Search result: 413 articles

x

Louis B. Buchman
Louis B. Buchman is an attorney at law, admitted to the Bar in Paris and in New York, arbitrator and mediator at Paris, France.
Article

Psychology of Conflict

Why Do People Fight First and Then Settle?

Journal Corporate Mediation Journal, Issue 1-2 2019
Keywords conflict, mediation, psychology
Authors Martin Brink
AbstractAuthor's information

    In many cases much harm and sorrow is caused first before people sit down and settle. Why not settle without fighting first?


Martin Brink
Martin Brink is Editor in Chief of this Corporate Mediation Journal

Laurence Katz
Partner at gunnercooke llp in London, United Kingdom.

Claire Mulder LL.M
LL.M, business mediator, location Geneva, Switzerland.
Article

Access_open Rereading Fisher & Ury

Identifying the Advantages of Mediation in the Specific Setting of a Competition Law Dispute

Journal Corporate Mediation Journal, Issue 1-2 2019
Keywords modern mediation, principled negotiations, competition law
Authors Pierre Kirch
AbstractAuthor's information

    To analyse the advantages of mediation as a means of resolution of private competition disputes, it is helpful to look backwards to the underlying principles upon which modern mediation has been built. The principles that now guide leading mediation institutions in Europe are still based on the foundation that was laid by the methods of principles negotiations, written down in Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In, by Fisher and Ury.


Pierre Kirch
Avocat à la Cour (Paris & Brussels Bars), Partner, Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP, mediator certified by the Centre de Médiation et d’Arbitrage de Paris (CMAP, Paris) and the Center for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR, London).
Article

Notes from the United States on Diversity in ADR (Opinion)

Journal Corporate Mediation Journal, Issue 1-2 2019
Keywords mediation, dispute resolution, diversity, United States
Authors Judith Meyer
AbstractAuthor's information

    Often being ‘the only woman in the room’, in this opinion Judith Meyer describes her concern about the underrepresentation of women, persons with disabilities, diverse neutrals and other minorities as professionals in alternative dispute resolution.


Judith Meyer
Judith Meyer is mediator and arbitrator in Haverford, Pennsylvania and an adjunct professor of negotiation and mediation at Cornell Law School.
Article

The enforcement of mediation agreements and settlement agreements resulting from mediation

Journal Corporate Mediation Journal, Issue 1-2 2019
Keywords mediation, conciliation, mediation agreement, settlement agreement, Singapore Convention
Authors Niek Peters
AbstractAuthor's information

    Abstract: In this publication the author discusses first whether mediation agreements qualify as irrevocable agreements or whether the parties are free to disregard a mediation agreement when a dispute arises. Secondly, the author discusses whether, and if yes under what conditions, settlement agreements resulting from mediation can be enforced. In this respect, the Singapore Convention on International Settlement Agreements resulting from Mediation is also addressed.


Niek Peters
Niek Peters is partner of Simmons & Simmons, LLP, and professor of international commercial arbitration at the University of Groningen.

    This article examines the hearing of children in Belgian and Dutch courts in return proceedings following an international child abduction. The analysis is based on the experience, insights and needs of both children who have experienced an abduction by one of their parents, and family judges. In this sensitive and often highly conflicted family context, hearing children in court is not self-evident. Challenges of both a judicial-institutional and communicative-relational nature can hinder the effective implementation of children’s right to be heard. This contribution seeks to answer the question of how to better support judges and children in addressing these challenges, with the aim of enabling children to fully and effectively participate in return procedures. Building on the interviews with children and judges, supplemented with findings from Belgian and Dutch case law and international literature, three key recommendations are formulated: 1) explore and evaluate opportunities for judges and children to experience support during the return procedure, for example via the figure of the guardian ad litem; 2) invest in training and opportunities for specialisation of judges with a view to strengthen their expertise in taking the best interests of the child into account; and 3) systematically pay attention to feedback to the children involved on how the final decision about their return is made – and this before, during and after the procedure.
    ---
    Dit artikel bestudeert het horen van kinderen in Belgische en Nederlandse rechtbanken in terugkeerprocedures volgend op een internationale kinderontvoering. De analyse vertrekt vanuit de beleving, ervaring, inzichten, noden en behoeften van zowel kinderen als van bevoegde familierechters. In deze gevoelige en vaak uiterst conflictueuze gezinscontext is het horen van kinderen door de rechter geen evidentie. Uitdagingen van zowel juridisch-institutionele als communicatieve-relationele aard kunnen een effectieve implementatie van het recht van kinderen om gehoord te worden in de weg staan. Dit artikel zoekt een antwoord op de vraag hoe rechters en kinderen beter kunnen worden ondersteund om deze uitdagingen aan te pakken, met als doel dat kinderen volwaardig kunnen participeren in de terugkeerprocedure. Voortbouwend op de interviews met kinderen en rechters, aangevuld met bevindingen uit Belgische en Nederlandse rechtspraak en internationale literatuur, worden drie sleutelaanbevelingen geformuleerd: 1) voorzie mogelijkheden voor rechters en kinderen om spanningsvelden weg te werken tijdens de terugkeerprocedure, bijvoorbeeld via de ondersteunende figuur van de bijzonder curator; 2) investeer in opleiding en groeiende specialisatiemogelijkheden bij rechters en 3) heb aandacht voor feedback en terugkoppeling naar de betrokken kinderen over hoe de eindbeslissing over hun terugkeer tot stand komt, en dit zowel voor, tijdens als na de procedure.


