Search

Mediation is an institution that has been in demand in all modern legal systems for the last twenty years as a fast, reliable and inexpensive alternative method in the resolution of commercial law disputes. Turkey and Uzbekistan are in a conti nuous effort to ensure compliance with comparative law systems which are adopted by the EU and international legislation in the modern sense, including mediation. In Turkey’s case, specialization and institutionalization targets were envisaged regarding mediation. Codification frameworks devoid of systematic planning were carried out in order to achieve these targets. Contrary to the concept of mediation, the areas where mandatory mediation applies have been expanded. On the other hand, for Uzbekistan’s case, which accepted mediation six years after Turkey, in 2018, and did not adopt mandatory mediation, Turkey’s disappointing mediation experience can be regarded as a lesson. This experience is valid not only for Uzbe kistan but also for all legal systems that include mediation.

As it becomes more challenging and expensive to access capital, Canadian businesses are looking for strategic ways to unlock value. When doing this, they typically list their monetizable assets, but [...]

This study provides insight into the total duration of litigation from the perspective of litigants. It examines commercial court cases with claims between 1 million and 5 million EUR in the Netherlands. It focuses on cases in which first instance judgments are appealed. In many of these cases other related procedures ensue. Using detailed data of the case administration system of the courts in the Netherlands, cases are followed as they wind their way through the court system. The results show that court statistics do not reflect the time taken for disposition from the litigant’s perspective. A substantial number of high value cases are not concluded within a reasonable time and there is a wide spread of the time taken for disposition. For prospective litigants, it is not easy to predict the duration of litigation. The ensuing uncertainty makes it harder for them to assert their rights.

Objective: Over the past decade, arbitration has grown in popularity as a method of resolving commercial disputes worldwide. However, this practice is relatively new in Macao SAR. Recently, official plans were announced to make Macao as a seat of arbitration for commercial disputes between China and Portuguese-speaking countries (Hereinafter PSCs). This article is dedicated to explores the possibility of Macao undertaking and implementing such a role. Accordingly, this article addresses the following issues: What are the strengths and weaknesses of Macao as a seat and eventually as venue for hosting international commercial arbitration between Chinese and PSCs entrepreneurs? Methodology: A mixed-method approach of legal doctrinal and empirical research was used in this article. We first included a thorough study of the concept of arbitration followed by analysis of various legal journals and legislations, including Macao, China, and PSCs’ arbitration laws. An empirical research was then used to collect data by surveying and interviewing with both lawyers and arbitration practitioners from Macao, China and PSCs. Results: This article argues that the strength of Macao resides in the similarities between its legal system and that of the China and PSCs and the languages advantage (Chinese and Portuguese both official languages). In spite of this, arbitration is still relatively underutilized in the region, and there is a limited number of arbitrators and legal professionals with bilingual proficiency. Contributions: This article contributes to the identification of the opportunities and challenges that Macao faces in its potential future development as a seat/venue of arbitration between China and the PSCs.

The progress that the world has witnessed in recent times, whether in the field of international trade or internal trade, and the accompanying development in the speed of concluding and implementing contracts, the Internet has played a major role that accelerated the entire process. This has resulted in many questions regarding online dispute resolution. Here, the role of electronic arbitration emerged as a radical solution to all electronic disputes because of its effective role in the field of commerce.

Arbitration has dominated the landscape of the resolution of international commercial disputes (that is, private disputes involving transnational connections). Nevertheless, the last fifteen years have witnessed a proliferation in the establishment of new commercial courts in several countries, with the aim of attracting international commercial disputes. This article makes the novel argument that such attempts are unlikely to render adjudication an attractive alternative to arbitration. For the new international commercial courts to fully realize their potential and produce a sustainable market of adjudication, some mechanism is needed to secure the enforceability of jurisdiction clauses and the judgments delivered by courts in other jurisdictions. Although such mechanism is provided by the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, this convention has failed to gain international support. This is puzzling given that this convention adopts the same principles that enabled the success of the 1958 New York Arbitration Convention—namely enforcing party choice of forum and facilitating enforcement of the resolution’s outcome. This article provides the first attempt to analyze the reasons for this failure. To this end, it compares the political and legal conditions under which the two conventions were conceived, showing how the differences in these conditions have led to lower international acceptance of the Hague Convention. This article supports this analysis by focusing on the most recent ratification of the Hague Convention by the UK. We advance the novel argument that this case study demonstrates the important role played by the legal community in the ratification process. We show that, ironically, the UK’s decision to quit the EU in order to restore national sovereignty was a major reason leading to its ratification of the Hague Convention, thus giving up fundamental principles of common law that had granted English courts broad discretion as to whether to enforce jurisdiction clauses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Brexit raises a whole range of legal issues in multiple areas. The consequences on the EU framework for jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments are of particular interest for private parties involved in cross-border commercial agreements. This paper explores the legal basis for the jurisdiction of courts and the enforcement and recognition of judgments between the UK and EU-27 courts after Brexit. In addition, it broadly contrasts the main differences of the proposed solutions compared to the EU system. The paper argues that international conventions can provide answers to some of the questions as they set out rules for the jurisdiction, enforcement and recognition of judgments. However, there are factors that can have an impact on possible legal outcomes, such as the framework of the future deal between the UK and the EU-27, the moment of the commencement of proceedings by the parties in the transition period, or the fact that the parties did not opt for exclusive jurisdiction in their agreements. The Withdrawal Agreement provides for some clarity on which EU law provisions apply during the transition period. In addition, the EC Notices and the UK Brexit legislation provide for guidelines as to the rules applicable in and immediately after the transition period. Nevertheless, as the paper analyses, there is still a need for further clarification. Therefore, other methods of dispute resolution proposed in the article such as moving to arbitration instead of English court jurisdiction could provide legal certainty for private parties.