Majority decision and Condorcet winners

The Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) brought down the first stage of the ‘Living Wage’ Case decisions on 22 April 1997. For the first time in nearly 30 years the decision was split. This article analyses the economic rationale for both majority and minority decisions and argues that the majority decision was overly cautious and conservative in its assessment of the economic constraints on the Commission's capacity to award a pay increase to low paid workers.

Download Full-text

THE OSTROGORSKI PARADOX: A PECULIARITY OF COMPOUND MAJORITY DECISION *

European Journal of Political Research ◽

10.1111/j.1475-6765.1976.tb00542.x ◽

1976 ◽

Vol 4 (4) ◽

pp. 391-398 ◽

Cited By ~ 55

Author(s):

DOUGLAS W. RAE ◽

HANS DAUDT

Keyword(s):

Majority Decision

Download Full-text

Adamakopoulos and Others v. Cyprus: “Massive” Problems Concerning a Mass Claims Proceeding in Investment Treaty Arbitration?

Asian Journal of International Law ◽

10.1017/s2044251321000394 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-8

Author(s):

Keer HUANG

Keyword(s):

Investment Treaty ◽

Majority Decision ◽

The Future ◽

Investment Treaty Arbitration

Abstract The Adamakopoulos and Others v. Cyprus Decision is noteworthy because it provides a blueprint for mass claims proceedings in investment treaty arbitration, justifying the possibility of addressing investment claims en masse in the future. This case comment reviews the background to the dispute, addresses the majority decision on the mass claims, and comments on the Tribunal's reasoning regarding the non-requirement of additional consent to mass claims arbitration, the homogeneity of the claims, and procedural flexibility.

Download Full-text

Plan Governance: A Hybrid Model with Both a Democratic and a Judicial Component

Pre-Insolvency Proceedings ◽

10.1093/oso/9780198799924.003.0004 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 81-98

Author(s):

Nicolaes Tollenaar

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Hybrid Model ◽

Self Determination ◽

Judicial Decision ◽

Coercive Measures ◽

Majority Decision ◽

Democratic System ◽

Legal Subjects

Chapter 4 starts by setting out that a plan provides a mechanism for democratic decision-making. In other words, the legal subjects determine the matter themselves by majority decision. In purely democratic form, it further argues, a plan is not suitable as an insolvency instrument. To be effective as an instrument for dealing with insolvency, a plan mechanism needs to be supplemented by non-democratic coercive measures imposed by judicial decision. The chapter then looks at the advantages of democratic decision-making. These include the power of self-determination, the fact that a democratic system enables a distribution in non-cash through restructuring, and the ability to obtain a certain degree of deal certainty by reaching an agreement with the requisite majorities. The chapter then discusses the rationale and system of voting in classes in more detail.

Download Full-text

Examination of the Application for rehearing

Unified Patent Protection in Europe: A Commentary ◽

10.1093/oso/9780198755463.003.0426 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Winfried Tilmann

Keyword(s):

Specific Content ◽

Majority Decision

Rule 255 provides that the parties are to be given the opportunity to be heard (for the specific aspects, → Rule 264 UPCARoP) before the UPC decides on an Application for rehearing. Moreover, Rule 255 defines the specific content such decision may have: either the UPC rejects the application as not allowable by a majority decision or grants the application. In the latter case, the UPC sets aside or suspends the decision under review, in whole or in part, and reopens the proceedings for a new hearing and decisions.

Download Full-text