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 The deficiency of dispute settlement mechanism seen in Chinese construction field from FIDIC

2018 ◽  
Vol 251 ◽  
pp. 05022
Author(s):  
Dezhi Li ◽  
Huiyan Zhang ◽  
Xuehua Fang
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Experience ◽  
Construction Work ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Construction Disputes ◽  
Alternative Dispute Settlement ◽  
Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Laws And Regulations

Since formally introduced the friendly Amicable Settlement mechanism in 1987, FIDIC’ s efforts to promote and improve the alternative dispute settlement mechanism for construction work have been greatly developed. The current laws and regulations in China on alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for construction disputes are not perfect, and the newly revised “Conditions of contract for Construction” (GF2017-0201) lacks operability. It is of great significance to improve the dispute settlement mechanism by drawing on the provisions of article 20 of FIDIC (New Red Book), accumulate international experience and develop “One Belt And One Road”.

scholarly journals A Chinese Approach to International Commercial Dispute Resolution: The China International Commercial Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-54
Author(s):  
Xiangzhuang Sun
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Advanced Technology ◽  
Expert Committee ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
One Stop ◽  
The One ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

Abstract This article critically reviews the establishment and operation of the China International Commercial Court (CICC) from an insider’s perspective. It offers a detailed introduction to a few of the innovative measures of the CICC, including the International Commercial Expert Committee, the ‘one-stop’ forum for a dispute settlement mechanism integrating litigation, mediation, and arbitration, more convenient litigation procedures, and the use of advanced technology in dispute resolution. More importantly, it candidly discusses the challenges facing the CICC and makes several recommendations for its improvement towards more professionalism and internationalization.

Rethinking the CARICOM Dispute Settlement Mechanism

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Namitasha Wallace Goring
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Coming Of Age ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
System A ◽  
The Caribbean ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

This article examines the progress of the CARICOM dispute settlement mechanism from its originally diplomatic procedures to its enhanced legalistic system. A standing judicial institution in CARICOM is a coming of age for this region, and its jurisprudence is now referred to as CARICOM law. These significant legal advances raise many normative questions about the adequacy of the dispute settlement institutions and whether the rules and processes are clearly defined to enable nascent CARICOM law to be the primary tool by which there can be effective regulation of CARICOM integration. In order to answer these questions, this article reviews some of the theories on dispute settlement and also draws on the experiences of similar regional bodies, and concludes that a combination of ideas and mechanisms of dispute resolution is more suited to the Caribbean situation than a uni-lineal or a transplanted regime.

scholarly journals MEDIATION IN THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM UNDER THE EU- UKRAINE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT 2014

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Association Agreement ◽  
Arbitration Procedure ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
The Right ◽  
Settlement Mechanism ◽  
The Eu

The article examines the system of dispute settlement under the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU of 2014, which may arise from the lack of a unified approach to interpreting the provisions of the Agreement or fair use, and due to the improper performance of obligations by one of the Parties. Each individual dispute resolution mechanism is described. In particular, a general dispute settlement mechanism extending to the provisions of the Agreement on Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area between Ukraine and the EU (DCFTA), and a dispute settlement mechanism within the DCFTA, implemented through consultation, arbitration or arbitration, are explored. It is stated that the general dispute settlement mechanism is based on a "traditional" diplomatic approach, in which the Association Council, consisting of members of the Government of Ukraine and members of the European Commission, is a key dispute resolution body. The DCFTA dispute settlement mechanism is more complex. Attention is drawn to the fact that the consultation mechanism, which by its content provides for negotiation, can act as a separate dispute settlement procedure or as a stage preceding the arbitration procedure or mediation, if the parties failed to reach a mutually agreed solution. The arbitration procedure involves the consideration of the dispute by a panel of three independent arbitrators whose decisions are binding on the parties. If the respondent Party does not comply with the decision and does not offer temporary compensation, the other Party has the right to apply temporary protection measures, which stipulate the suspension of its obligations. Another mechanism for dispute resolution is mediation, which aims to facilitate a mutually agreed solution through comprehensive and expedited procedures through a mediator. The features of mediation in the dispute settlement system under this Agreement are identified. Attention is drawn to the benefits of mediation over other dispute resolution tools provided by the UA. In particular, unlike arbitration, any dispute concerning the provisions of Title IV of the AA may be the subject of mediation. In addition, the mediator does not have the right to submit a final dispute resolution to the parties compared to the arbitrators. Its purpose is to facilitate the adoption of a mutually agreed decision taken by the Parties as a result of their independent consent. Such a feature makes the mediation mechanism a more attractive and flexible way of resolving a conflict between the Parties, which is not always ready to commit itself to a legally binding solution. In addition, jointly finding a mutually beneficial solution can help solve problems in interpreting and implementing the terms of the agreement in a more effective way.

scholarly journals The Appellate Body of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism of the World Trade Organization

2017 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Tarek Yahiaoui ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Political ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Special Group ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Special Groups ◽  
The World ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

