Dispute Resolution

Amerika Serikat merupakan salah satu anggota tetap Dewan Keamanan (DK) dan pemegang hak Veto PBB, yang sering menggunakan hak nya untuk memveto draft resolusi DK PBB, terutama yang bersangkutan dengan sengketa antara Israel dengan Palestina. Dalam kurun waktu 1972 – 2006, Amerika Serikat telah memveto 66 resolusi DK PBB yang berkaitan dengan konflik Israel-Palestina. Mayoritas resolusi yang mendapat veto oleh Amerika Serikat mengandung unsur sanksi atau larangan untuk Israel, seperti penghentian pembangunan pemukiman Yahudi di tepi barat Sungai Jordan, Palestina maupun penghentian serangan Israel ke Gaza sejak tahun 1950-an silam. 
Veto Amerika Serikat terhadap draft resolusi PBB S/2011/24 mengenai pengecaman terhadap pembangunan pemukiman di tepi barat Sungai Jordan, di wilayah timur Palestina, merupakan veto yang akhir-akhir ini menjadi sorotan internasional. Mengingat pembangunan pemukiman Yahudi tersebut dapat menjadi penghambat utama upaya perdamaian antara Israel dan Palestina. Namun, di lain sisi Amerika Serikat justru memveto draft resolusi itu, yang mengindikasikan adanya sebuah kepentingan politik dari Amerika Serikat.
Dari penjelasan singkat di atas, terumuslah beberapa pertanyaan kritis mengenai apakah ada kepentingan di balik penggunaan hak veto Amerika Serkat dalam resolusi PBB tentang pembangunan pemukiman yahudi di Palestina?
Dalam essai ini, penulis akan menganalisis bagaimana kepentingan Amerika Serikat dibalik penggunaan hak veto terhadap resolusi PBB tentang pembangunan pemukiman Yahudi tersebut.

On 16 July 1213, Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, returned to England. This was a momentous occasion. King John had refused to accept Langton’s appointment as archbishop of Canterbury, precipitating an angry dispute between pope and king and provoking Innocent III to impose an interdict on England. For the past five years, most of the senior clergy had been in exile, while in England the sacraments were forbidden. Langton’s arrival in England didn't signal the beginning of a new era but, rather, the hope that one might be on the horizon. The archbishop had come to make peace...

"One  of  the  objectives  of  the  Economic  Law  Modernization  Bill  (July  1,  2013) currently  under  review  by  Monaco’s  legislative  body,  the  National  Council  (Conseil National), is to endow the Principality with modern arbitration legislation, given the large number of foreigners of different nationalities who live, work, and invest in Monaco and the globalization of international arbitration. The Monegasque Government believes that a major reform  of  the  country’s  current  law  on  arbitration,  deemed  too  fragmentary and  partial, would be a source of economic development for Monaco and enhance its attractiveness as a venue for arbitration. Avenues to be explored to attain these objectives include the abolition of  the  procedure  for  [recognition  and]  enforcement  of  foreign  arbitral  awards,  the arbitrability  of  all  disputes  (except  criminal  offenses),  and  the  marketization  of  the Monegasque legal system."

By Simon Allison and Kanaga Dharmananda SC

This article considers the varying judicial approaches to the question of incorporation of arbitration agreements by reference to another contract, schedule of terms, or trading rules. In particular, attention is directed to the approach taken by English courts in considering whether a subsequent holder of a bill of lading is bound by an arbitration agreement contained in a charterparty. In that context, English courts required an express reference in a bill of lading to the charterparty arbitration clause before it could be regarded as part of the contract. General words purporting to incorporate the terms and conditions of a charterparty would not be sufficient. This article examines the development of this strict approach to incorporation in the maritime context, its application to contractual disputes outside that context and recent case law signalling a more flexible approach to the question based on the intention of the parties involved.

