Feed aggregator

Nora Hanasy

Communication and Conflict Blog - Mon, 2018-05-14 03:16
Hi I am an artist and currently looking into assumptions and how there are many different versions of me out there that may be very different to how I

EAC Chief Justices urge enhanced budgets; pledge to back integration - Capital FM Kenya

Google International ADR News - Mon, 2018-05-14 02:03

Capital FM Kenya

EAC Chief Justices urge enhanced budgets; pledge to back integration
Capital FM Kenya
... she said on April 12 during the opening session of a two-day National Alternative Dispute Resolution Stakeholders' Forum jointly convened by the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Taskforce and Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration (NCIA).

and more »

Wealth Management: Executive Divorce - Crain's Chicago Business

Google International ADR News - Mon, 2018-05-14 00:01

Crain's Chicago Business

Wealth Management: Executive Divorce
Crain's Chicago Business
Her commitment to alternative dispute resolution enables her to meet her client's goals efficiently and with complete discretion. She's been recognized as a "Family Law Lawyer of the Year" by Best Lawyers in America, the "# 1 Female ... BRUCE RICHMAN ...

and more »

AT&T Gov't Affairs to Work Under GC David McAtee After Cohen Payments Revelation - Yahoo News

Google International ADR News - Sun, 2018-05-13 10:37

Yahoo News

AT&T Gov't Affairs to Work Under GC David McAtee After Cohen Payments Revelation
Yahoo News
... as assistant GC and was named to the top legal job in October 2015. Corporate Counsel interviewed McAtee back in August 2017 about his philosophy around alternative dispute resolution upon receiving an award for ADR excellence from the ...

Why We Don’t Need Blockchain to Manage Cases in International Arbitration

Kluwer Arbitration Blog - Sat, 2018-05-12 20:23

Ashish Chugh

Until a few decades ago, international arbitration was perceived to be a quick and inexpensive way of resolving disputes. However, the proliferation of legal rules, the disclosure of voluminous documents, complex technical evidence and over-lawyering have, to a large extent, hollowed that boast and made it appear somewhat of an urban myth.

Quite recently though, we have been told that blockchain might be the panacea for several of those ills.1)See GAR article “Is blockchain the future?” 14 March 2018 and Law360 article “Blockchain will improve International Dispute Resolution” 14 March 2018. jQuery("#footnote_plugin_tooltip_6019_1").tooltip({ tip: "#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_6019_1", tipClass: "footnote_tooltip", effect: "fade", fadeOutSpeed: 100, predelay: 400, position: "top right", relative: true, offset: [10, 10] }); Given the current euphoria surrounding potential uses of blockchain in almost every industry, it is unsurprising that the international arbitration community is excited to see how this emerging technology can be used in international arbitration.

However, the main difficulty with any potential application of blockchain in the area of international arbitration is that the resolution of disputes does not require the use of ledgers in the same way that they are needed to, for example, record cross-border payments in the finance services sector or property rights in the real estate industry.

This is what appears to be blockchain’s core strength. It is a digital ledger that is decentralised (i.e. there is no single controlling entity), distributive (i.e. the ledger is shared, processed and synchronised over a vast network of computers or “blockchain nodes”) and almost incorruptible because it would be extremely difficult to alter retrospectively an entry which has been recorded on the ledger without altering all of the subsequent entries recorded on it. These entries (or “blocks” of data) are linked or “chained” together by using cryptography and time-stamping giving blockchain its unique name.

Blockchain accordingly allows us to rely on a continuously-growing record of economic transactions on a digital ledger without the need for a trusted third party to validate those transactions. Users are willing to trust a given blockchain ledger because it will be highly improbable for anyone to be able to manipulate the ledger. Thus, for example, a blockchain property title ledger could possibly record the particulars of specific properties, including their exact location, title details and ownership history. If buyers and bankers are able to rely on this information at face value, it is a no brainer that it would serve to reduce costs as well as to simplify and expedite property transactions.

