Translation of the Decision of the International Court of Justice related to the Case concerning the dispute regarding navigational and related rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) Judgment

--

The NAFTA investment dispute settlement mechanism and the admissibility of amicus curiae briefs by NGOs

--

Dispute board como mecanismo alternativo de solución de controversias contractuales en obras de infraestructura

Esta Tesis tiene como objetivo fundamental poner en conocimiento de la comunidad académica la figura jurídico – contractual denominada de manera genérica cómo Dispute Board¸ consiste en un panel de expertos conformados por la voluntad de las partes que celebran un Contrato. El Dispute Board cumple con el rol de ser un organismo técnico independiente que conoce y resuelve los conflictos de las partes y brinda asistencia informal en los temas de su experticia y su aplicación en el campo de la ingeniería que lo han utilizado como herramienta efectiva a las necesidades urgentes que se les presentan en grandes obras de infraestructura provienen precisamente de préstamos internacionales que viabilizan la ejecución de estos mega proyectos. Para el desarrollo de esta investigación se utilizó el paradigma jurídico del Jusmarxismo y el Jussociologismo o Realismo Europeo. Las fuentes de investigación han sido obtenidas de fuentes publicadas bibliográficas, de publicaciones, normativa, Contrato EPC, de Internet y de la experiencia profesional sobre este mecanismo de solución de controversias. El alcance del trabajo es determinar la naturaleza jurídica del Dispute Board y todos los factores generales involucrados para su funcionamiento, el análisis del primer contrato ecuatoriano que aplico este mecanismo, las normas jurídicas aplicables y cuáles son los principios constitucionales y procesales aplicables. Se colige que este mecanismo de solución de controversias contractual requiere de normativa específica para su aplicación en el ámbito de derecho público y ese debe analizar la juridicidad de la aplicación de las Determinaciones que emite el Dispute Board y en el derecho privado basta con la autonomía de la voluntad de partes contractuales.

Developments in the Doha Round and WTO dispute settlement: some implications for EU agricultural policy

Progress in the Doha Round is assessed against the changes to the common agricultural policy (CAP) brought about by the Fischler reforms of 2003-2004, and that proposed for sugar. An elimination of export subsidies could place EU exports of processed foods at a competitive disadvantage because of high sugar and milk prices. Provided the single payment scheme falls within the green box, the likely new limits on domestic support should not be problematic for the post-Fischler CAP. However, an ambitious market access package could open up EU markets and bring pressure for further reform. If there is no Doha agreement, existing provisions will continue to apply, but without the protection of the Peace Clause; and increased litigation is likely. Further CAP reform is to be expected.

Best practice in the training, appointment and remuneration of members of dispute boards for large infrastructure projects

This paper reports part of a qualitative study into evolving practice in the implementation of the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) construction dispute resolution technique, a variant of the Dispute Review Board (DRB) concept used in the US and Canada. Data was collected through a focus group interview of 20 highly experienced dispute resolution practitioners from engineering and the law. The group was assembled from members of FIDIC-NET with direct experience of project DABs. The part reported here concerns practice and procedure for establishing DABs. The main findings are that: constitution of the DABs is often delayed because of either project owners' ignorance of the DAB process or deterrence by the cost of the DABs; such owners also tend to insist on appointing DAB members from local engineers and lawyers without sufficient understanding of the DAB process; rates of remuneration of DAB members vary widely; the training provision for DAB membership and advocacy skills is inadequate; the process of selecting candidates for DAB membership and negotiating the tripartite agreement between each member and the contractual parties needs to be navigated with great care to avoid raising ethical problems. The research contribution is threefold. First, it highlights the importance of realistic fees for DAB members within a standard framework in achieving timely establishment of a board that works well as a team. Second, it illustrates the use of qualitative focus group interview to study the impact of new contract terms from multiple stakeholder perspectives. Finally, it identifies areas where further research is needed.