Fracking,‎ ‎ aka hydro-fracking or slickwater fracking, particularly ‎in the Appalachian Basin, has yielded a good deal of legal scholarship. ‎These articles have addressed a host of issues.‎ ‎ However, that scholarship ‎has yet to consider an indispensable topic: the science that underlies and ‎controls the fracking process, and how it fits within the framework of ‎dispute resolution. The present Article seeks to fill that void by laying out ‎a number of geological principles that undergird oil and gas development ‎and wedding them to legal doctrinal concepts, specifically those that ‎involve dispute resolution and the use of experts.‎

Indeed, as in any discussion of the environment or oil and gas ‎exploration and production, knowledge of the geology of the subsurface ‎terrain is essential. For example, if a well’s casing is not cemented ‎ ‎correctly, or if a cement bond survey ‎ is faulty, a series of experts, ‎including a cementing engineer or cement scientist,‎ ‎ and a geologist,‎ ‎ will ‎need to demonstrate to the trier of fact what the proper cementing ‎methodology or standard is,‎ ‎ and whether it was followed. Similarly, if a ‎plaintiff seeks medical monitoring as a consequence of a well operator’s ‎actions, which may cause or have caused a plaintiff to become ill, experts ‎in geochemistry, epidemiology, among others, will be required;‎ ‎ or if a ‎plaintiff asserts a claim for negligence or negligence ‎per se a series of experts—including geologists or geological engineers—‎will need to testify regarding the defendant’s deviation from its duty and ‎any subsequent breach.‎ ‎ Finally, experts in geology, hydrogeology and ‎hydrological modeling ‎ are needed in actions claiming fracking-related ‎water contamination.‎

Consequently, I posit that understanding the geology, reservoir ‎characteristics, and science behind the fracking process is critical for a ‎number of simple but fundamental reasons. These include the following: ‎‎(1) analyzing pooling and unitization issues;‎ ‎ (2) the assessment of claims ‎asserting subsurface trespass as a consequence of the fracking process; (3) ‎liability issues; (4) claims of water contamination; and (5) gauging whether ‎the opinions of experts in geology and petroleum engineering are sound.‎

This paper empirically examines the widespread belief that voluntarily negotiated agreements produce better long-run relationships than third-party imposed settlements, such as arbitrator decisions or court judgments. Two key outcomes are analyzed—subsequent player performance and the durability of club-player relationship. Major League Baseball provides a compelling setting for these analyses because individual performance is well measured, there is the possibility of relationship breakdown, and both voluntary and imposed settlements are routinely used. While the results clearly show that a third-party imposed settlement is not better than a voluntary one, the evidence in support of the widespread belief is mixed.

While certainly one of the most familiar modes for online communication, email is a constantly shifting entity. This chapter explores common pitfalls encountered in negotiating via email as well as advantages the medium offers, and offers best practices for negotiating through this communication channel. In a significant update to the existing literature, this chapter describes the changes that the email medium itself, as well as its users, have undergone in recent years, with the proliferation of smartphones and other platforms for mobile communications. These changes have redesigned the map of challenges and advantages posed to us as we negotiate via email.

"In the 19th and 20th century, the modernisation of far east countries has often passed through the adoption of the western concept of the "rule of law". Assuming to be the heir of an substantively irrational legal tradition – as Max Weber famously put it – Chinese ruling elites imported from the various European colonies within the Chinese territory western-style jurisprudence, constitutions and the legal procedures, refuting the legislation, based on the Confucian tradition, which until then had been the cornerstone of the empire. After the communist took power in 1949, things changed. Western law was considered a tool for class domination, thus to be replaced with socialist permanent revolution and collective critique. Two strands of legal tradition were refuted by the communist: the bourgeois law of the West, and the customary rights of China's "feudal" past. Things changed again with the "opening reform" and the party's conversion to economic liberalism. Following the law and development tradition, the Chinese government is now training to establish a modern legal system, protecting individual rights, corporate interests and upholding the fair trial principle.

However, Chinese authorities still thinks, as in the past, that the country's backward tradition is somewhat getting in the way, halting the modernisation reforms. How to foster a "legal consciousness" in society, and enlarge access to justice in the countryside – considered to be the hotbed of all Chinese malaise – has become the main preoccupation for the country's legal reformists.

Ethnographic studies of the functioning of disputes resolutions and grass-roots courts in the Chinese countryside reveal how such an opposition is merely ideological: in local contexts state legislations, communist practices and traditional moral principles get entwined in the attempt to do "justice" and redress grievances. And yet, state law often face opposition, as Chinese citizens do not see it as legitimate, but a diversionary tactic to coerce people and dispossess the poor in favour of powerful elites who encroaches upon the state.

How does law construct a self-serving image of a backward mentality to be replaced with its own rationality? What is the place and meaning of "customary laws" in a country where the judicial power shows not to be fully independent? In the Chinese context, is state law about "empowering" individual citizens or is it just a technique favouring the unaccountable corporate governance of the country?"