With specific reference to international arbitration, there are cogent technological reasons which will make it difficult for the management of an arbitration reference to be conducted in a blockchain platform in the foreseeable future.

These technological reasons stem from blockchain’s own limitations (i.e. it is actually quite slow and expensive to store massive volumes of data on a blockchain ledger). We know for a fact that, for example, the blockchain-based Bitcoin can only process 1MB of data every 10 minutes. Moreover, the current transaction cost of storing about 1KB of data on a public blockchain is reported to be well over US$2. Moreover, once data is actually stored on a blockchain ledger, it must be borne in mind that it is immutable and can never be deleted.

Thus, before a complete arbitration reference can be efficiently managed on a blockchain platform (as proposed by the groups such as the Smart Arbitration and Mediation Blockchain Application (SAMBA)), one needs to first find a way to effectively overcome the inherent shortcomings of blockchain technology.

It is also incorrect to suggest that we need blockchain to somehow bring us into a new era where hard copies of voluminous documents will no longer need to be served on the arbitral tribunal and the other parties by courier service.

On the contrary, contemporary practices in international arbitration show that, for the past several years, many arbitral tribunals have been able to effectively manage the filing of a large number of documents by the parties with the assistance of third-party cloud storage providers such as Dropbox, Amazon AWS and Google drives.

The real issue as to whether such a practice should continue to be used in international arbitral proceedings emanates from a concern that such cloud storage providers may not have adequate security protocols which can prevent major cyberattacks in the future. If they do not, it could potentially lead to the unauthorised disclosure of documents in the public domain and thereby undermine the confidential nature of the arbitral process.

In order to obviate this concern, the use of decentralised cloud storage systems is slowly gaining currency. Such systems are currently being commercialised by companies such as Storj, Sia and Filecoin. In short, in a decentralised cloud storage system, a document is encrypted and shredded into smaller parts and duplicated. The smaller files are then sent to different computers on a peer-to-peer network. This effectively means that in the event of a cyberattack against one specific computer, it will still not be possible to access the original document. The only way it would be possible is by using a private key to reconstruct and decrypt the original document with the aid of distributed hash table (DHT) technology. DHT technology notably predates blockchain and an earlier version was in fact used by companies (such as Napster and BitTorrent) to infamously share files over their peer-to-peer networks in the early 2000s.

Moreover, it is noteworthy that several arbitral institutions (such as WIPO, JAMS and the Court of Arbitration for Sport) have already introduced their own electronic case management systems, which allow parties and the arbitral tribunal to upload documents in relation to an arbitration reference on a secure website hosted by the arbitral institution. A blockchain platform is neither necessary nor currently used by such institutions to operate their electronic case management systems.

In conclusion, whilst the ingenious opportunities that blockchain presents are truly unprecedented and potentially revolutionary, it is unlikely that one of the significant applications of blockchain will be data storage or the creation of an electronic case management system for the complete conduct of an arbitration reference.

To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates on the Kluwer Arbitration Blog, please subscribe here.

References   [ + ]

1. ↑ See GAR article “Is blockchain the future?” 14 March 2018 and Law360 article “Blockchain will improve International Dispute Resolution” 14 March 2018. function footnote_expand_reference_container() { jQuery("#footnote_references_container").show(); jQuery("#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button").text("-"); } function footnote_collapse_reference_container() { jQuery("#footnote_references_container").hide(); jQuery("#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button").text("+"); } function footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container() { if (jQuery("#footnote_references_container").is(":hidden")) { footnote_expand_reference_container(); } else { footnote_collapse_reference_container(); } } function footnote_moveToAnchor(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery("#" + p_str_TargetID); if(l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight/2 }, 1000); } }More from our authors: International Arbitration and the Rule of Law
by Andrea Menaker
€ 240


The post Why We Don’t Need Blockchain to Manage Cases in International Arbitration appeared first on Kluwer Arbitration Blog.

