scholarly journals Third party funding for dispute resolution: a comparative study of England, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Netherlands and Mainland China

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beibei Zhang
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tan Lee Cheng

AbstractReview of “Interregional Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments” by Professor Jie Huang (Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2014) which analyses the status quo of judgment recognition and enforcement in the Mainland China, Macao and Hong Kong under the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ regime. The book also presents a comparative study of the interregional recognition and enforcement of judgments in the US and EU.


Author(s):  
Julien Chaisse

Abstract Delays are becoming a common phenomenon in international investment arbitration and challenging the conventional belief that it is a time-effective mode of dispute resolution. These delays, majorly stemming from interim procedural applications, are known to arise due to the different interests and types of stakeholders involved in the process. This article provides an empirical analysis of such arbitration proceedings to cull out the types, nature, and effects of delay tactics in such proceedings. This article identifies three types of applications that play an increasing role in investment arbitration, namely, applications for ‘security for costs’, applications for disclosure of third-party funding, and the objections of manifest lack of legal merit of claims. Such delays can particularly become a cause of concern for investment arbitration as they have impacts beyond those which are on the parties involved.


2014 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 381-385
Author(s):  
Tan Lee Cheng

AbstractReview of “Interregional Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments” by Professor Jie Huang (Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2014) which analyses the status quo of judgment recognition and enforcement in the Mainland China, Macao and Hong Kong under the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ regime. The book also presents a comparative study of the interregional recognition and enforcement of judgments in the US and EU.


Author(s):  
Anne van Aaken ◽  
Tomer Broude

This chapter offers a Law & Economics (L&E) perspective on international arbitration. L&E scholars tend to view dispute resolution as a market. They thus look at the supply and demand of such third-party adjudication, usually comparing litigation to arbitration. Predominantly, in the literature, there are two interrelated L&E perspectives on this: one is focused on the general welfare consequences of arbitration; the other is focused on why disputants choose one kind of third-party settlement over another. There are many ways of resolving disputes between contractual parties: arbitration is also in competition with mediation, conciliation, litigation, and other forms of resolving disputes, including so-called ‘extra-legal’, socially normative ones. Most literature has focused either on the choice between litigation and arbitration or on the influence of arbitration on negotiation and settlement between the parties. The chapter then addresses other disputant choices relating to third-party funding and arbitrator appointment. It also looks at the incentives and behaviour of arbitrators, including their cognitive abilities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document