary interest is untenable, as the secondary interest is only valid when it coincides with the primary one. The unavailability of the public interest was circumvented by explicit legislative authorization term. It is impossible to circumvent the supremacy of the public interest over the private one, which prevents removing the judiciary from having the final word prerogative on the interpretation of matters of the public interest. Therefore, all laws that authorize administrative arbitration are unconstitutional. ; Este estudio trata sobre la adopción del arbitraje para la solución definitiva de los conflictos entre la Administración Pública brasileña y la administrada. A pesar de las fuertes razones sociológicas en contra de la adopción del instituto en Brasil, sorprendentemente la comunidad jurídica lo asimiló con facilidad. Sin embargo, razones dogmáticas impiden su adopción. La tesis de que es posible cuando se trata de interés secundario es insostenible, ya que el interés secundario solo es válido cuando coincide con el primario. La indisponibilidad del interés público se eludió mediante autorización legislativa expresa. Es imposible eludir la supremacía del interés público sobre el privado, lo que impide que el poder judicial tenga la prerrogativa de dar la última palabra en la interpretación de los asuntos relacionados con el interés público que deben descartarse. Por lo tanto, todas las leyes que autorizan el arbitraje administrativo son inconstitucionales. ; Este estudo versa sobre a adoção da arbitragem para solução definitiva de conflitos entre a Administração Pública brasileira e o administrado. Apesar de fortes razões ...

The purpose of this article is to address the question of arbitrability of administrative conflicts, generally and as characteristic of Portugal. Although the use of arbitration in conflicts where public entities intervene in private relationships is usually allowed, European legislatures commonly consider administrative disputes as a type of controversy excluded from arbitration. It is indeed easy to raise strong arguments against alternative dispute resolution when public administration is implicated. Nevertheless, none of the objections usually raised seems to be unbridgeable. Consequently, the article aims to critically analyse the main arguments against the power of arbitrators to rule on public conflicts. Presently, the Portuguese law allows administrative arbitration in a wide range of areas, from conflicts relating to administrative contracts to conflicts over the legality of administrative authority acts. The assessment of this regime makes it clear that the enlargement of the objective scope of administrative arbitration has to be accompanied by rules, which offer a response to the specific requirements of administrative law and a safeguard of public interest. In this sense, the analysis offers a critical review of the solutions of Portuguese law, which can be also used in comparable legal regimes of other European countries. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The purpose of this article is to address the question of arbitrability of administrative conflicts, generally and as characteristic of Portugal. Although the use of arbitration in conflicts where public entities intervene in private relationships is usually allowed, European legislatures commonly consider administrative disputes as a type of controversy excluded from arbitration. It is indeed easy to raise strong arguments against alternative dispute resolution when public administration is implicated. Nevertheless, none of the objections usually raised seems to be unbridgeable. Consequently, the article aims to critically analyse the main arguments against the power of arbitrators to rule on public conflicts. Presently, the Portuguese law allows administrative arbitration in a wide range of areas, from conflicts relating to administrative contracts to conflicts over the legality of administrative authority acts. The assessment of this regime makes it clear that the enlargement of the objective scope of administrative arbitration has to be accompanied by rules, which offer a response to the specific requirements of administrative law and a safeguard of public interest. In this sense, the analysis offers a critical review of the solutions of Portuguese law, which can be also used in comparable legal regimes of other European countries.

บทคัดย่องานวิจัยนี้มีวัตถุประสงค์เพื่อศึกษาสัญญาทางปกครองและการอนุญาโตตุลาการในพระราชบัญญัติอนุญาโตตุลาการ พ.ศ. 2545 และกฎหมายว่าด้วยการอนุญาโตตุลาการของต่างประเทศ ได้แก่ ประเทศฝรั่งเศส เยอรมนี อังกฤษ และสหรัฐอเมริกา คำชี้ขาดของอนุญาโตตุลาการและคำพิพากษาของศาลปกครองที่เกี่ยวข้อง และวิเคราะห์ปัญหาการอนุญาโตตุลาการในสัญญาทางปกครองด้านงานก่อสร้างของประเทศไทย เพื่อเสนอแนะแนวทางการแก้ไขปัญหาสำหรับการปรับปรุงและพัฒนากฎหมายว่าด้วยการอนุญาโตตุลาการในสัญญาทางปกครองด้านงานก่อสร้าง ผลการวิจัย พบว่า ปัญหาที่ทำให้ข้อพิพาทในสัญญาทางปกครองด้านงานก่อสร้างระหว่างหน่วยงานของรัฐกับภาคเอกชนไม่อาจยุติได้โดยการอนุญาโตตุลาการ และมีการนำข้อพิพาทขึ้นสู่ศาลปกครอง ทำให้สิ้นเปลืองเวลา และค่าใช้จ่าย เกิดจากการไม่มีกฎหมายสารบัญญัติและกฎหมายวิธีสบัญญัติเกี่ยวกับสัญญาทางปกครองด้านงานก่อสร้าง ทำให้ไม่มีหลักเกณฑ์การจัดทำสัญญาอนุญาโตตุลาการที่มีความละเอียดและรัดกุมอย่างเพียงพอ และจากการเปรียบเทียบกฎหมาย ในบางประเทศมีการกำหนดหลักเกณฑ์การจัดทำสัญญาอนุญาโตตุลาการเพิ่มเติมจากหลักการทั่วไป ให้ต้องกำหนดเรื่องที่สามารถใช้การอนุญาโตตุลาการได้ รวมถึงกรอบวงเงินสูงสุดซึ่งอนุญาโตตุลาการสามารถสั่งให้คู่พิพาทจ่ายให้แก่กันได้เมื่อมีคำวินิจฉัยไว้ จึงเสนอให้มีการจัดทำกฎหมายว่าด้วยสัญญาทางปกครองด้านงานก่อสร้าง โดยให้มีหลักเกณฑ์ดังกล่าวรวมอยู่ด้วยAbstractThe purpose of this research is to study administrative law, the practice of arbitration under the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545, foreign arbitration laws and the problems of arbitration in administrative construction contract of Thailand in comparison with foreign countries, namely Germany, France, England and the United States. This research emphasized on studying construction contract cases in which a party is a government agency and the private sector based on author experience in order to provide solution and recommendation for the development, improvement or amendment of Thailand administrative law related arbitration process. The research found that the main factors that make government still have to face problems arising from dispute resolution by arbitration and the dispute is proposed to administrative court causing consumption of time and financial expense is the lack of substantive and procedural laws for specifying the compulsory details in preparation of an arbitration agreement in administrative construction contact that is not yet comprehensive and still inadequacy. The comparison of foreign laws found that some countries have established rules for preparation of arbitration contract in addition to general principles included specification of subject matters of dispute that can be resolved by arbitration and maximum amount of money for which the arbitrator can order the parties to pay when the decision is made. Therefore, the study proposes to establish a new law for administrative construction contact with such criterions included.