The process of dispute settlement at WTO has been delegated to independent entities: private groups that consider cases as first instance structures, and the Appellate Body that hears appeals for special group summaries. For its part, the dispute settlement body (DSB), the political structure composed of all members of the Organization and its primary task is the general administration of the dispute settlement and decision-making system. The recommendations contained in the reports of the Special Groups and the Appellate Body are binding on the parties to the dispute only after the dispute settlement body has adopted them. However, this process of adoption is now almost automatic; in order not to adopt a resolution it is necessary for all members to agree unanimously, according to a technique known as the "reverse consensus" or "negative consensus", which we do not yet know a similar in the international law. The political control exercised by the dispute settlement body remains generally theoretical, because the reverse consensus technique imposed almost as a decision-making mechanism. As long as the complainant insists on his complaint, it is inconceivable that the parties to the dispute are not convinced of the outcome of the dispute and raise a consensus not to adopt a particular report. In fact, if members have not collectively endorsed the abstracts or solutions of special groups or the Appellate Body, they have not prevented the adoption of any report. The appeal procedure is without doubt the most prominent and authentic new addition to the Organization's dispute settlement mechanism established by the Marrakesh Accords. The parties to the dispute seen by the Special Group can only appeal to the Appellate Body within a specified period of the date of the distribution of its report to the members of the Organization. The designation given to this body raises the question: the appeal is aimed at amending or canceling a judgment of the first instance judge by second-tier judges and article 17 (13) of the memorandum of agreement goes in the same context, stating that: The Appellate Body may uphold, modify or reverse the legal findings and conclusions of the panel". Thus, the powers granted to the Appellate Body are not far from those granted to courts of appeal in national legal systems. However, this rapprochement is soon reaching its limit, because judicial practice in national systems gives the appellant the power to review first instance judgment in relation to facts and law. However, the situation is different at the level of the Organization. Article17 (6) defines the appeal “shall be limited to issues of law covered in the Panel report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel.” The Appellate Body, then, is a judge of law who considers violations of the rules of law by the Special Group. Its function is as close as possible to a court of appeal as is known in some national legal systems, such as the French system. We have the right to question the new system of the Appellate Body of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism of the World Trade Organization under the Marrakesh Accords, and the new features that distinguish it from the mechanisms of contemporary international justice, both procedural and functional.

Legal Analysis of Dispute Settlement Mechanism on Medical Emergencies

2012 ◽  
Vol 468-471 ◽  
pp. 1495-1500
Author(s):  
Jun Chen ◽  
Dong Wei Yu
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Current Medical ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Medical Law ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Unexpected Events ◽  
Medical Emergencies ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

Emergency dispute settlement mechanism, an important part of the legal system dealing with unexpected events, is facing new challenges from the increasing medical emergencies in recent years. The existing litigation system is increasingly inadequate in dealing with current medical emergencies. This paper analyzes the deficiencies of current dispute resolution mechanism in dealing with medical emergencies. Combined with the legal attributes and importance of medical law, this paper proposes a plan to establish medical legal proceeding mechanisms and supporting programs, which is to utilize specialized medical court arbitration system to resolve legal issues involving medical emergencies.

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. 

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 The Appellate Body of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism of the World Trade Organization

2017 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Tarek Yahiaoui ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Political ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Special Group ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Special Groups ◽  
The World ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

The process of dispute settlement at WTO has been delegated to independent entities: private groups that consider cases as first instance structures, and the Appellate Body that hears appeals for special group summaries. For its part, the dispute settlement body (DSB), the political structure composed of all members of the Organization and its primary task is the general administration of the dispute settlement and decision-making system. The recommendations contained in the reports of the Special Groups and the Appellate Body are binding on the parties to the dispute only after the dispute settlement body has adopted them. However, this process of adoption is now almost automatic; in order not to adopt a resolution it is necessary for all members to agree unanimously, according to a technique known as the "reverse consensus" or "negative consensus", which we do not yet know a similar in the international law. The political control exercised by the dispute settlement body remains generally theoretical, because the reverse consensus technique imposed almost as a decision-making mechanism. As long as the complainant insists on his complaint, it is inconceivable that the parties to the dispute are not convinced of the outcome of the dispute and raise a consensus not to adopt a particular report. In fact, if members have not collectively endorsed the abstracts or solutions of special groups or the Appellate Body, they have not prevented the adoption of any report. The appeal procedure is without doubt the most prominent and authentic new addition to the Organization's dispute settlement mechanism established by the Marrakesh Accords. The parties to the dispute seen by the Special Group can only appeal to the Appellate Body within a specified period of the date of the distribution of its report to the members of the Organization. The designation given to this body raises the question: the appeal is aimed at amending or canceling a judgment of the first instance judge by second-tier judges and article 17 (13) of the memorandum of agreement goes in the same context, stating that: The Appellate Body may uphold, modify or reverse the legal findings and conclusions of the panel". Thus, the powers granted to the Appellate Body are not far from those granted to courts of appeal in national legal systems. However, this rapprochement is soon reaching its limit, because judicial practice in national systems gives the appellant the power to review first instance judgment in relation to facts and law. However, the situation is different at the level of the Organization. Article17 (6) defines the appeal “shall be limited to issues of law covered in the Panel report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel.” The Appellate Body, then, is a judge of law who considers violations of the rules of law by the Special Group. Its function is as close as possible to a court of appeal as is known in some national legal systems, such as the French system. We have the right to question the new system of the Appellate Body of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism of the World Trade Organization under the Marrakesh Accords, and the new features that distinguish it from the mechanisms of contemporary international justice, both procedural and functional.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document