scholarly journals Prosedur dan Efektifitas Mekanisme Penyelesaian Sengketa Perdagangan dan Investasi Dalam ASEAN

2022 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fariz Mauldiansyah
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Trade Regime ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Investment Agreement ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism ◽  
Dispute System ◽  
Trade And Investment

Trade and investment play an important role in the practice of relations between countries in the prospective economic cooperation efforts to increase the economic growth of each country. In this regard, ASEAN also has legal instruments that regulate transactions and investments among other countries. In the trade regime, ASEAN has several agreements such as the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement, ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement, ASEAN Trade in Services Agreement, ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services, and so on. Meanwhile in the investment regime, ASEAN has the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement. One of the important components in a Regional Trade Agreement is the clause of a legally binding dispute settlement mechanism. In the trade regime, the system and mechanism of the dispute resolution procedures are separated from other trade agreements, the ASEAN Protocol on the Enhanced Dispute Resolution Mechanism. Meanwhile in the Investment regime, the system and mechanism of the dispute resolution procedure are regulated in the same agreement in the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement. This article will describe the procedural mechanism for the dispute resolution framework of the trade and investment regime in ASEAN, as well as focus on each dispute resolution system with the preferences of each participating country, with differences in the use of the dispute system in the WTO. 

Who Settles Disputes? Treaty Design and Trade Attitudes Toward the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

2019 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 881-900 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyeonho Hahm ◽  
Thomas König ◽  
Moritz Osnabrügge ◽  
Elena Frech
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Market Access ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Design Elements ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
Trade And Investment

AbstractWhat type of trade agreement is the public willing to accept? Instead of focusing on individual concerns about market access and trade barriers, we argue that specific treaty design and, in particular, the characteristics of the dispute settlement mechanism, play a critical role in shaping public support for trade agreements. To examine this theoretical expectation, we conduct a conjoint experiment that varies diverse treaty-design elements and estimate preferences over multiple dimensions of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) based on a nationally representative sample in Germany. We find that compared to other alternatives, private arbitration, known as investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), generates strong opposition to the trade agreement. As the single most important factor, this effect of dispute settlement characteristic is strikingly large and consistent across individuals’ key attributes, including skill levels, information, and national sentiment, among others.

The New Face of CEFTA and its Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ljiljana Biuković
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Economic Integration ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Western Balkans ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism ◽  
The Eu

AbstractAmendments made to the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA) in 2006 mark significant developments in the economic integration of the Western Balkans. Among those amendments were changes to the Agreement's dispute resolution mechanism. This article analyzes the latest developments in economic integration in the Western Balkans and examines the nature and operation of the dispute resolution mechanisms used in CEFTA. Explanations for important changes to the dispute settlement process in CEFTA are suggested by examining the context of the members' economic, political, social and legal surroundings. The article surveys ongoing tendencies in the development of dispute resolution mechanisms in other regional trade agreements, in particular those utilized by the European Union (EU), as a means of exploring the rationale behind the new CEFTA. It argues that the EU practice—developed in EU association agreements with third countries—has inspired the 2006 amendments to the CEFTA dispute resolution mechanism.

Following Suit: A Comparison of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms under NAFTA Chapter 20 and the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement

1998 ◽  
Vol 35 ◽  
pp. 291-304
Author(s):  
Yair Baranes
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

SummaryThe Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Israel bases its dispute settlement mechanism on Chapter 20 of NAFTA. There are accordingly many similarities between the two regimes. In certain areas, however, such as consultations and Panel composition, the Canada-Israel dispute settlement regime was clearly intended to differ from the NAFTA regime.

scholarly journals Research on Dispute Settlement Mechanism of Economic and Trade Cooperation Between China, Mongolia and Russia

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 42
Author(s):  
Haiyan Hao
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Political ◽  
Mutual Benefit ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Coordinated Development ◽  
Practical Necessity ◽  
Fair Procedure ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