The aim of the book is to give an easily accessible presentation of arbitration in Denmark. The book is based on the Danish Arbitration Act 2005 (which is based on the UNCITRAL model Law) and the Rules of Arbitration Procedure of the Danish Institute of Arbitration, with the main emphasis on the latter. It is the intention that the book will serve as an introduction, especially for non-Danish lawyers and their clients who are or who expect to become involved in arbitration proceedings in Denmark. The book is also helpful for non-Danish lawyers and companies who are considering to enter into an

Because of the unique position that Hong Kong occupies in China and its separate legal system based on the common law, it is a well-established policy of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (''HKSAR'') Government to develop and enhance Hong Kong's status as a major dispute resolution centre in the Asia Pacific region. One significant initiative in this regard is the recent introduction of a new Arbitration Ordinance to further improve the legal environment for arbitration in Hong Kong.

Intro -- Title -- Copyright -- Foreword to the First Edition -- Table of Contents -- Preface -- Chapter 1 Civil Procedure -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Differences Between Netherlands and Common Law -- 2.1 No Jury and the Role of the Judge -- 2.2 Evidence -- 2.2.1 Order -- 2.2.2 Admissibility -- 2.2.3 Burden of Proof -- 2.2.4 Witness Hearings -- 2.2.5 No Document Discovery or Depositions -- 2.3 Available Remedies -- 2.4 Duration of Proceedings -- 2.5 Costs of Litigation -- 3. Court System, Parties, Sources of Law and Fair Trial -- 3.1 The Court System -- 3.1.1 District Courts -- 3.1.1.1 General -- 3.1.1.2 Cantonal Division of the District Court -- 3.1.2 Courts of Appeal -- 3.1.3 Supreme Court -- 3.2 Parties, Attorneys and Judges -- 3.2.1 Parties -- 3.2.2 Attorneys -- 3.2.3 Judges -- 3.3 Sources of Law -- 3.4 Fair Trial, Due Process and Abuse of a Procedural Right -- 4. Jurisdiction -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 International Jurisdiction -- 4.2.1 Sources of International Jurisdiction -- 4.2.2 The EC Regulation -- 4.2.3 National Rules -- 4.2.3.1 General -- 4.2.3.2 Attachment Creating Jurisdiction -- 4.2.3.3 Jurisdiction and Petition Proceedings -- 4.2.3.4 No Forum Non Conveniens -- 4.2.4 Lis Pendens -- 4.3 Absolute Jurisdiction -- 4.4 Venue (Relative Jurisdiction) -- 5. Evidence -- 5.1 Rules of Evidence -- 5.1.1 General -- 5.1.2 Range of Application -- 5.1.3 Burden of Proof -- 5.1.4 Admissibility of Evidence -- 5.2 Types of Evidence -- 5.2.1 Documents -- 5.2.1.1 Value as Evidence -- 5.2.1.2 Submission -- 5.2.2 Witnesses -- 5.2.2.1 General -- 5.2.2.2 Value as Evidence -- 5.2.2.3 Written Witness Declarations -- 5.2.2.4 Witness Hearings -- 5.2.2.5 Preliminary Witness Hearing -- 5.2.3 Experts -- 5.2.3.1 General -- 5.2.3.2 Preliminary Expert's Report -- 5.3 Attorney-Client Privilege -- 5.4 Pre-trial Discovery or Disclosure -- 5.5 International Aspects.