Sara Lembrechts LLM
Sara Lembrechts is researcher at University of Antwerp (Law and Development Research Group) and policy advisor at Children’s Rights Knowledge Centre (KeKi).

Marieke Putters LLM
Marieke Putters is researcher at the International Child Abduction Center (Centrum IKO).

Kim Van Hoorde
Kim Van Hoorde is Project & Prevention Manager at Child Focus.

dr. Thalia Kruger
Thalia Kruger, PhD, is Associate Professor at the University of Antwerp (Personal Rights and Property Rights Research Group) and Honorary Research Associate, University of Cape Town.

dr. Koen Ponnet
Koen Ponnet, PhD, is Professor at Imec-Mict-Ghent University (Faculty of Social Sciences).

dr. Wouter Vandenhole
Wouter Vandenhole, PhD, is Professor at the University of Antwerp (Law and Development Research Group).

    Alternative/amicable dispute resolution (ADR) is omnipresent these days. In line with global evolutions, the Belgian legislator embraced the use of these ADR mechanisms. Recent reforms of the law, first in 2013 with the act concerning the introduction of a Family and Juvenile Court and consecutively in 2018 with the act containing diverse provisions regarding civil law with a view to the promotion of alternative forms of conflict resolution, implemented more far-reaching measures to promote ADR than ever before. The ultimate goal seems to alter our society’s way of conflict resolution and make the court the ultimum remedium in case all other options failed.In that respect, the legislator took multiple initiatives to stimulate amicable dispute resolution. The reform of 2013 focused solely on family cases, the one in 2018 was broader and designed for all civil cases. The legal tools consist firstly of an information provision regarding ADR for the family judge’s clerk, lawyers and bailiffs. The judges can hear parties about prior initiatives they took to resolve their conflict amicably and assess whether amicable solutions can still be considered, as well as explain these types of solutions and adjourn the case for a short period to investigate the possibilities of amicable conflict resolution. A legal framework has been created for a new method, namely collaborative law and the law also regulates the link between a judicial procedure and the methods of mediation and collaborative law to facilitate the transition between these procedures. Finally, within the Family Courts, specific ‘Chambers of Amicable Settlement’ were created, which framework is investigated more closely in this article. All of these legal tools are further discussed and assessed on their strengths and weaknesses.
    ---
    Alternatieve of minnelijke conflictoplossing is alomtegenwoordig. De Belgische wetgever heeft het gebruik van deze minnelijke oplossingsmethodes omarmd, in navolging van wereldwijde evoluties. Recente wetshervormingen implementeerden maatregelen ter promotie van minnelijke conflictoplossing die verder reiken dan ooit tevoren. Het betreft vooreerst de hervorming in 2013 met de wet betreffende de invoering van een familie- en jeugdrechtbank en vervolgens kwam er in 2018 de wet houdende diverse bepalingen inzake burgerlijk recht en bepalingen met het oog op de bevordering van alternatieve vormen van geschillenoplossing. De ultieme doelstelling van deze hervormingen is een mentaliteitswijziging omtrent onze wijze van conflictoplossing teweegbrengen, waarbij de rechtbank het ultimum remedium dient te worden nadat alle overige opties faalden.De wetshervorming van 2013 focuste uitsluitend op familiale materies, de hervorming van 2018 was ruimer en had alle burgerlijke zaken voor ogen. De wettelijke mogelijkheden bestaan vooreerst uit een informatieverstrekking omtrent minnelijke conflictoplossing in hoofde van de griffier van de familierechtbank, advocaten en gerechtsdeurwaarders. Rechters kunnen partijen horen omtrent eerdere ondernomen initiatieven om hun conflict op een minnelijke manier op te lossen, zij beoordelen of minnelijke oplossingen alsnog kunnen worden overwogen, zij kunnen de diverse minnelijke mogelijkheden toelichten aan partijen alsook de zaak voor een korte periode uitstellen om partijen toe te laten de mogelijkheden aan minnelijke conflictoplossing te verkennen. Er werd voorts een wetgevend kader uitgewerkt voor een nieuwe oplossingsmethode, namelijk de collaboratieve onderhandeling. De wet creëert tevens een link tussen een gerechtelijke procedure en de methodes van bemiddeling en collaboratieve onderhandeling, om de overgang tussen deze procedures te vereenvoudigen. Tot slot werden er binnen de familierechtbanken specifieke kamers voor minnelijke schikking opgericht, waarvan het wetgevend kader in detail wordt bestudeerd in dit artikel. Al deze wettelijke opties worden nader besproken en beoordeeld aan de hand van hun sterktes en zwaktes.


