Risk Allocation and Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in Chinese Public Projects: An Empirical Study

ICCREM 2013 ◽  
2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Zhang ◽  
Yong Bai
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Risk Allocation ◽  
Public Projects ◽  
Chinese Public

The Possibilities and Desirability of Mediator Neutrality - Towards an Ethic of Partiality?

2001 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 505-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Mulcahy
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Ethical Standard ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Community Mediation ◽  
Third Party Intervention ◽  
Fair Process ◽  
Process And Outcome ◽  
The Ideal

This article draws on an empirical study of community mediation to question the possibility and desirability of mediator neutrality. It argues that, although the notion of neutrality is central to discussions of adjudication and mediation, debate on the topic remains intellectually flawed and empirically problematic. Emphasis on the aspirational nature of neutrality encourages us to ignore the suggestion that rather than facilitating fair process and outcome the standard of neutrality could serve to exacerbate existing inequalities between disputants. When discussed in the context of mediation the ideal becomes even more suspect as mediation promises 'alternatives' to the inadequacies of court-based adjudication. This article explores the questions raised by a group of mediators who rejected the possibility and desirability of mediation in favour of a more reflexive approach to third-party intervention in disputes. It suggests that, rather than aspiring to the empty goal of neutrality, we should be debating the possibility of partiality as an ethical standard to govern dispute resolution.

How democratic are Chinese grassroots deliberations? An empirical study of 393 deliberation experiments in China

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 630-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dezhi Tong ◽  
Baogang He
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Uneven Development ◽  
Public Hearings ◽  
Full Picture ◽  
Big Picture ◽  
New Research ◽  
Chinese Public

AbstractChinese public hearings or consultations have been subject to numerous debates, doubts, and scepticism about the existence of Chinese deliberative democracy. More empirical evidence, however, is required about these debates before we can offer any meaningful account of the nature, characteristics, and direction of Chinese deliberation. In addition, although there have been many case studies on grassroots deliberative democracy, such studies are intellectually isolated from each other in the sense that they do not comprise a statistical unit. To overcome this deficiency, we developed a new research method for studying grassroots deliberation by collecting and validating the existing case studies, thereby making them a statistical unit. This paper aims to offer a big-picture perspective and the national statistical trend behind the uneven development of grassroots deliberative democracy. It develops an intellectual framework to assess whether grassroots deliberation is democratic. By collecting, validating, and coding 393 cases of Chinese grassroots deliberations, we have assessed Chinese grassroots deliberation, confirmed the cases’ democratic attributes, and provided a solid statistical result. Although there is strong evidence to support the claim that these grassroots deliberation experiments are democratic, there remain some variations, nuances, and shortcomings. The full picture is not simple, but instead provides a mixed perspective.

scholarly journals An Empirical Study on Dispute Resolution Methods (DRM) from the Perspective of Employee and Employer: Special Emphasis on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Syed Robayet Ferdous
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Resolution Process ◽  
Dispute Resolution Process ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
The Individual ◽  
A Company ◽  
Dispute Resolution System ◽  
Changing Society

In recent times, most of the parties involved in dispute resolution process are favoring Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR over the formal adjudication process due to ADR’s distinguished benefits. In order to reduce the backlog and pressure of workload, courts randomly select alternative ways to settle dispute. Therefore, a question can be raised how well ADR is working in reality? If a dispute is in existence between a company and an individual, the individual might not get a proper redress against an esteemed company. Moreover, there is a possibility of bias in favor of those who is in the superior positions. Though it was a courageous effort from the legislature and the judiciary to make the dispute resolution system compatible with the changing society, a question remains: how much upshot is there in the legal field? To what extent does the ADR process elude or ensure justice? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/jbt.v8i1-2.18283 Journal of Business and Technology (Dhaka) Vol.8(1-2) 2013; 1-16

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document