Alternative ways of resolving legal disputes and their application in Ukraine

Resolving legal conflicts is one of the main tasks of any state. This function is in most cases entrusted to the judiciary, but as experience shows, the court alone cannot ensure the effective functioning of the legal dispute resolution system. For every democratic state, the availability of an alternative is important, and the subject of law must be able to choose the ways of resolving legal disputes. Today in the world there are such alternative ways of resolving disputes as: arbitration, mediation, consultation, negotiations, intersession, conciliation procedure and others. The purpose of the article is to identify the advantages and disadvantages of alternative dispute resolution methods. The article analyzes the literature on this topic, and also presents the features of alternative ways of dispute resolution, which allows us to identify their advantages and disadvantages as a legal procedure. The existence in most countries of the world of alternative dispute resolution is to some extent positive for the parties to the conflict, because dispute resolution through arbitration, mediation, negotiation, consultation and other alternative dispute resolution allows to resolve it without state intervention and they can be solved much faster. Alternative dispute resolution can to some extent be a source of savings money for the state, as they exist independently and do not require funds to provide them from the state, while in Ukraine the system of commercial courts annually requires a fairly large cost of maintaining such courts. Resolving disputes through alternative methods also speeds up their resolution, but in some cases the process itself can be more expensive

The Reasons for the Withdrawal of China’s Tobacco Regulatory Papers by the International Journals and Its Regulation by the Law and Administration

Objectives: The analysis of reasons for the China’s tobacco regulatory withdrawal by the international journals and promotion of the tobacco regulation in China is the first aim. Methods: questionnaires investigations method and individual method by the famous case of journal of Nature and recent withdrawal of China’s tobacco regulatory paper are utilized in this paper. eg., Han Chunyu publishes paper in journal of Nature, and it provides the method of editing genome to cure some disease by the tobacco, eg., lung cancer and so on. Results: To analyze the reasons for the withdrawal of the China’s tobacco regulatory paper, the reasons for this matter are multivariate by the different aspects. In general, the reasons are as follows by law aspects: eg., the writer’s absence of legal opinion of law, including the absence of the obligation and rights of publishing contract, the university and researching body to take the index of paper to publish high level papers in the international society as the import task and in some degree to create paper’s the withdrawal, China’s traditional culture and absence of the modern accurate science training and the accurate modern administration system in China’s society. The questionnaires investigations conclusion is to certify that the above reasons for the paper withdrawal are main, and to resolve it by the law and administration. Conclusion: The government and university shall take measures to separate the academic dispute from the paper’s withdrawal and to establish the academic dispute resolution system, to cancel the index mask for the university and to punish the writer of the withdrawal paper, to establish the modern university system to promote the social and economic development and to establish modern accurate administration to avoid the paper’s withdrawal by the international journals.

Governance: Managing Bilateral Relations

This chapter provides an overview of the new governance framework for EU-UK cooperation, exploring the mechanisms established by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) in managing bilateral relations. It examines the complex institutional machinery created by the TCA, including the Partnership Council, a dispute resolution system, and dozens of committees and sub-committees. As a consequence of the thin material scope of the TCA, its institutional mechanism will become the framework for continuing future negotiation between the parties. The chapter warns that the ongoing mistrust between the partners to the bilateral relation does not bode well for cooperation ahead, as a degree of trust is a necessary precondition for any efficient governance scheme.

The evolution of alternative dispute resolution and online dispute resolution in the European Un

The evolution of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) as an augmentation from Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) may lead to an authentic paradigm shift in the way disputes are handled beyond the traditional court systems. To assess state of the art and convey awareness, this paper explores the regulatory landscape of the European Union (EU) using the United Kingdom and Estonia to illustrate the key advancements and shortcomings of the supranational strategy. It discusses the relationships between ADR capabilities and its productive use in ODR, the ODR deployment and adoption, and the consequences that may arise if dispute resolution technologies leapfrog. The paper also speaks of automation and suggests the need to build integrative models into Artificial Intelligence (AI) - powered ODR platforms. It is apparent that the early challenges in the development of the ADR culture in the EU are still unresolved, affecting the proper integration of ADR principles and ODR technologies. A more effective coupling could be expected to smooth digital trade interactions by increasing access to justice and consumer trust in the redress capacities of the Dispute Resolution System (DRS) as a whole.