Sofie Raes
Sofie Raes is a Ph.D. candidate at the Institute for Family Law of the University of Ghent, where she researches alternative dispute resolution, with a focus on the chambers of amicable settlement in Family Courts. She is also an accredited mediator in family cases.
Article

Arbitration in Space-Related Disputes: A Survey of Industry Practices and Future Needs

Journal International Institute of Space Law, Issue 2 2019
Keywords space law, space related disputes, arbitration, dispute resolution
Authors Viva Dadwal and Eytan Tepper
AbstractAuthor's information

    To better understand the viability of arbitration in space-related disputes, we designed a survey that examines the use of arbitration clauses in contracts used by space companies, and if the use thereof is mandatory. More specifically, the survey gathers data on contracting parties’ preferred seats of arbitration, arbitration institutions, selection process for arbitrators, and choice of procedural and substantive rules. The survey also captures actual use of arbitration within space related disputes by collecting data on how often such arbitration clauses have been invoked and the number of disputes ultimately resolved by arbitration. Finally, the survey solicits industry preferences for the future development of arbitration as a form of dispute resolution in the space sector. The survey is built in a way that allows break down of results and comparing segments, inter alia, based on the type of contract (e.g., launch contract, insurance contract, investment contract, contract for supply of parts or services). The results of the survey will expose the demand for arbitration and the successes and barriers for the use thereof. Furthermore, the results will allow us to evaluate the success of existing arbitration infrastructure for space-related disputes, including the PCA Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Outer Space Activities and the Panels of Arbitrators and Experts for Space-related Disputes. To our knowledge, there exist no surveys or catalogues on the use of arbitration in spacerelated disputes. The results of the survey will provide empirical data and trends that may be used by scholars, policymakers and practitioners to anchor future theoretical papers and policy recommendations.


Viva Dadwal
V. Dadwal, Faculty of Law, McGill University, 3644 Peel St, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1W9.

Eytan Tepper
E. Tepper, Institute of Air & Space Law, McGill University, 3690 Peel Street Montréal, Québec, Canada H3A 1W9.
Article

The Power of the CPR Pledge

Journal Corporate Mediation Journal, Issue 2 2018
Keywords collaboration, dispute resolution, pledge, prevention
Authors Noah J. Hanft
AbstractAuthor's information

    The International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (CPR) has a long history of helping people consider more thoughtful and collaborative ways of preventing and resolving disputes. One of their vehicles for doing so is a series of pledges.


Noah J. Hanft
Noah J. Hanft is the President and CEO of The International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution.
Editorial

From the Editor

Journal Corporate Mediation Journal, Issue 2 2018
Authors Martin Brink

Martin Brink
Article

What Is a Good Mediator?

Journal Corporate Mediation Journal, Issue 2 2018
Keywords certification, mediation, mediator, MMMM-rule
Authors Thierry Garby
AbstractAuthor's information

    When the time comes to select a mediator, the judge, the lawyers, the parties or the mediation centre will want to find a good one. This raises two questions: what is a good mediator and how to find one?
    The answer to the first question seems rather simple: a good mediator is one that the parties are happy with. This raises another set of questions: if the parties were happy with a mediator in one case, would they be happy with the same person in another case? Would other parties be happy with this mediator as well? If the answers are not a yes without reservation to both of those questions, then the question becomes: who would be a good mediator for this case between these parties?


