This article examines the difference between American negotiation techniques and negotiation strategies of other cultures. The article also demonstrates how different negotiation techniques can be used effectively together.
The note explains a number of arbitral awards in the Middle East have gone unrecognized as a result of certain Islamic laws. The author asserts that the American Arbitration Association's Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution cannot be fully effective without incorporating certain aspects of Islam and Sharia into the rules applied to international commercial arbitration proceedings.
The authors argue that the Stolt-Nielsen case has further confused what courts should do when arbitration agreements waive parties' rights to bring class action suits. Rather than taking a bright-line approach, the authors advocate for a totality of the circumstances approach to determine the enforceability of class action waivers.
The author examines the circuit court split on whether the reversal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act preempts the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and the Enforcement of Arbitral Agreements and allows states to invalidate international insurance contracts' arbitration agreement clauses. The author concludes that the Supreme Court and Congress should limit states' power to preclude parties from enforcing arbitration clauses in international insurance contracts.
The author argues that the arbitration demand approach is the only way to determine the amount in controversy in a petition to vacate an arbitration award that remains true to traditional notions of jurisdiction. It does so by determining the amount in controversy at the initiation of the controversy, not at the point ofwhat essentially amounts to an appeal.
The article examines the problems associated with appointing a guardian ad litem (GAL) in a family mediation. The confidentiality protection afforded to the parents may be compromised by the presence of a GAL. Appointment of a GAL should take place after the mediation to secure the integrity of the resolution process.
Some authors suggest that the current enforcement of the World Trade Organization's Dispute Settlement Body's decisions is unfair to weak parties in the agreement and suggest to impose monetary damages enforceable by the Organization itself, not by individual parties. Nzelibe opposes such reforms stating that they do not take into consideration domestic factors.
Written for managers and supervisors, this book provides a four-step conflict resolution model to allow managers and supervisors to effectively preempt and prevent workplace disputes from getting explosive. The process has been adapted from a process used for more than twenty-five years at the National Conflict Resolution Standard.
This note raises questions as to the legitimacy of the current system of Bilateral Investment Treaty arbitration. It explores why the current system is so lopsided, and what effects that lopsidedness has on variously-situated treaty parties.