Privatizing Dispute Resolution: Trends and Limits

Loic Cadiet; Burkhard Hess; Marta Requejo Isidro

doi:10.5771/9783748900351

Summary

Der Band dokumentiert die Ergebnisse der dritten IAPL-MPI Post-Doctoral Summer School, die vom 1. bis 4. Juli 2018 in Luxemburg stattfand. Die Summer School bringt herausragende junge Post-Doc-Forscher zusammen, die sich mit dem europäischen, internationalen und vergleichenden Verfahrensrecht sowie anderen relevanten Mechanismen der Streitbeilegung befassen. Ihnen wird die Möglichkeit geboten, aktuelle Forschungsprojekte offen mit jungen Kollegen und erfahrenen Wissenschaftlern zu diskutieren. Der fruchtbare Generationenmix steht im Mittelpunkt des Projekts, das sich auf prozessualer und materieller Ebene v.a. mit nationalem Recht, der Rechtsvergleichung, dem Europa- und Völkerrecht befasst.

Keywords

Search publication

Bibliographic data

Edition: 1/2019
Copyright Year: 2019
ISBN-Print: 978-3-8487-5908-8
ISBN-Online: 978-3-7489-0035-1
Publisher: Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series: Studies of the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law
Volume: 18
Language: English
Pages: 646
Product Type: Edited Book

Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access Pages 1 - 14
1. Authors:
  1. Authors:
    1. 1.1 Privatization as a Global Trend No access
      Authors:
    2. 1.2 To What Extent is Dispute Resolution Affected by the General Trend? No access
      Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. 2.1 Party Autonomy No access
      Authors:
    2. 2.2 Access to Justice No access
      Authors:
    3. 2.3 Recalibrating Overburdened Courts No access
      Authors:
    4. 2.4 Depoliticization of Disputes No access
      Authors:
  3. Authors:
    1. 3.1 Sports Arbitration No access
      Authors:
    2. 3.2 Consumer Protection and CDR No access
      Authors:
    3. 3.3 Financial Arbitration No access
      Authors:
  4. Authors:
    1. 4.1 Party Autonomy and the Asymmetry of Powers No access
      Authors:
    2. 4.2 Private Justice Outside of Public Control No access
      Authors:
    3. 4.3 Mandatory Law in Private Dispute Settlement No access
      Authors:
  5. Authors:
    1. 5.1 Institutional Requirements for Private Dispute Resolution Bodies No access
      Authors:
    2. 5.2 Procedural Fairness Standards No access
      Authors:
    3. 5.3 The Need of a Residual Control by State Courts No access
      Authors:
  6. 6. Concluding Remark: Finding the Balance between Public and Private Dispute Settlement No access
    Authors:
1. Authors:
  1. 1. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. 2. Access to Justice No access
    Authors:
  3. Authors:
    1. Authors:
      1. 3.1.1 The EOP and the ESCP No access
        Authors:
      2. 3.1.2 The EAPO No access
        Authors:
    2. Authors:
      1. 3.2.1 ADR No access
        Authors:
      2. 3.2.2 ODR No access
        Authors:
  4. Authors:
    1. Authors:
      1. 4.1.1 Interrelating Instruments: the Legal Framework No access
        Authors:
      2. 4.1.2 Technology Based Initiatives No access
        Authors:
    2. Authors:
      1. 4.2.1 A Conceptual Approach Towards a Comprehensive Framework No access
        Authors:
      2. 4.2.2 Legislative Bridging No access
        Authors:
      3. 4.2.3 ICT Bridging No access
        Authors:
  5. 5. Concluding Remarks No access
    Authors:
2. Authors:
  1. 1. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. 2.1 Binding quality standards for CADR providers No access
      Authors:
    2. 2.2 National ‘Competent Authorities’ as guardians of CADR quality No access
      Authors:
  3. Authors:
    1. 3.1 Certification No access
      Authors:
    2. 3.2 Follow-up monitoring No access
      Authors:
    3. 3.3 Competent Authority and its ecosystem No access
      Authors:
  4. Authors:
    1. 4.1 The effectiveness of the quality requirements in question No access
      Authors:
    2. 4.2 Rationalisation of CADR sectors and the role of Competent Authorities No access
      Authors:
  5. Authors:
    1. 5.1 Enhancing the intervention of Competent Authorities No access
      Authors:
    2. 5.2 Conclusions: policy recommendations No access
      Authors:
3. Authors:
  1. 1. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. 2. Main Characteristics of Collaborative Law and Main Differences with a Mediation Process No access
    Authors:
  3. 3. Enactment of Collaborative Law in the US and Implementation of Collaborative Law in Europe No access
    Authors:
  4. 4. Main Issues of the Collaborative Process. No access
    Authors:
  5. 5. Confidentiality of the Collaborative Process No access
    Authors:
  6. 6. Subsequent Judicial Proceedings: the Spanish Experience No access
    Authors:
  7. Authors:
    1. 7.1 Constitutional arguments No access
      Authors:
    2. 7.2 Interpretation of Article 283.3 of the Spanish Civil Procedural Law No access
      Authors:
    3. 7.3 Court Cases No access
      Authors:
    4. 7.4 The attachment will also breach procedural good faith No access
      Authors:
1. Authors:
  1. 1. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. Authors:
      1. 2.1.1 General Observations and Conditions No access
        Authors:
      2. 2.1.2 Particularities of Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 80 GDPR No access
        Authors:
    2. Authors:
      1. 2.2.1 France No access
        Authors:
      2. 2.2.2 Belgium No access
        Authors:
      3. 2.2.3 Spain No access
        Authors:
      4. 2.2.4 Germany No access
        Authors:
    3. 2.3 Dealing with National Adaptation Issues No access
      Authors:
  3. Authors:
    1. 3.1 Which Legal Instrument Applies? No access
      Authors:
    2. 3.2 Application of the Brussels Rules on Jurisdiction No access
      Authors:
    3. 3.3 Potential Application of the GDPR Rules on Jurisdiction: Do They Provide Additional Advantages? No access
      Authors:
    4. 3.4 International Civil Procedure No access
      Authors:
  4. 4. Conclusions No access
    Authors:
2. Authors:
  1. Authors:
    1. 1. Introduction No access
      Authors:
    2. Authors:
      1. 2.1 Regulations of the Antimonopoly Act No access
        Authors:
      2. 2.2 Enforcement by the Administrative Authority and its Statistical Information No access
        Authors:
      3. 2.3 Enforcement through Civil Litigation and its Statistical Information No access
