Suchergebnisse

The law of labor disputes in the United States: State agencies for dealing with labor disputes, the experience of New York, by J. Lundrigan; The next legislation on industrial disputes in Massachusetts, by R. Luce.--The law of labor disputes abroad: The Canadian industrial disputes investigation act, by F. A. Acland; Settlement and prevention of industrial disputes in New Zealand, by P. Kennaday; The German courts for the arbitration of industrial disputes, by H. Weinstock. ; Special problems of labor disputes: Free speech and the injunction order, by S. Gompers; The law of the Danbury hatters' case, by W. G. Merritt; Effect of the recent boycott decisions, by M. A. Schaffner; Proper bounds of the use of the injunction in labor disputes, by J. W. Bryan.--Methods of settlement of labor disputes: Compulsory arbitration in the United States, by C. J. Doyle; Necessity of industrial arbitration, by J. Krauskopf; Trade agreements, by E. Stewart; The settlement of disputes among the mine workers, by T. L. Lewis; The trade agreement in the coal industry, by F. J. Warne; The wage scale agreements of the maritime unions, by R. K. Forsyth; The anthracite board of conciliation, by T. D. Nicholls; The work of employers associations in the settlement of labor disputes, by J. W. Van Cleave; Welfare work as a way to prevent labor disputes, by T. S. Vance; The sympathetic strike, by C. O. Pratt. ; Mode of access: Internet.

The General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, signed at Geneva, September 26, 1928, is intended to provide for the final settlement of every dispute, of whatever nature it may be. Chapter II is evoted to legal disputes, while Chapter III, Articles 21-28, lays down rules concerning the settlement of non-legal disputes. This idea of a recourse to arbitration for the settlement of purely political conflicts, which Chapter III puts forward, may appear to be inconsistent with a long evolution which has tended to emphasize the judicial character of arbitration. It is true that occasionally states have submitted such conflicts to an arbitral tribunal, but it is for the first time that a provision to this effect has been inserted in a multipartitetreaty. A treaty of this kind has a legislative character and exercises a great influence upon the development of international law. The importance of the General Act is all the greater since some twenty states, including three great Powers, have already ratified it. This treaty, which may be compared only to the Hague Convention,could largely contribute to a revision of the common conception of arbitration. Does it attempt to do so, or is it rather intended to leave this conception unchanged and to create a new method of pacific settlement? In either case, how should the new conception of arbitration be defined? Since purely political disputes cannot be settled by the application of a rule of law, are the powers of the tribunal unlimited? These questions deserve closer consideration, especially since the relevant provisions of Chapter III of the General Act have already inspired certain opinions which, it is believed, are not only contrary to the true meaning of this treaty, but also,if generally adopted, would destroy the very foundations of international arbitration. Now, one of the essential ideas underlying the General Act is not to impair in the least what has already proved useful, but to develop the existing means for the pacific settlement of disputes. Chapter III constitutes an important step forward. Its evolutionary character and its exact meaning can best be realized in the light of the practice of statesand of the jurisprudence of arbitral tribunals.