Thierry Garby
Thierry Garby is a well-known and experienced mediator with most international mediation centres, particularly with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the World Bank Group and the United Nations.

Martin Brink
Martin Brink, PhD, is attorney at law, arbitrator and deputy judge at the The Hague Court of Appeals and an internationally certified mediator (MfN, IMI, CEDR Global Panel).
Article

Access_open Privatising Law Enforcement in Social Networks: A Comparative Model Analysis

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 3 2018
Keywords user generated content, public and private responsibilities, intermediary liability, hate speech and fake news, protection of fundamental rights
Authors Katharina Kaesling
AbstractAuthor's information

    These days, it appears to be common ground that what is illegal and punishable offline must also be treated as such in online formats. However, the enforcement of laws in the field of hate speech and fake news in social networks faces a number of challenges. Public policy makers increasingly rely on the regu-lation of user generated online content through private entities, i.e. through social networks as intermediaries. With this privat-ization of law enforcement, state actors hand the delicate bal-ancing of (fundamental) rights concerned off to private entities. Different strategies complementing traditional law enforcement mechanisms in Europe will be juxtaposed and analysed with particular regard to their respective incentive structures and consequential dangers for the exercise of fundamental rights. Propositions for a recommendable model honouring both pri-vate and public responsibilities will be presented.


Katharina Kaesling
Katharina Kaesling, LL.M. Eur., is research coordinator at the Center for Advanced Study ‘Law as Culture’, University of Bonn.
Part I Courts and ODR

Access to Justice and Innovative Court Solutions for Litigants-in-Person

The Singapore Experience

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1-2 2018
Keywords access to justice, innovative court solutions, ODR, e-Negotiation, tribunal
Authors Ow Yong Tuck Leong
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article highlights the Singapore judiciary’s experience in introducing an online filing and case management system with Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) for small value disputes to improve access to justice. This system, called the Community Justice & Tribunals System (CJTS), is a fully integrated justice solution, allowing parties to settle their disputes and obtain a court order online. The article sets out the issues and challenges encountered in developing CJTS, the innovative solutions implemented and CJTS’ positive impact on litigants-in-person.


Ow Yong Tuck Leong
District Judge Ow Yong Tuck Leong is a judicial officer in the Community Justice and Tribunals Division of the State Courts of Singapore. He is the Executive Sponsor of the CJTS. Prior to joining the State Courts, Ow Yong had served in different positions as a Senior Assistant Registrar, Registry of Companies and Businesses; State Counsel, Attorney-General’s Chambers; and Deputy Director (Legal, Enforcement & International Affairs) of the Competition Commission of Singapore.
Part II Private Justice

How Online Negotiation Support Systems Empower People to Engage in Mediation

The Provision of Important Trade-off Advice

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1-2 2018
Keywords ODR programs, empowerment, online negotiation support systems, technology
Authors Emilia Bellucci and John Zeleznikow
AbstractAuthor's information

    Face-to-face negotiation is the preferred communication style for negotiation, as it is the richest form of communication (Daft & Lengel, 1986), allowing for words, gestures and body language to be clearly communicated. This form of communication also allows for instant feedback, essential in negotiation when it is imperative to check understanding of each other’s views and priorities. Bodtker and Jameson (2001) argue that experiencing emotion is one way we recognize conflict. Invariably, dispute resolution involves emotion, which if allowed to flood the substantive issues, otherwise known as emotional flooding, may result in disputants incapable of acting rationally (Jones & Bodtker, 2001), which may lead to unfair solutions. For example, in high-stress negotiations of family disputes, it may be difficult to think rationally about both the disputants and children’s future needs. This may lead to people having to live with a less-than-ideal financial situation that is not representative of their future needs. Online dispute resolution (ODR) systems involve the use of technology to aid (or in some instances to replace) human communication in the dispute resolution process. This means replacing a very rich form of communication with a lower form of media, with the lowest being text-based forms of communication. ODR using video-conferencing technology benefits disputants located in different areas, hence providing a good medium for those who geographically cannot meet in person. While also a fairly rich mode of communication, this type of technology is heavily dependent on infrastructure variables, such as Internet speed, application support and connectivity issues, which are not always available. In this article, we will introduce the concept of how ODR can support face-to-face negotiations by re-introducing our software AssetDivider as a method to support the face-to-face process in negotiation.