        Authors:
      4. 2.4 Arguments and Analysis No access
        Authors:
    3. Authors:
      1. 3.1 Regulations of the Act against Misleading Representations and the Act on Specified Commercial Transactions No access
        Authors:
      2. 3.2 Enforcement by the Administrative Authorities and its Statistical Information No access
        Authors:
      3. 3.3 Enforcement through Civil Litigation and its Statistical Information No access
        Authors:
      4. 3.4 Arguments and Analysis No access
        Authors:
    4. Authors:
      1. 4.1 Background History – Severe Accident in Fukushima and its Cause No access
        Authors:
      2. 4.2 Current Regulations of the NPP and their Implementation by the Public Authorities No access
        Authors:
      3. 4.3 Enforcement through Civil/Administrative Litigation and the Actual Situation No access
        Authors:
      4. 4.4 Arguments in Judicial Precedents No access
        Authors:
      5. 4.5 Arguments among Scholars No access
        Authors:
      6. 4.6 Analysis No access
        Authors:
    5. 5. Summary and Concluding Remarks No access
      Authors:
3. Authors:
  1. 1. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. 2.1 The decision of the CJEU No access
      Authors:
    2. 2.2 Reactions No access
      Authors:
  3. Authors:
    1. 3.1 Application of EU law by arbitral tribunals No access
      Authors:
    2. 3.2 Arbitral tribunals are not ‘courts’ in the sense of art 267 TFEU No access
      Authors:
    3. 3.3 The importance and sufficiency of ex-post review of arbitral awards No access
      Authors:
    4. 3.4 The distinction between investment arbitration and commercial arbitration No access
      Authors:
  4. 4. Other possible limitations of arbitrability on grounds of EU law No access
    Authors:
  5. 5. Conclusion No access
    Authors:
4. Authors:
  1. 1. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. 2.1 The Need for Third-Party Funding No access
      Authors:
    2. 2.2 The Business Model of Special Purpose Vehicles – Assignments of Claims No access
      Authors:
    3. Authors:
      1. 2.3.1 Registration under the Legal Service Act No access
        Authors:
      2. 2.3.2 Validity of assignment to SPVs No access
        Authors:
      3. 2.3.3 Prohibition of contingency fee arrangements No access
        Authors:
      4. 2.3.4 Equality of arms in civil proceedings No access
        Authors:
      5. 2.3.5 Excessive success fees No access
        Authors:
  3. 3. Do We Need a Legal Framework for Third-Party Funding? No access
    Authors:
  4. 4. Conclusion No access
    Authors:
5. Authors:
  1. 1. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. 2. Characterizing Third-Party Funding as a Transparency Issue No access
    Authors:
  3. Authors:
    1. 3.1 Identity of Real Party in Interest No access
      Authors:
    2. 3.2 Third-Party Funders and Conflicts of Interest No access
      Authors:
    3. 3.3 Third-Party Funders and Implications on Orders for Arbitration Costs No access
      Authors:
    4. 3.4 Identification of Parties That Can Access Arbitration Documents No access
      Authors:
  4. Authors:
    1. 4.1 Provisions on Third-Party Funding in International Investment Agreements No access
      Authors:
    2. 4.2 Rules and Issuances from International Arbitral Institutions Regarding Third-Party Funding No access
      Authors:
    3. 4.3 Recently Concluded Cases Where a Third-Party Funder was Reportedly Involved in Filing the Investment Claim No access
      Authors:
    4. 4.4 Pending Case Where Fact of Third-Party Funding was Publicized Prior to Filing of Investment Claim No access
      Authors:
  5. 5. Recommendations for Disclosure Requirements No access
    Authors:
1. Authors:
  1. 1. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. 2.1 Consumer Access to Justice as Access to Legal Justice No access
      Authors:
    2. 2.2 Access to Justice versus Access to a Tribunal No access
      Authors:
  3. 3. CDR in the European Union No access
    Authors:
  4. Authors:
    1. 4.1 Access to Legal Justice in light of article 6 ECHR and article 47 EU Charter No access
      Authors:
    2. 4.2 Scenario 1: the Consumer Freely Chooses to Submit a Dispute to CDR, the Outcome of which may or may not be Binding No access
      Authors:
    3. 4.3 Scenario 2: the Consumer must Participate in CDR, the Outcome of which is not Binding No access
      Authors:
    4. 4.4 Scenario 3: the Consumer must Participate in CDR, the Outcome of which is Binding No access
      Authors:
    5. 4.5 The Traders’ Right of Access to Justice No access
      Authors:
  5. Authors:
    1. 5.1 Danger of Second-class Justice No access
      Authors:
    2. 5.2 Quality Requirements in EU Instruments No access
      Authors:
    3. 5.3 Fair Trial Standards and Proportionality Test as a Means to Supplement CDR Quality Criteria No access
      Authors:
  6. 6. Conclusion No access
    Authors:
2. Authors:
  1. 1. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. 2.1. The Obligation to Implement an Amicable Process under Article 8 of the Convention No access
      Authors:
    2. 2.2. Participation of Amicable Processes to the Access to Justice No access