The dispute resolution mechanism of economic and trade cooperation between China, Mongolia and Russia is a kind of dispute resolution mechanism specially used to solve the disputes of economic and trade cooperation between China, Mongolia and Russia. It is not only has the practical necessity, but also has the political and legal feasibility. The main problems of the dispute resolution mechanism are that the dispute resolution methods are too scattered, the dispute resolution basis is too old, and the cohesion and effectiveness of the dispute resolution methods are poor. Under the guidance of the concept of "coordinated development, win-win and mutual benefit, fair procedure, inclusiveness and harmony", it is reasonable to build a dispute resolution mechanism of economic and trade cooperation between China, Mongolia and Russia, which covers the way of political diplomacy and judicial characteristics. Specifically, the dispute resolution mechanism needs to establish special dispute resolution institutions, unified applicable rules, diversified dispute resolution procedures and sound supporting systems.

scholarly journals Indigenous Rights and Trade Obligations: How Does CUSMA’s Indigenous General Exception Apply to Canada?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-47
Author(s):  
J. ANTHONY VANDUZER ◽  
MELANIE MALLET
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
United States Mexico ◽  
Trade And Investment ◽  
Ongoing Concern ◽  
Party State

Abstract Canadian commitments under trade and investment treaties have been an ongoing concern for Indigenous peoples. The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) is the first Canadian treaty to include a general exception for measures that a party state “deems necessary to fulfill its legal obligations to [I]ndigenous peoples.” This exception is likely to afford Canada broad, but not unlimited, discretion to determine what its legal obligations to Indigenous peoples require. There is a residual risk that Canada’s reliance on the exception could be challenged through the CUSMA dispute settlement process. A CUSMA panel would not have the expertise necessary to decide inevitably complex questions related to what Canada’s legal obligations to Indigenous peoples require. While state-to-state cases under the North American Free Trade Agreement have been rare, a CUSMA panel adjudication regarding the Indigenous general exception risks damaging consequences for Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples.

scholarly journals International Legal and Economic Aspects of Dispute Resolution within the WTO in the Context of International Integration

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 64-71
Author(s):  
V. P. Kirilenko ◽  
Yu. V. Mishalchenko ◽  
A. N. Shchepova
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
The World ◽  
System Functioning ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

The article discusses issues related to the settlement of disputes within the framework of the World Trade Organization, as well as assesses the advantages and disadvantages of this system. The specific problems of the dispute settlement system functioning today are considered, and options for optimizing the dispute resolution mechanism and various ways to improve the effectiveness of legal remedies in cases of non-compliance with decisions are proposed. Special attention is paid to the latest topical disputes involving the Russian Federation, the European Union, Ukraine, China and USA resolved within the framework of the World Tr ade Organization, as well as to the crisis faced by the organization due to the absence of a permanent appeals body.

Part IV Guide to Key Substantive Issues, 23 The MFN Clause and Its Evolving Boundaries

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Smutny Abby Cohen ◽  
Polášek Petr ◽  
Farrell Chad
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Primary Concern ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Trade Practice ◽  
Defined Benefits ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights ◽  
Trade And Investment ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

This chapter discusses most-favoured-nation (MFN) clauses from early references in trade agreements to contemporary references in investor-state arbitrations. MFN clauses originated in early international trade practice and have continued to be incorporated in modern trade and investment treaties, both bilateral and multilateral. Their intended purpose is to lessen discrimination and encourage the growth of trade and foreign investment by ensuring that certain defined benefits accorded to one set of States (or their nationals, investments, goods, etc.) are extended to other States (or their nationals, investments, goods, etc.). In the investment treaty context, some commentators have observed that the right to a favourable dispute settlement mechanism is the primary concern of foreign investors, and investors often invoke MFN clauses to secure procedural rights that might otherwise be unavailable to them.

From alternative dispute resolution to pluralist dispute resolution: towards an integrated dispute-resolution mechanism in China

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-180
Author(s):  
Zhiqiong June Wang ◽  
Jianfu Chen
Keyword(s):  
Social Control ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Careful Examination ◽  
National Strategy ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Future Direction ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