Expedited Procedure Vis-à-Vis Party Autonomy, Enforceable?

Kluwer Arbitration Blog - Fri, 2018-05-11 19:17

Sacchit Joshi and Brijesh Chhatrola

The ICC Rules introduced expedited procedure with effect from March 01, 2017. With this, the ICC joined the league of other leading arbitration institutions such as SIAC, LCIA and HKIAC who had already incorporated expedited procedure. Courts across the globe have delivered uniform decisions, views in interpreting party autonomy except for a decision by the Shanghai Court. This conflict has led to some uncertainty in the discretion exercised in appointing arbitrators. This post will examine the decision of the Shanghai Court conflicting with other uniform decisions and views which have ignited the discussion on the subjectivity involved in interpreting party autonomy.

This post discusses the refusal of enforcement of an award under the expedited procedure by a Shanghai court. The Shanghai No.1 Intermediate Court, in the case of Nobles Resources Pte. Ltd. v. Good Credit International Trade Co. Ltd. (2016) refused to enforce a SIAC award passed under the expedited procedure (Rules of 2013). The court ruled that it is not in consonance with the intention of the parties and it does not uphold party autonomy. The agreement entered by the parties contained a clause providing for a three-member arbitration tribunal in Singapore. Subsequently, the vice – chairman of SIAC appointed a sole arbitrator under the expedited procedure who passed an award.

The Shanghai Court before which the enforcement of the award was litigated, held that the SIAC Rules did not empower the chairman to compel the parties to accept the jurisdiction of the sole arbitrator. Moreover, the agreement provided for a three-member arbitration tribunal that did not preclude the chairman of constituting the tribunal against the backdrop of the number of arbitrators stipulated in the agreement. It observed that the sole arbitrator had disregarded this objection and the intention of the parties reflected in the agreement specifying a three-member tribunal. As a result, the Shanghai Court refused to enforce the award delivered by the sole arbitrator. This decision was later affirmed by the PRC Supreme People’s Court as a part of their reporting system.

Conversely, two years before the Shanghai Court delivered its decision, the Singapore High Court in AQZ v. ARA [2015] SGHC 49 had discussed the issue of appointment of a sole arbitrator under expedited procedure despite the arbitration agreement specifying a three-member tribunal. A post by Gary Born and Jonathan W. Lim discussed the decision of the Singapore High Court. The crux of the post is that the High Court adopted a ‘commercially purposive’ stance and liberally interpreted the concept of party autonomy. The Court held that opting for the expedited procedure under SIAC Rules 2010 is indicative of the intention of the parties to accept the SIAC Rules in its entirety and not just one single rule. It is established that when parties opt for SIAC Rules they impliedly validate the discretion exercised by the SIAC president in appointing the arbitrators.

Thus, the duty of the court is limited to examining if the discretion has been ‘exercised properly’ by the president. If a judicious exercise of the discretion is ascertained and established, then it can override the parties’ agreement. In deciding so, the Shanghai Court heavily relied on the intention of the parties in the arbitration agreement, which provided for a three-member tribunal. It opined that the SIAC president ought to have used his/her discretion only against the backdrop of the stipulation of a three-member tribunal.

The job of a court in enforcing an award is not to sit in judgement on the procedure adopted in exercising discretion. If every court interferes with the discretion exercised by the president in appointing the number of arbitrators, it will give rise to subjective interpretations of the same rule. These subjective interpretations of the courts across the globe will cause confusing interpretations on party autonomy, thereby leaving parties in uncertainty. However, the Shanghai Court erred when it upheld the view that expedited procedure never deprived the president of constituting the tribunal against the backdrop of the number of arbitrators stipulated in the agreement. It held that the president was not empowered to appoint the sole arbitrator given the fact that the agreement provided for a three-member tribunal.

The Swiss Rules and the HKIAC Rules invite parties opting for the expedited procedure to modify the agreement in case of more number of arbitrators. Failure to modify the agreement results in party autonomy being preferred while effecting expedited procedure. Under the JCAA Rules, the expedited procedure is automatically applied to disputes below ¥20 million, but party autonomy prevails if the parties have agreed on more than one arbitrator.

Judicial precedents

The Bombay High Court (India) in Siddhi Real Estate Developers v. Metro Cash & Carry India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2014) SCC Bom 623 held that sanctity of the party autonomy should be preserved whilst deferring the procedure for appointment of arbitrators and the courts should retain the power to appoint arbitrators.

Likewise, the Singapore High Court in AQZ v. ARA, ruled that by opting for SIAC Rules the parties had recognised the SIAC president’s power and discretion to appoint a sole arbitrator where the expedited procedure applied.

In Travis Coal Restructured Holdings LLC v. Essar Global Fund Ltd., the English High Court considered the ICC Rules opted by the parties in its entirety. It can be inferred that the court validated the summary procedure adopted by the arbitrators, as the same was within the discretion exercised by them. This discretion exercised was held to be consented by the parties when they opted for ICC Rules.

In W. Company v. Dutch holding Company (2012) 1 SAA 97, the court held that by choosing SIAC Rules to govern the arbitration, the parties had accepted the SIAC Rules in its entirety, including the expedited procedure under rule 5.

Deliberation & discussion

The interpretation of the Shanghai Court was dislodged when it held the SIAC president should not have composed a sole arbitrator tribunal. The consent of the parties for the whole of SIAC Rules validates the decision arrived at by the SIAC president. Thus, the discretion exercised by the president in appointing the arbitrator/arbitrators is implied by the parties when they choose the SIAC Rules in its entirety.

The decision in the Singapore High Court case has well laid down the jurisprudence in interpreting ‘party autonomy’ under institutional arbitration. Instead of relying on the established jurisprudence, the Shanghai Court misinterpreted the intention of the parties by not looking at the SIAC Rules in its entirety.

The SIAC Rules at the time of the dispute in the Shanghai Court were the SIAC Rules of 2013 (5th Edition) and at the time of the Singapore High Court decision were SIAC Rules of 2010 (4th Edition). Nonetheless, Rule 5 in both the above editions provided for the expedited procedure and it was duly applied in both these cases. Thereafter, in 2016 SIAC published its 6th Edition of Rules, and under Rule 5 of the (6th Edition) of SIAC Rules 2016, there has been an effective amendment in particular under Rule 5.3 which now states, –

Rule 5.2 shall apply even in cases where the arbitration agreement contains contrary terms.”

This amendment was introduced in order to completely eliminate the discrepancy governing the intention of the parties against the number of arbitrators appointed under the expedited procedure. Post this Amendment, even though the plain language of an arbitration agreement might mandate for a three-member or a higher numbered arbitration tribunal, in cases of expedited procedure it would be the sole discretion of the SIAC president to appoint the number of arbitrators, irrespective of the intention of the parties inferred from the arbitration agreement.

Conclusion

In light of the evolving jurisprudence in this area of arbitration, the Shanghai Court might have interpreted the agreement and party autonomy differently post the SIAC 2016 (6th Edition) Rules. However, the concept of party autonomy has been respected across the globe by varied courts whilst also adopting a commercially liberal construction. In the authors’ opinion, the appointment of a sole arbitrator proves to be the most efficient alternative on multiple fronts.

Firstly, a sole arbitrator would naturally be more expeditious in delivering decisions which is one of the fundamental purposes of opting for the expedited procedure. Secondly, the costs of a sole arbitrator would also outweigh the costs of a three-member arbitration tribunal. Ultimately, it would boil down to the intention of the parties and the language employed in drafting the arbitration agreement. Interpretational references are set to aggrandize with the advent of growing needs and demand for institutional arbitration.

The underlining principle of arbitration should be taken into account by every court in every country and the components of arbitration such as speedy redressal, minimal court intervention and a pro-business approach should be upheld. A smooth functioning mechanism to this effect, observed by the courts of the world would lead to a healthier environment for businesses to arbitrate.

To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates on the Kluwer Arbitration Blog, please subscribe here.

More from our authors: International Arbitration and the Rule of Law
by Andrea Menaker
€ 240


The post Expedited Procedure Vis-à-Vis Party Autonomy, Enforceable? appeared first on Kluwer Arbitration Blog.

Meet Putnam County's Candidates - Eatonton Messenger

Google International ADR News - Fri, 2018-05-11 13:27

Meet Putnam County's Candidates
Eatonton Messenger
During my tenure at Walter F. George School of Law, I acquired valuable training and experience in Alternative Dispute Resolution, Advance Legal Research and Advance Trial Practice. During .... serving as a process and product development engineer for ...

Cross-Cultural Management Study

ADR Prof Blog - Fri, 2018-05-11 11:45
From our colleague Peter Coleman, Professor of Psychology and Education at Columbia and the Director of Morton Deutsch International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution, (more on him here), we have a  request to help on some important empirical research.  It sounds like a great project–I already filled out the survey and encourage you to do so … Continue reading Cross-Cultural Management Study →

Newsmakers: Week of May 14, 2018 - Law.com

Google International ADR News - Fri, 2018-05-11 09:44

Law.com

Newsmakers: Week of May 14, 2018
Law.com
Ashton G. Cumberbatch Jr., who served as police monitor for the city of Austin, has rejoined McGinnis Lochridge in Austin as a special counsel. Cumberbatch was the vice president of advocacy for the Seton Healthcare Family and executive director of ...

need2know: Oil at $100, trade deficit fears and other macro triggers for your day on D-Street - Economic Times

Google International ADR News - Thu, 2018-05-10 21:35

Economic Times

need2know: Oil at $100, trade deficit fears and other macro triggers for your day on D-Street
Economic Times
... India an international hub for arbitration, reports ET. The ordinance is all set to be taken up by the Cabinet in its next meet. The council, to be head-quartered in Delhi, will take over the undertakings of International Centre for Alternative ...

Demystifying the Nigerian Arbitration and Conciliation Bill 2017

Kluwer Arbitration Blog - Thu, 2018-05-10 20:41

Joseph Onele

Introduction

In March 2017, Senator Emmanuel Andy Uba introduced the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Repeal and Re-enactment) Bill (the Bill). While the first reading of the Bill was done at the Nigerian Senate Chambers in March 2017, the second reading of the Bill was not done till April 2017 and only thereafter was it referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters. Meanwhile, the third reading of the Bill was not done till February 2018 and only thereafter was the Bill passed by the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The Bill, which is currently pending before the House of Representatives, the second legislative chambers of the National Assembly (the legislative arm of the Federal Republic of Nigeria), is expected to be passed and concurred to by the House of Representatives, before the Bill is ultimately submitted to the Nigerian President for assent, in order to take the force of law.

This article succinctly considers certain key provisions of the Bill and proceeds to make relevant recommendations on areas the Bill can be improved on by the members of the House of Representatives before the Bill is assented to by the President and takes full effect.

Key Provisions of the Bill

The Bill, laden with very innovative provisions that accord with international best practices in arbitration, seeks in the main to repeal the Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap. A18, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 (the ACA).

A cursory read of the Bill will reveal that the Bill, inter alia, seeks to:

• expand the requirement that an arbitration agreement must be in writing to include electronic communication;

• tacitly allow for third-party funding in Arbitration and defines third-party funding to mean an arrangement between a specialist funding company, an individual, a corporation, a bank, an insurance company or an institution (the funder) and a party involved in the arbitration, whereby the funder will agree to finance some or all of the party’s legal fees in exchange for a share of the recovered damages;

• allow a substitute Arbitrator to be appointed where the mandate of an arbitrator is either terminated as a result of a challenge from one of the parties to the arbitration agreement or where the arbitrator is unable to perform his or her functions or withdraw as arbitrator;

• guarantee the immunity of Arbitrators, Appointing Authority and Arbitral Institution from liability for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of their ‘official’ functions;

• provide for the time within which an application to stay legal proceedings on the same substantive claim can be made;

• imbue the arbitral tribunal with the power to make interim or supplementary orders as may be deemed necessary, for the purpose of the preservation of the rights of parties, whenever an order for stay of proceedings is made;

• allow for the appointment of an Emergency Arbitrator to attend to any urgent relief any party to an arbitration agreement may have;

• guarantee the power of the arbitral tribunal to grant interim measures of protection, for the purpose of arbitration proceedings whose seat is the Federal Republic of Nigeria and equally provides for the conditions that must be satisfied for the grant of such interim measures; and

• imbue the Arbitral tribunal with the power to request that the party seeking an interim measure provide appropriate security in connection with the measure as well as make such party liable for any costs and damages caused by grant of such measure, amongst others.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Upon a careful reading of the Bill, it may not be out of place for one to assert that the Bill will go a long way in not only providing a more enabling cum friendly business climate for investors, but also further boost the reputation of Nigeria, aid the ease of doing business in Nigeria and consequently, help boost the Nigerian Economy, given how quintessential the need for certainty of disputes resolution is, when making any commercial agreement and/or arbitration agreement.

The foregoing notwithstanding, it is imperative for the provision of third-party funding to be given more elaboration in the body of the Bill as opposed to only appearing for the very first time in the ‘Definition Section of the Bill. The recognition of third-party funding in the Bill is a major innovation of the Bill and it is imperative this new development be properly given a befitting place in the Bill, whilst ensuring that all seemly existing potential obstacles to the realisation of the third-party funding in the Bill are swiftly and neatly dealt with. Additionally, the House of Representatives will equally be expected to do well to address the other shortcomings, which for want of space, the present writer is unable to fully address here but have been reasonably dealt with elsewhere by leading experts in Arbitration.

The Bill, when passed, is expected to positively influence the choice of Nigeria as the seat of arbitration in arbitration agreements by parties. It is certainly not out of place for one to remain positive that the Bill will encourage investors to consider Nigeria more as an investor-friendly country, as nothing could be discouraging to a potential investor than to have uncertainties permeating the legal climate of the country of proposed investment, worse still, where the dispute resolution of such a country is shrouded in mystery and secrecy.

The Bill, which is hoped will be warmly received and passed anon, upon necessary review by the House of Representatives (having addressed concerns made by all relevant stakeholders), is capable of attracting more Foreign Direct Investment in Nigeria as investors will be encouraged and gravitate more towards making investment in a country where there is an efficient and effective alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, backed up by legislation. The Bill becomes even more relevant when one realizes that litigation, given its sundry challenges, is finally giving way to ADR, as seen in recent times, not only here but also in other business climate. It will equally encourage parties to be more inclined to choose Nigeria as the seat of arbitration.

In all, the Bill is a very commendable one. It will, most certainly, go a very long way in enriching our jurisprudence. Hence, one cannot help but commend all who worked tirelessly, in ensuring that this becomes a reality.

To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates on the Kluwer Arbitration Blog, please subscribe here. 

More from our authors: International Arbitration and the Rule of Law
by Andrea Menaker
€ 240


The post Demystifying the Nigerian Arbitration and Conciliation Bill 2017 appeared first on Kluwer Arbitration Blog.

