Financial dispute resolution in the United States

2013 ◽  
pp. 111-136
Author(s):  
Shahla F. Ali
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
The United States

scholarly journals Comparative-Legal Analysis of Alternative Tax Dispute Resolution: the Practice of the Russian Federation, the United States, the Netherlands and Germany

2017 ◽  
pp. 58-64
Author(s):  
Елена Цветкова ◽  
Elena Tsvetkova
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
The United States ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
Main Trend ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Tax Rate ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Moment

The main trend of recent years is the complication of tax administration. In order to improve it states develop forms of work with taxpayers, including alternative tax dispute resolution. The author analyses alternative tax dispute resolution that have already developed in Russia and compares them with similar procedures in the United States, the Netherlands and Germany. To the alternative methods that are applied in Russia the author refers tax monitoring and agreement on the settlement of a tax dispute. Tax monitoring is not seen as a form of tax control, but as a mean of resolving and preventing the occurrence of a tax dispute. The conclusion of an agreement between a tax authority and a taxpayer on the settlement of a dispute in court is possible by reaching a compromise on the qualification of relations, on actual circumstances, on the interpretation of the tax rate. The article contains examples of programs that exist in the US and Germany in the sphere of tax dispute resolution. Also issues related to the implementation of the mediation procedure existing in the United States, the Netherlands and Germany and the possibility of their application in Russia are considered. The author emphasizes the impossibility of applying the procedure of mediation in tax disputes in Russia at the moment due to the lack of legislative regulation.

The Rise of Religious Arbitration

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Broyde
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
The United States ◽  
Religious Communities ◽  
Religious Groups ◽  
Faith Based ◽  
Norms And Values ◽  
External Stimuli

This chapter surveys the contemporary landscape of religious arbitration in the United States by exploring how different religious communities utilize arbitration, how these processes differ from each other, and where various faith-based dispute resolution models fall within the broader ADR spectrum. It explores developments in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic arbitration in America over the last several decades, and discusses what internal concerns and external stimuli have spurred these changes. As such, this chapter reflects on why American Catholics have not moved in the same direction as some other religious groups, which have been eager to embrace the use of religious arbitration as a means of enabling their adherents to resolve ordinary secular conflicts in accordance with religious norms and values. Finally, this chapter will discuss the historical limitations of utilizing religious arbitration in many faiths and how some have evolved to embrace the practice.

Untangling the Concept of Adversarial Legalism

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 473-487
Author(s):  
Jeb Barnes ◽  
Thomas F. Burke
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
The United States ◽  
Law And Society ◽  
Everyday Practice

The concept of adversarial legalism has been widely used by scholars of law, public administration, public policy, political science, sociology, and Law and Society, but the varying ways in which the concept has been employed raise concerns that it has become stretched to the point of incoherence. We argue that adversarial legalism entails both a style, an everyday practice of dispute resolution and policy making with distinct attributes, and a structure of governance that can be compared to other structures of authority. Untangling these aspects of adversarial legalism allows us to make sense of its different uses and identify future avenues of inquiry. Despite its wide application, adversarial legalism is in fact underutilized, especially in studies aimed at understanding consequences of judicialization, legalization, and juridification in the United States and abroad.

Qatari litigation targets reputation, not resolution

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
National Security ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
The United States ◽  
Test Cases ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Legal Challenges

Subject Qatari legal disputes with Gulf rivals. Significance More than two years after a bloc of regional rivals began an economic and political boycott of Qatar, there are no signs of rapprochement on the horizon. In the meantime, Doha has launched a series of legal challenges against the boycotting countries at the WTO and elsewhere. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has responded with counterclaims against Qatar. Impacts The Gulf diplomatic crisis will likely only be resolved when the blockading countries find it expedient to bring it to a close. Saudi and UAE use of the national security exemption will offer further test cases for WTO dispute resolution. The United States may seek to intervene to encourage bilateral deals to prevent an unwelcome ruling on the national security exemption.

Part III Dispute Resolution Under the Bermuda Form, 17 Team Assembly

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scorey David ◽  
Geddes Richard ◽  
Harris Chris
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
The United States ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Similar Form ◽  
Usual Model ◽  
Turn On ◽  
Medical Issues ◽  
Underlying Causes

This chapter is primarily intended as a practical guide to the assembly of a legal team to handle a Bermuda Form arbitration. As discussed in earlier chapters, the paradigm arbitration pursuant to Article VI.N of the Form XL004, or a similar form, is one in which the underlying facts have generally arisen because of liabilities incurred in the United States, the law governing the Bermuda Form policy is that of New York, and that takes place in London pursuant to the English Arbitration Act 1996. But within the ‘usual’ model, the nature of the disputes often differs. For example, a case may turn on detailed argument as to the proper construction of the policy; it may involve heavily contested facts as to the gravamina of the underlying causes of action; due to the nature of the Bermuda Form, the underlying facts can involve one incident or a multiplicity of individual accidents; similarly, a typical claim may be concerned with property damage or personal injury claims where medical issues are in dispute. Each possible permutation of legal and factual issues may give rise to the need for different sets of legal skills.

Supply Chain Dispute Resolution

2012 ◽  
pp. 133-148
Author(s):  
Frank Wolf ◽  
Lee Pickler
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supply Chain ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Delphi Method ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Performance Criteria ◽  
Industrial Sectors ◽  
One Year ◽  
Timely Delivery

This paper examines how supply chain conflicts across domestic and international jurisdictions arise and become resolved given that conventional conflict resolution tribunals cannot effectively settle fast enough to serve the needs of supply chain partners. Observations from the field should guide practitioners, and in combination with information technology, may lead to best practice rules in dispute resolution. For this study, the Delphi Method was selected, in which a panel of 14 experts participated in three rounds of successive surveys over a one-year period. Survey data was collected by mail as well as via telephone conversations and interviews, while under the Delphi method, the content of the second questionnaire was derived from the responses of the first questionnaire. All participants were supply chain experts in the United States from eight different industrial sectors, and none of the participants interacted with one another. End results show that supply chain’s relationships are very private trade arrangements and that disputes arise, predictably, from common performance criteria such as quality, timely delivery and payment issues.

The Future of Religious Arbitration in the United States: Looking Through a Pluralist Lens

2020 ◽  
pp. 900-927
Author(s):  
Michael A. Helfand
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Pluralism ◽  
The United States ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
American Press ◽  
The Future ◽  
Dual Objectives ◽  
The U.S

In recent years, religious arbitration has received increasing attention both in the American press and academy. For some, this attention is driven by concern that state enforcement of decisions issued by religious tribunals has the power to undermine the objectives of the U.S. legal system. For others, it is driven by a recognition that religious arbitration enables communities to enhance their process of dispute resolution by ensuring that it comports with shared religious principles and values. And, as is often the case, both perspectives contain important elements of truth. As a paradigmatic legal pluralism institution, religious arbitration has the capacity to both enhance and undermine the U.S. legal system. But if U.S. law is to capitalize on the growing religious arbitration system within its jurisdiction, it must identify both the range of unique benefits religious tribunals provide as well as the unique challenges they present. This chapter takes a first step in that direction, using legal pluralism as a lens to explore the motivations driving the religious arbitration regime in the United States. In so doing, it considers how both state and nonstate law can benefit from the religious arbitration system, and how those dual objectives require U.S. law to tinker with its treatment of religious arbitration so as to unlock its full potential.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document