AbstractSince 1978, we have observed the steady development of institutions, mechanisms and processes of dispute resolution in China. In the last ten years or so, we then noted frequent issuance of new rules and measures as well as revision of existing laws, the promotion of mediation as the preferred method for resolving disputes and, more recently, the promotion of an integrated dispute-resolution system as a national strategy for comprehensive social control (as well as for resolving disputes), in the name of reforming and strengthening ‘the Mechanism for Pluralist Dispute Resolution’. Careful examination of these latest developments suggests that fundamental changes are taking place that may potentially alter the course of the development of the Chinese dispute-resolution system. These developments are the focus of this paper with an aim to ascertain the nature of the developments and their future direction or directions.

scholarly journals Legal Pollution of Dispute Settlement Results of Regional Head Selection Realizing the Election Justice

2021 ◽  
Vol 04 (05) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gita Santika Ramadhani, Suteki ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Election Results ◽  
Law And Justice ◽  
The Government ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism ◽  
Sense Of Justice

The implementation of direct regional head elections in the regions often raises disputes regarding the determination of the results of the vote. Efforts made by candidates who are dissatisfied with this determination are to submit a cancellation to the judicial institution. The update on the system for resolving the election results was carried out by the government to overcome this problem, namely the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014. Problems discussed in this study include: how the dispute resolution mechanism was issued before the regulation, what updates are contained in the regulation how to achieve effective and fair election outcome dispute resolution. This study is a normative legal research that is descriptive in nature using a legal and analytical approach. Based on the results of the study, it can be concluded that the fundamental renewal lies with the institution authorized to handle, namely from the Constitutional Court to the High Court appointed by the Supreme Court. The author recommends that the renewal must be supported by technical regulations to ensure effectiveness and fulfill a sense of justice. Based on this research, the results show that the dynamics of the shifting of dispute resolution authority over the election results are influenced by the decision of the MK opened legally policy and the background of certain events. Namely: the problem of bribery that ensnares the judge, decisions that are considered controversial, case accumulation, and unpreparedness of institutional structure and infrastructure. Regarding the threshold requirements as a condition for receiving a dispute over a dispute over the results of a regional election, it has not yet supported the fulfillment of electoral / election justice. Because it has the potential to ignore aspects of substantive justice, mainly because it does not make the facts of the violations structured, systematic and massive (TSM) as a variable in examining cases. This neglect is not in line with one of the universally adopted principles of law and justice, which states that no one can benefit from irregularities and violations committed by himself and no one may be harmed by irregularities and violations committed by others (nullus / nemo commodum capere potes de injuria sua propria).

scholarly journals Tax Disputes Resolution In Nigeria: Going Beyound The Traditional Court And Administrative Resolution System

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. 236-252
Author(s):  
Peter Ademu Anyebe
Keyword(s):  
Federal Government ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Efficient Method ◽  
Tax Evasion ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
High Court ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Major Reform ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism ◽  
Tax Payers

It is the requirement of law that tax is paid. Therefore, the discharge of tax obligation in Nigeria is not by choice. In the process of the tax authorities who are authorized under the law to collect taxes from tax payers, disputes arise.  The paper reveals that in its bid to lessen the incidents of tax evasion in Nigeria, the Federal Government carried out a major reform in its tax regime. Thus, the Tax Appeal Tribunal (TAT) was established to ensure fairness and transparency of the tax system through a quick and efficient method of dispensing justice. Appeal from there lies to the Federal High Court on point of law. However, there is the unresolved problem of the constitutionality of TAT in its powers and jurisdiction in resolving tax disputes with Federal High Court (FHC).  Furthermore, the paper reveals that tax disputes are not arbitrable under Nigerian law. It is the argument of this paper that although the courts are recognized as the most visible dispute arbiter, it is not always the most effective or efficient method. Therefore, it is further the argument of this paper that Nigeria’s tax objection procedures as governed by statutory rules should incorporate Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism as practiced in other jurisdictions. The paper recommends that the necessary amendments should be made to enable TAT and FHC at their levels to encourage the use of early dispute resolution (EDR) and alternative dispute resolution (ADR), particularly mediation in the settlement of tax disputes brought before them. The introduction of VAIDS (Voluntary Assets and Income Declaration Scheme) by the Federal Government of Nigeria is in line with global best practices on non-disclosure of informal and declaration of assets. The paper concludes among others  that Nigeria, as a country cannot operate in isolation, hence the introduction of ADR in its tax dispute resolution processes should be imminent and mandatory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document