MoDiSo: A TOOL FOR BUILDING CONTRACT DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS

2012 ◽  
Vol 21 (01) ◽  
pp. 1250002 ◽  
Author(s):  
NGUYEN DUY HUNG ◽  
PHAN MINH THANG ◽  
PHAN MINH DUNG
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Real World ◽  
Formal Language ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Modular Architecture ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Legal Outcomes ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

Real-world dispute resolution should be guided by laws, even if such disputes may be resolved by bodies other than the court of laws. Hence in order to build contract dispute resolution systems we need a tool capable of representing, reasoning and programming with contract laws. In this paper we present such a tool called MoDiSo (MOdular Argumentation for DIspute ReSOlution ) which combines the strengths of state-of-the-art argumentation-based techniques for different aspects of law, to propose: first, a modular architecture for contract dispute resolution systems with an edit-compile-dispute loop facilitating incremental system developments; and second, a methodology to represent and reason with legal doctrines in contract laws in the formal language of assumption-based argumentation. We demonstrate the tool with several legal doctrines for performance relief in common law of contracts. As a by-product, we obtain a dispute resolution system capable of explaining legal outcomes by automatically generating relevant arguments.

scholarly journals Independence and impartiality of sports disputes resolution in the UK

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leanne O’Leary
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Common Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Governing Body ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

AbstractPrivate sports governing bodies in the United Kingdom have the contractual freedom to organise their own sports tribunals and disputes procedures. There is no legislation in the UK that governs the form of a sports governing body’s dispute resolution procedure. The common law and, to a certain extent, other industry measures influence the structure of a disputes procedure within a private sports governing body. When establishing dispute resolution systems in self-regulating industries, there is potential for structural conflicts of interest to arise. Reporting mechanisms and adjudicatory processes may be structurally bias through, for example, the way appointments are made to a dispute resolution panel. There may be the suggestion of implicit bias of panel members because of the interests that control the appointment process. Even if no actual bias arises, the perception of bias can damage the engagement of stakeholders in a dispute process and damage the reputation of the sport with sponsors or the general public. The key is to minimise structural conflicts of interest and ensure that the process is independent and impartial. This article examines the challenges faced with organising sports dispute resolution procedures, the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and highlights the important factors that a sports governing body should consider when designing an independent and impartial dispute resolution system. It concludes with a discussion of whether the legal basis for sports dispute resolution in the UK requires reconsideration to provide certainty, independence, impartiality and, above all, to guarantee a fair hearing.

Designing an Effective Dispute Resolution System

1988 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 413-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
William L. Ury ◽  
Jeanne M. Brett ◽  
Stephen B. Goldberg
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

scholarly journals TOWARDS AN EFFECTIVE KENYAN LABOUR DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM: A COMPARISON WITH THE SOUTH AFRICAN LABOUR DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM

Obiter ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johana K Gathongo ◽  
Adriaan van der Walt
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Labour Dispute ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Labour Standards ◽  
International Labour Standards ◽  
The Government ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

There have been notable concerns in the current dual dispute resolution system in Kenya. The problems include protracted referral timeframes for dismissal disputes, non-regulation of maximum timeframes for the agreed extension after 30 days conciliation period has lapsed, the absence of statutory timeframes for appointing a conciliator/ commissioner and arbitration process under both the Labour Relations Act, 2007 and the Employment Act, 2007. Likewise, the responsibility of resolving statutory labour disputes in Kenya is still heavily under the control of the government through the Ministry of Labour. There is still no independent statutory dispute resolution institution as envisaged by the Labour Relations Act, 2007. As a result, the Kenyan dispute resolution system has been criticised for lack of impartiality leading to the increase in strikes and lockouts.This article examines the effectiveness of the Kenyan labour dispute resolution system. The article evaluates the provisions of international labour standards relevant to labour dispute resolution. The article illuminates and describes the bottlenecks in the current Kenyan system and argues that it does not adequately respond to the needs of parties in terms of the international labour conventions. A comparative approach with South Africa is adopted to see how independent institutions, such as the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, Bargaining Councils and specialised Labour Courts can lead to effective dispute resolution. In view of that, a wide range of remedial intervention intended to address the gaps and flaws highlighted in the study are made. Systematically, the article provides suggestions and possible solutions for a better institutional framework and processes to address them.

scholarly journals Złożenie skargi przez konsumenta za pośrednictwem ODR (Online Dispute Resolution) – internetowego systemu rozstrzygania sporów

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-194
Author(s):  
Anna Rogacka-Łukasik
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
The Other ◽  
Online Dispute Resolution ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Technical Innovations ◽  
Modern Form ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution), as a non-judicial resolution of disputes, is a wide range of mechanisms that aim to put an end to a conflict without the need of conducting a trial before the court. On the other hand, the modern form of ADR is ODR (Online Dispute Resolution) – an online dispute resolution system that is the expression of the newest means of communication and technical innovations in order to help in non-judicial dispute resolving. The goal of this publication is to present the ODR platform and, in particular, to describe the process of filing a complaint by the consumer by means of it.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document