Emilia Bellucci
Emilia Bellucci is senior lecturere in the Department of Information Systems and Business Analytics, Deakin University, Deakin Business School, Geelong, Australia.

John Zeleznikow
John Zeleznikow is a professor in College of Business, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.
Part I Courts and ODR

Testing the Promise of Access to Justice through Online Courts

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1-2 2018
Keywords online courts, empirical research, civil justice, access to justice
Authors Bridgette Toy-Cronin, Bridget Irvine, David M. Nichols e.a.
AbstractAuthor's information

    Modernization is increasingly knocking on the courthouse door. Many common law countries are investigating ways to introduce technology to improve civil courts, including the introduction of online courts. These state-led initiatives are primarily focused on lowering state costs in providing justice, as well as increasing access to dispute resolution. One possible solution some legal jurisdictions are exploring is ‘online courts’. Online courts hold the promise of making justice more accessible and affordable: a dispute can be filed at any time, from anywhere, by anyone. This model of delivering justice is envisioned as a system that either is lawyer-less or has a minimal role for lawyers. One of the assumptions underpinning an online court is, therefore, that laypeople can effectively explain a dispute to the court, without legal assistance. To date, there is no empirical research investigating that assumption. In this article, we will outline the proposed online court model, consider the need for robust empirical research, and describe a three-part investigation to explore how clearly and accurately people can explain a dispute.


Bridgette Toy-Cronin
Bridgette Toy-Cronin is the Director of the University of Otago Legal Issues Centre and a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Law, University of Otago.

Bridget Irvine
Bridget Irvine is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Otago Legal Issues Centre.

David M. Nichols
David M. Nichols is an Associate Professor in Computer Science at the University of Waikato.

Sally Jo Cunningham
Sally Jo Cunningham is an Associate Professor in Computer Science at the University of Waikato.

Tatiana Tkacukova
Tatiana Tkacukova is a Senior Lecturer in the School of English, Birmingham City University. Authors appear in order of the contribution made to the paper.
Part II Private Justice

Using Technology and ADR Methods to Enhance Access to Justice

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1-2 2018
Keywords ODR, ADR, mediation, online court, e-court, consumer ADR, CADR, CDR, ombudsman
Authors Pablo Cortes
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article discusses how technology and extrajudicial processes can provide a solution to the access-to-justice problem for self-represented litigants. The article first observes the need for efficient dispute resolution processes based on a wider concept of access to justice and argues for greater integration amongst courts and extrajudicial bodies, especially in the consumer sphere where dispute resolution bodies are currently undergoing an institutionalization process as a result of recent EU legislation. Accordingly, it is argued that access to justice for consumers will only be achieved if they have access to either an accountable and effective extrajudicial scheme that offers adjudication or a truly user-friendly and accessible online court that incorporates alternative dispute resolution techniques as the United Kingdom has endeavoured to deliver. To that end, this article examines the policy options for the English Online Court with a particular focus on the challenges faced by litigants in person. Finally, this article submits that dispute system design changes need to be informed by empirical research and a holistic policy strategy on dispute resolution.


Pablo Cortes
Pablo Cortes is Professor of Civil Justice, Leicester Law School, University of Leicester.
Part I Courts and ODR

Recent Development of Internet Courts in China

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1-2 2018
Keywords Internet court, ODR, AI, blockchain, regulation, fourth party
Authors Xuhui Fang
AbstractAuthor's information

    Online dispute resolution (ODR) is growing out of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and pushing the envelope for resolving online disputes in the Internet courts in China. Recently, the Chinese Internet courts admitted blockchain-based evidence and applied artificial intelligence (AI), cloud computing, big data and virtual reality (VR) technology. The rapid development of Internet courts in China has implications for regulating AI-related technologies, which are playing the role of the ‘fourth party,’ and the interplay between the ‘third party’ and the ‘fourth party.’


Xuhui Fang
Xuhui Fang is a law Professor at Nanchang University, NCTDR fellow, associated researcher at Cyberjustice of University of Montreal, mediator of International Commercial Mediation Center for Belt and Road Initiative in Beijing, mediator at Futian District Court of Shenzhen People’s Court, senior counsel of E-Better Business in Shenzhen.
Showing 141 - 160 of 413 results
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 11 12 20 21
You can search full text for articles by entering your search term in the search field. If you click the search button the search results will be shown on a fresh page where the search results can be narrowed down by category or year.