Independence and impartiality of sports disputes resolution in the UK

Private sports governing bodies in the United Kingdom have the contractual freedom to organise their own sports tribunals and disputes procedures. There is no legislation in the UK that governs the form of a sports governing body’s dispute resolution procedure. The common law and, to a certain extent, other industry measures influence the structure of a disputes procedure within a private sports governing body. When establishing dispute resolution systems in self-regulating industries, there is potential for structural conflicts of interest to arise. Reporting mechanisms and adjudicatory processes may be structurally bias through, for example, the way appointments are made to a dispute resolution panel. There may be the suggestion of implicit bias of panel members because of the interests that control the appointment process. Even if no actual bias arises, the perception of bias can damage the engagement of stakeholders in a dispute process and damage the reputation of the sport with sponsors or the general public. The key is to minimise structural conflicts of interest and ensure that the process is independent and impartial. This article examines the challenges faced with organising sports dispute resolution procedures, the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and highlights the important factors that a sports governing body should consider when designing an independent and impartial dispute resolution system. It concludes with a discussion of whether the legal basis for sports dispute resolution in the UK requires reconsideration to provide certainty, independence, impartiality and, above all, to guarantee a fair hearing.

Private or public adjudication? Procedure, substance and legitimacy

This article identifies the essential differences between public and private adjudication and their implications for the legitimacy and efficiency of dispute resolution institutions, as well as the rule of law. Public adjudication comes at a significant cost for the taxpayers but helps secure a consistent body of case law, promotes public policy goals, and allows third parties to know the rules of conduct in advance to prevent undesirable activities. This article shows that procedural rules of these institutions (regardless of whether the procedure is called adjudication or arbitration) differ when it comes to the appointment of adjudicators, their professional background, and how long they serve. Public and private institutions consistently follow different approaches to transparency and confidentiality of proceedings, the application of primarily substantive rules or principles to resolve disagreements, and the extent to which decisions can be reviewed internally or externally. By examining the procedural rules and practices of selected institutions, the article asserts three main claims. First, the choice of public or private adjudication is likely to lead to different procedural outcomes, including the cost of the process and the duration. Second, the legitimacy of any dispute resolution system must rest on both procedural and substantive aspects, while in reality these two are often viewed in isolation. Finally, the article shows how institutions could learn from each other to become more efficient and strengthen their legitimacy.

Pushing for Sustainability through Technology: administrative consensuality by default and online dispute resolutions tools

The Brazilian Public Administration is a repeat player and, often, predatory and strategic player. The behavior of the Public Administration is oriented towards the litigation and contributes to the increase in the congestion rate of the Judiciary, limiting access to justice. In this article, it was reflected whether a more adequate choice architecture could make the Public Administration start to show a more consensual and less litigious behavior. It was found that an architecture of choices appropriate to the greater promotion of access to Justice must create an administrative consensus by default, implemented based on an online dispute resolution system that presents an architecture of choices that makes the standard choice of individuals who wish to resolve a conflict with the Public Administration is self-composition.

Uncertainty and dispute resolution for blockchain and smart contract institutions

Smart contracts have been proposed as a means of revolutionizing transacting between human actors and contributing to blockchain platforms substituting for many current institutions. However, the technical nature of blockchain platforms and smart contracts requires levels of certainty and foresight sufficient for contracts to be complete. We examine the technical and economic characteristics of blockchains and smart contracts to identify sources of uncertainty that may pose challenges to the ability of these technologies to displace existing institutional arrangements, in particular, the courts and other arbitration arrangements. Despite the development of alternative automated blockchain institutions such as the Kleros dispute resolution system, the case for smart contracts and blockchain applications to supplant real-world institutions remains weak. Inherent incompleteness due to limits to information availability, human cognition, and communication means that traditional contract governance institutions will continue to complement blockchain smart contract governance arrangements. The more complex and unique the transaction, the higher the value at risk, the harder to anticipate and precisely specify contingencies and measure and observe outcomes. Furthermore, the longer the time frame between agreement and execution, the less likely it is that smart contracting will be more efficient than traditional contracting.

PRINSIP KEMANFAATAN PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA ELEKTRONIK SEBAGAI ALTERNATIF PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA TRANSAKSI PERDAGANGAN ELEKTRONIK

The research is motivated by the need for eff ective, effi cient and low-cost dispute resolution in dispute arising from electronic commerce transactions. That is because the implementation of electronic commerce transaction ha the characteristic of speed and ease, then it must also be accommodated in the process of settling the dispute. This study aims to analyze, and provide a description of the form of application principle of utilities in ODR as an alternative dispute resolution of electronic commerce user. The result of this normative legal research which uses statute and conseptual approach provide an explaination that online dispute resolution as an e-commerce alternative dispute resolution system trial has been in accordance with the principle of utilities, because to fulfi ll an element that there are in principle utilities in the analysis on law and economic.