      Authors:
    3. 2.3. Should a Proper Right of Access to an Amicable Process Exist? No access
      Authors:
    4. 2.4. Positive Obligations beyond Article 8 of the Convention No access
      Authors:
    5. Authors:
      1. 2.5.1. Prospective Applications of the Right of Access to an Amicable Process No access
        Authors:
      2. 2.5.2. Article 6§ 1 as a Basis? No access
        Authors:
      3. 2.5.3. Amicable Processes as Part of ‘Plural solutions of Dispute Settlement’ No access
        Authors:
  3. Authors:
    1. 3.1. The Scope of the Right of Access to an Amicable Process No access
      Authors:
    2. 3.2. The Strength of the Right of Access to an Amicable Process No access
      Authors:
  4. Authors:
    1. 4.1. Which Model of Amicable Process? No access
      Authors:
    2. 4.2. Designing a Fair and Mainstream Amicable Justice No access
      Authors:
  5. 5. Conclusion No access
    Authors:
3. Authors:
  1. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. 1.1 Positioning the Paper within the Project on Good Governance and Privatized Consumer Justice No access
      Authors:
    2. 1.2 Definitions No access
      Authors:
  3. Authors:
    1. 2.1 Top-down Legitimacy: Between quality and efficiency No access
      Authors:
    2. 2.2 Bottom-up Legitimacy No access
      Authors:
  4. 3 Evolution of the Access to Justice Debate in the EU No access
    Authors:
  5. Authors:
    1. 4.1 Private Initiatives in ADR No access
      Authors:
    2. 4.2 Theories of Dispute Resolution and Access to Justice No access
      Authors:
  6. 5 Conclusions: Arbitration, ADR, and the Value-oriented Access to Justice Model No access
    Authors:
1. Authors:
  1. 1. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. 2. The Emerging Need to Give Effect to the Exercise of Party Autonomy within Cross-Border Mediations No access
    Authors:
  3. Authors:
    1. 3.1. The Scope of the Convention No access
      Authors:
    2. 3.2. The Necessary Connection with Mediation No access
      Authors:
    3. 3.3. Form Requirements No access
      Authors:
    4. 3.4. Grounds for Refusing to Grant Relief No access
      Authors:
  4. Authors:
    1. 4.1. Party Autonomy in Mediation No access
      Authors:
    2. 4.2. Determining When Party Autonomy has been Compromised Within Mediation No access
      Authors:
    3. Authors:
      1. 4.3.1 The Suitability of the Contractual Framework for MSAs No access
        Authors:
      2. 4.3.2 The Dissonance between MSAs and the Contractual Framework – Is It a Substantial Difficulty? No access
        Authors:
    4. 4.4. Party Autonomy According to Mediation Standards? No access
      Authors:
    5. Authors:
      1. 4.5.1 Disentangling Enforcement of MSAs from the Constraints of Contract Law No access
        Authors:
      2. 4.5.2 The Enlargement of Party Autonomy to Include Due Process No access
        Authors:
      3. 4.5.3 The Elevated Status of Mediation Standards No access
        Authors:
      4. 4.5.4 The Potential for Diversity in the Interpretation of Mediation Standards No access
        Authors:
  5. Authors:
    1. 5.1. Art 5(2)(a): When will Granting Relief be Contrary to the Public Policy of the Contracting State? No access
      Authors:
    2. 5.2. Article 5(2)(b): When will a Matter be Considered Incapable of Settlement by Mediation? No access
      Authors:
  6. 6. Conclusion No access
    Authors:
2. Authors:
  1. 1. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. Authors:
      1. 2.1.1 Court-connected conciliation No access
        Authors:
      2. 2.1.2 Extrajudicial conciliation No access
        Authors:
    2. Authors:
      1. 2.2.1 Voluntary judicial mediation No access
        Authors:
      2. 2.2.2 Voluntary extrajudicial mediation No access
        Authors:
      3. 2.2.3 The Greek Law on Mandatory Mediation No access
        Authors:
      4. 2.2.4 Compatibility of Greek Legislation on Mandatory Mediation with European Jurisprudence No access
        Authors:
  3. Authors:
    1. 3.1. Italy No access
      Authors:
    2. 3.2. England No access
      Authors:
    3. 3.3. Germany No access
      Authors:
    4. 3.4. France No access
      Authors:
  4. 4. International jurisdictional issues regarding mandatory mediation and forum shopping No access
    Authors:
  5. Authors:
    1. 5.1. Enforceability of the mediated settlement agreement No access
      Authors:
    2. 5.2. Enforcing transnational mediated settlement agreements in the EU No access
      Authors:
  6. Authors:
    1. 6.1. The Law applicable to the mediation clause or agreement to mediate No access
      Authors:
    2. 6.2. The Law applicable to the proceeding No access
      Authors:
    3. 6.3. The Law applicable to the content of the settlement reached No access
      Authors:
  7. 7. Final remarks No access
    Authors:
3. Authors:
  1. 1. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. 2.1. Definition of Apology No access
      Authors:
    2. Authors:
      1. 2.2.1. Law of Evidence No access
        Authors:
      2. 2.2.2. Substantive Law No access
        Authors:
    3. 2.3. Scope of Coverage No access
      Authors:
  3. Authors:
    1. 3.1. Eliminating Fear of Apologizing No access