Government, the EBRD sign two memorandums of understanding - Petra News Agency

Google International ADR News - Thu, 2018-05-10 13:18

Petra News Agency

Government, the EBRD sign two memorandums of understanding
Petra News Agency
The Minister of Planning and International Cooperation Emad Fakhoury and the President of the EBRD, Soma Chakrabarty, signed the MoUs. ... It also includes measures to cooperate with the bank to promote public-private dialogue, improve investment ...

Government, the EBRD sign two memorandums of understanding - Petra News Agency

Google International ADR News - Thu, 2018-05-10 13:18

Petra News Agency

Government, the EBRD sign two memorandums of understanding
Petra News Agency
The Minister of Planning and International Cooperation Emad Fakhoury and the President of the EBRD, Soma Chakrabarty, signed the MoUs. ... It also includes measures to cooperate with the bank to promote public-private dialogue, improve investment ...

European Commission issues important notice on the impact of Brexit on .EU domain names - Lexology

Google International ADR News - Thu, 2018-05-10 12:06

European Commission issues important notice on the impact of Brexit on .EU domain names
Lexology
EU Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “ADR Rules”). To obtain the transfer or cancellation of a .EU domain name, a complainant must demonstrate that: (a) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which ...

6 Ways Biosimilar Companies Should Engage State Governments - Life Science Leader Magazine

Google International ADR News - Thu, 2018-05-10 09:03

Life Science Leader Magazine

6 Ways Biosimilar Companies Should Engage State Governments
Life Science Leader Magazine
Patient attitudes and understanding about biosimilars: an international cross-sectional survey. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016 ... He has been recognized for excellence in legal research, alternative dispute resolution, and leadership. You can reach ...

Overcrowded Pakistan prisons house 57% more inmates than authorised - gulfnews.com

Google International ADR News - Thu, 2018-05-10 09:02

Overcrowded Pakistan prisons house 57% more inmates than authorised
gulfnews.com
The report, titled Addressing Overcrowding in Prisons by Reducing Pre-Conviction Detention in Pakistan and prepared by the National Counter Terrorism Authority (Nacta), International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Cursor Development and ...

and more »

Brexit fails to dampen London's popularity for international arbitration, survey finds - QMUL (press release) (blog)

Google International ADR News - Thu, 2018-05-10 07:42

QMUL (press release) (blog)

Brexit fails to dampen London's popularity for international arbitration, survey finds
QMUL (press release) (blog)
An interesting new trend shows how users are seeking to combat this by increasingly combining international arbitration with Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Compared to the 2015 findings, there has been a significant increase in the popularity of ...
London fending off Paris as number 1 spot for International ArbitrationThe Global Legal Post
Brexit won't scupper City's supremacy, say arbitratorsLaw Gazette

all 6 news articles »

Government, the EBRD sign two memorandums of understanding - Petra News Agency

Google International ADR News - Thu, 2018-05-10 07:17

Government, the EBRD sign two memorandums of understanding
Petra News Agency
The Minister of Planning and International Cooperation Emad Fakhoury and the President of the EBRD, Soma Chakrabarty, signed the MoUs. ... It also includes measures to cooperate with the bank to promote public-private dialogue, improve investment ...

and more »

Government, the EBRD sign two memorandums of understanding - Petra News Agency

Google International ADR News - Thu, 2018-05-10 07:17

Government, the EBRD sign two memorandums of understanding
Petra News Agency
The Minister of Planning and International Cooperation Emad Fakhoury and the President of the EBRD, Soma Chakrabarty, signed the MoUs. ... It also includes measures to cooperate with the bank to promote public-private dialogue, improve investment ...

and more »

Government, the EBRD sign two memorandums of understanding - Petra News Agency

Google International ADR News - Thu, 2018-05-10 07:17

Government, the EBRD sign two memorandums of understanding
Petra News Agency
The Minister of Planning and International Cooperation Emad Fakhoury and the President of the EBRD, Soma Chakrabarty, signed the MoUs. ... It also includes measures to cooperate with the bank to promote public-private dialogue, improve investment ...

and more »
Syndicate content