Suchergebnisse

Whether an interim measure of protection is an arbitral award is a hotly debated question, which has received almost every conceivable answer from legislators, courts and commentators. The extent of the disagreement is not easily explained. Part of the explanation is ambiguity over how the question should be addressed: is the concept of an 'arbitral award' a single notion or a variable one? Is it static or evolving? Is it a question of definition or policy? The answers given to these questions suggest that ambiguity over whether an interim measure is an award reflects a broader debate about the legal basis of international arbitration itself. Ultimately, however, the dispute appears to be something of a side-show. The Model Law shows that the policy objective of ensuring that interim measures are enforceable through the courts is achievable without creating the negative consequences that flow from classifying interim measures as awards.

AbstractThe seat of arbitration is fundamental to defining the legal framework for international arbitral proceedings. Although parties are able to select the arbitral seat, arbitration clauses are frequently 'pathological', failing to designate the seat or failing to do so clearly. If the seat is not clearly identified by the parties' agreement, the court may be called upon to decide which country is the seat (typically, in order to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction to entertain certain types of arbitration application). The simplest situations are 'uni-directional' cases in which, in procedural terms, the parties' agreement points expressly or impliedly towards a single location. More difficult are 'pluri-directional' cases in which the agreement refers to more than one possible location. While certain scenarios are relatively straightforward, what constitutes a choice by the parties is more complicated if the parties' agreement contains signposts pointing in different directions. In 'uni-directional' cases, the English courts have developed a series of interpretative guidelines which solve most of the problems posed by potentially ambiguous clauses. However, in 'pluri-directional' situations, the English case law is less convincing. In such cases, the courts have not approached the identification of the arbitral seat in a consistent way; they have not laid down a clear doctrinal framework; and they may be legitimately criticized for displaying a measure of 'forum preference'.

The core provisions of the Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations are deceptively simple: a contract is governed by the law chosen by the parties (Article 3(1)); to the extent that the parties have not made a choice, a contract is governed by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected (Article 4(1)). However, within these provisions there are a number of problems. First, Article 3 provides that the parties' choice may be either express or 'demonstrated with reasonable certainty from the terms ofthecontract or the circumstances of the case'. This gives rise to potentially difficult questions about what constitutes an express choice and uncertainty as to the dividing line between, on the one hand, cases where the parties have made a choice (albeit not an expressone) and, on the other, cases where the parties have not made a choice at all. Secondly, the general principle in Article 4 is supplemented bya presumption (in paragraph 2), 1 which may, incertain circumstances, be disregarded (under paragraph 5). The operation of the presumption is problematic and the relationship between Article 4(2) and
Article 4(5) controversial.

Over the course of the last hundred and fifty years or so the general trend in the laws of Western European countries has been, first, to make provision for judicial divorce and, second, to make it easier for parties to a marriage which has broken down to obtain such a divorce. This coupled with increased mobility has added to the significance of the law relating to the recognition of foreign divorces. The law's essential task is to strike the right balance between, on the one hand, being too restrictive, thereby creating "limping" marriages (i.e., marriages which are valid in one or more countries, but not others) and, on the other, being too generous, thereby sanctioning "quickie" divorces or divorces of convenience.1

As a method for resolving commercial disputes which have connections with two or more countries, arbitration has been given a tremendous boost this century by two developments at the international level. The New York Convention of 1958—which was first implemented in England and Wales by the Arbitration Act 1975—introduced a regime which went a long way toward ensuring that arbitration agreements are respected and that arbitral awards are easily enforceable. The Convention has been hugely successful in that it has been ratified by upwards of 90 States, including all the countries of Western Europe (with the exception of Iceland) and nearly all countries which are significant commercial centres. More indirect has been the influence of the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, which was adopted by UNCITRAL in 1985. Although the Model Law, which seeks to encourage States to modernise their arbitration laws, has not been enacted by a very large number of countries, it has had a significant impact in that it has set an agenda for reform—even for those countries which have decided not to enact it. The Model Law has become "a yardstick by which to judge the quality of… existing arbitration legislation and to improve it".

By defining ethnogenesis as the synthesis of people's cultural and political struggles to exist as well as their historical consciousness of these struggles, History, Power, and Identity breaks out of the implicit contrast between isolated local cultures and dynamic global history. From northeastern plains of North America to Amazonia, colonial and independent states in the Americas interacted with vast multilingual and multicultural networks, resulting in the historical emergence of new ethnic identities and the disappearance of many earlier ones. The importance of African, indigenous American, and European religions, myths, and symbols as historical cornerstones in the building of new ethnic identities emerges as one of the central themes of this convincing collection

FEC techniques are compared for different MIMO configurations of a high altitude, extremely wide bandwidth radio frequency downlink. Monte Carlo simulations are completed in MATLAB® with the aim of isolating the impacts of turbo codes and LDPC codes on system throughput and error performance. The system is modeled as a transmit-only static array at an altitude of 60,000 feet, with no interferers in the channel. Transmissions are received by a static receiver array. Simulations attempt to determine what modulation types should be considered for practical implementation, and what FEC codes enable these modulation schemes. The antenna configurations used in this study are [44:352], [62:248], and [80:160] transmitters to receivers. Effects from waveform generation, mixing, down-conversion, and amplification are not considered. Criteria of interest were BER and throughput, with the maximum allowable value of the former set at 1 x 10-5, and the latter set at a 1 terabits per second (Tbps) transfer rate for a successful configuration. Results show that the best performing system configuration was unable to meet both criteria, but was capable of improving over Brueggen's 2012 research, which used Reed-Solomon codes and a MIMO configuration of [80:160], by 18.6%. The best-case configuration produced a throughput rate of 0.83 Tbps at a BER of less than 1 x 10-8, by implementing a rate 2/3 LDPC code with QAM constellation of 16 symbols.