      Authors:
    2. 3.2. Reaction to Tort Liability Crisis No access
      Authors:
  4. Authors:
    1. 4.1. Legislation Stimulates Apologizing No access
      Authors:
    2. 4.2. Apologies Encourage Out-of-court Dispute Resolution No access
      Authors:
  5. Authors:
    1. 5.1. Legal Status of Apologies No access
      Authors:
    2. 5.2. Role of Tort Law No access
      Authors:
    3. 5.3. Inadmissibility of Evidence No access
      Authors:
  6. 6. Considering an Introduction of Apology Legislation No access
    Authors:
  7. 7. Conclusion No access
    Authors:
1. Authors:
  1. 1. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. 2.1. Inconsistency in Arbitral Decisions and the Lack of Predictability No access
      Authors:
    2. 2.2. Lack of Transparency, Length and Cost of the Proceedings No access
      Authors:
    3. 2.3. Lack of Appropriate Control of Review in Treaty-Based Arbitrations No access
      Authors:
    4. 2.4. Lack of Sufficient Guarantee of Impartiality and Independence No access
      Authors:
  3. Authors:
    1. 3.1. The European Union Proposal No access
      Authors:
    2. 3.2. Substantive versus Procedural Reform No access
      Authors:
  4. Authors:
    1. 4.1. Annulment versus Appeal: Finality versus Consistency and Correctness? No access
      Authors:
    2. 4.2. A Note on Enforcement and Compatibility with the Current System No access
      Authors:
  5. 5. The Opt-In Approach for Reforming ISDS Provisions in Existing IIAs No access
    Authors:
  6. 6. Conclusion: Shifting from Ad hoc ISDS Process to Standing Bodies No access
    Authors:
2. Authors:
  1. 1. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. 2. Features of the International Investment Regime Encouraging Parallel Claims No access
    Authors:
  3. Authors:
    1. 3.1. General Remarks No access
      Authors:
    2. Authors:
      1. 3.2.1. Pursuing Treaty-Based Claims in Domestic Courts No access
        Authors:
      2. 3.2.2. Pursuing Domestic Claims Before Investment Tribunals No access
        Authors:
      3. 3.2.3. Pursuing Contract Claims – a Few Remarks on Their Convoluted Nature No access
        Authors:
    3. 3.3. Pursuing the Same Claims Sensu Largo Before Domestic Courts and Investment Tribunals No access
      Authors:
  4. 4. Consequences of the Jurisdictional Competition Between Domestic Courts and Investment Tribunals No access
    Authors:
  5. Authors:
    1. 5.1. Cooling-Off Periods No access
      Authors:
    2. 5.2. Exhaustion of Local Remedies No access
      Authors:
    3. 5.3. Reasonable Attempt in Domestic Court No access
      Authors:
    4. 5.4. Fork in the Road No access
      Authors:
    5. 5.5 .Waiver No access
      Authors:
    6. 5.6. Traditional Litispendence Tools (Lis Pendens and Res Judicata) No access
      Authors:
    7. 5.7. Consolidation No access
      Authors:
  6. Authors:
    1. 6.1. More Flexible Application of the Traditional Litispendence Tools No access
      Authors:
    2. 6.2. Doctrine of Abuse of Rights No access
      Authors:
    3. 6.3. Stay of Proceedings No access
      Authors:
    4. 6.4. Drawing Inspiration from Forum Non Conveniens No access
      Authors:
    5. 6.5. Eliminating ISDS From IIAs Between Developed States No access
      Authors:
  7. Authors:
    1. 7.1. Avoiding Parallel Claims: Tips For Treaty Drafters No access
      Authors:
    2. 7.2. Managing Parallel Claims: Tips For Treaty Users No access
      Authors:
  8. 8. Conclusions No access
    Authors:
3. Authors:
  1. 1. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. 2.1. Remedies No access
      Authors:
    2. 2.2. Systemic Values No access
      Authors:
  3. Authors:
    1. 3.1. Most-Favoured-Nation No access
      Authors:
    2. 3.2. Fair and Equitable Treatment No access
      Authors:
    3. 3.3. Umbrella Clause No access
      Authors:
    4. 3.4. Expropriation No access
      Authors:
  4. 4. Conclusion No access
    Authors:
4. Authors:
  1. 1 Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. 2 The new Specialized Courts No access
    Authors:
  3. 3 Serving the unmet Needs of Commercial Parties No access
    Authors:
  4. 4 Assessing the Limits of Privatizing Dispute Resolution No access
    Authors:
1. Authors:
  1. 1. Introduction No access
    Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. Authors:
      1. 2.1.1. The general debate No access
        Authors:
      2. 2.1.2. Expanding arbitrability (the legal perspective) No access
        Authors:
    2. Authors:
      1. 2.2.1. International arbitration nowadays No access
        Authors:
      2. 2.2.2. Business’ demands to arbitration No access
        Authors:
  3. Authors:
    1. Authors:
      1. 3.1.1. The undeniable existence of concerns regarding arbitration No access
        Authors:
      2. 3.1.2. How to react to concerns? No access
        Authors:
    2. 3.2. Why legitimacy concerns cannot be exclusive to IIA? No access
      Authors:
    3. Authors:
      1. 3.3.1. Transparency No access
        Authors:
      2. 3.3.2. Accountability No access
        Authors:
      3. 3.3.3. Consistency No access
        Authors:
  4. 4. Final remark: the future of arbitration No access
    Authors: