A parallel-serial binary arbitration scheme for collision-free multi-access techniques

Multi-access techniques are widely used in computer networking and distributed multiprocessor systems. On-the-fly arbitration schemes permit one of the many contenders to access the medium without collisions. Serial arbitration is cost effective but is slow and hence unsuitable for high-speed multiprocessor environments supporting very high data transfer rates. A fully parallel arbitration scheme takes less time but is not practically realisable for large numbers of contenders. In this paper, a generalised parallel-serial scheme is proposed which significantly reduces the arbitration time and is practically realisable.

A importância da arbitragem internacional de investimento para o equilíbrio da relação entre o Estado hospedeiro e o investidor estrangeiro na indústria do petróleo

Inicialmente, o presente trabalho busca trazer um panorama geral sobre a relação entre o Estado hospedeiro e o investidor estrangeiro. Para tanto, faz-se um breve estudo sobre a soberania do Estado sobre os recursos naturais, destacando-se, dentre outros aspectos, a importância deste tema para o desenvolvimento dos povos, e sobre a contratação com o Estado, de forma a destacar, dentre as principais cláusulas presentes nos contratos entre Estado hospedeiro e investidor estrangeiro, a cláusula de arbitragem internacional de investimentos como um dos principais meios de equilíbrio desta relação. Analisa-se, por consequinte, a estrutura da arbitragem internacional de investimento, buscando trazer suas principais regras. O trabalho culmina em um breve estudo sobre alguns dos principais laudos arbitrais que envolvem não apenas os temas tratados ao longo do trabalho, mas também a relação entre o Estado e as empresas petrolíferas, dando-se destaque ao papel da arbitragem internacional de investimento na indústria do petróleo, dado ser esta uma indústria essencialmente internacional e de grande importância estratégica para o Estado.

Delegation, Arbitration and High-Level Service Discovery as Key Elements of a Software Infrastructure for Pervasive Computing

The dream of pervasive computing is slowly becoming a reality. A number of projects around the world are constantly contributing ideas and solutions that are bound to change the way we interact with our environments and with one another. An essential component of the future is a software infrastructure that is capable of supporting interactions on scales ranging from a single physical space to intercontinental collaborations. Such infrastructure must help applications adapt to very diverse environments and must protect people's privacy and respect their personal preferences. In this paper we indicate a number of limitations present in the software infrastructures proposed so far (including our previous work). We then describe the framework for building an infrastructure that satisfies the abovementioned criteria. This framework hinges on the concepts of delegation, arbitration and high-level service discovery. Components of our own implementation of such an infrastructure are presented.

Unveiling Fairness for the Consumer:The Law, Economics and Justice of Expanded Arbitration

In recent years, the US Supreme Court has rather controversially extended the ambit of the Federal Arbitration Act to extend arbitration’s reach into, inter alia¸ consumer matters, with the consequence that consumers are often (and unbeknownst to them) denied remedies which would otherwise be available. Such denied remedies include recourse to class action proceedings, effective denial of punitive damages, access to discovery and the ability to resolve the matter in a convenient forum.

The court’s extension of arbitration’s ambit is controversial. Attempts to overturn this extension have been made in Congress, but to no avail. In contrast to American law, European consumer law looks at pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate directed at consumers with extreme suspicion, and does so on the grounds of fairness. In contrast, some argue that pre-dispute agreements in consumer (and employment) matters are consumer welfare enhancing: they decrease the costs of doing business, which is then passed on to the consumer. This Article examines these latter claims from both an economic and normative perspective.

The economic analysis of these arguments shows that their assumptions do not hold. Rather than being productive of consumer surplus, the use of arbitration is likely to have the opposite effect. The industries from which the recent Supreme Court cases originated not only do not exhibit the industrial structure assumed by the proponents of expanded arbitration, but are also industries which exhibit features that facilitate consumer welfare reducing collusion.

The normative analysis addresses the fairness concerns. It is explicitly based upon John Rawls’ notion of “justice as fairness,” which can provide a lens to evaluate social institutions. This Rawlsian analysis considers the use of extended arbitration in consumer matters in the light of the earlier economic results. It suggests that the asymmetries present in the contractual allocation of rights serve as prima facie evidence that such arbitration–induced exclusions are prima facie unjust/unfair. However, as asymmetry is only a prima facie test, a generalized criticism of the arbitration exclusions (of the sort found in Congress and underlying the European regime) is overbroad.

Public Interests, Private Disputes: Investment Arbitration and the Public Good

This paper seeks to investigate the bases for resistance to arbitration in general -and investor arbitration in particular- focusing on the way in which arbitral tribunals deal with notions of public interest and the public good. The paper hypothesises that while courts have within their terms of reference the capacity to consider notions of public interest, arbitral tribunals do not. It is this core difference in the scope of decision making between the two bodies that could render privately organised dispute resolution unsuitable for disputes that have public aspects, like investor-state disputes. The paper discusses the meaning of public interest and the public good as found in the literature. It then proceeds to consider how tribunals in the investment field have dealt with these concepts. This leads to a conclusion urging not abandonment of arbitration as a component of dispute resolution, but caution. It is argued that unchecked growth in private dispute resolution can threaten perceptions of legitimacy and democratic accountability. The paper adopts a socio-legal methodology in considering the effect of legal mechanisms on social and political phenomena. It is also informed by a law and economics methodology in addressing impacts of dispute resolution mechanisms on economic efficiency. The contribution of the paper rests on theorising motivations for resistance to private dispute resolution, a topical issue in light of the TTIP debate.

Sport-Specific Arbitration in Canada: A Qualitative Investigation of Four Athletes' Perceptions of the Fairness of the Process

This thesis explored Canadian high performance Athletes' perceptions of the fairness of the SDRCC sport-specific arbitral process. Leventhal’s (1980) model of procedural justice judgment was found to be an effective tool for exploring Athletes’ perceptions of the fairness of the process. Five of his six procedural justice antecedents: consistency, bias suppression, accuracy of information, representativeness, and ethicality influenced the Athletes’ perceptions of the fairness of the process. Emergent data also revealed that the Athletes’ perceptions of fairness were also influenced by three contextual factors and an additional antecedent of procedural justice. Efficiency of the process, inherent power imbalance between Athletes and NSOs, and the measurable effect of the process on personal and professional relationships differentiate sport-specific arbitration from most other processes of allocation. The data also indicated that the opportunity to voice one’s case was also an important determinant of the Athletes’ perceptions of the fairness of the process.