An Institutional Analysis of Environmental Pollution Disputes in Taiwan: Cases of 'Self-Relief'

During the late 1980s and early 1990s in Taiwan, people's protests against environmental pollution often took the form of "self-relief," meaning that they attempted to fight polluters using their own resources, without relying on legal or administrative procedures. Why did such an extreme form of disputes become so widespread? What institutional changes did these movements bring about? These questions are analyzed using the analytical framework of "law and economics." Our research shows that "self-relief" functioned to a certain extent as a means of realizing quick compensation for victims, and for reflecting the opinions of local people concerning development projects; in addition, it served to promote the formulation of law and administrative systems. However, as it was based on direct negotiations between the parties concerned, the outcome of each dispute only reflected the transient balance of forces, and the experience gained in negotiations was not accumulated as a social norm.

Bilateral Disputes – A dark cloud over the Balkans. CEPS Commentary, 24 January 2014

Countless bilateral disputes continue to plague the Balkan region; daily reminders of the region's troubled history. Not only are they the cause of tension between the countries of the region both inside and outside the EU, they also undermine efforts to integrate the region into the EU. To avoid the risk of instability and further erosion of the credibility of the EU's enlargement strategy, urgent action is required. The author sets out four recommendations for the EU to pursue without delay.

Turbulence ahead: disputes within the Russian ruling elite are gathering force. OSW Commentary No. 91, 2012-09-27

The last month has seen a public confrontation between Igor Sechin, the president of Rosneft, and Arkady Dvorkovich, the deputy prime minister, concerning the consolidation of the energy sector. This is the latest in a series of disputes between the Kremlin & businessmen from Putin’s inner circle on one side, and the government & Prime Minister Medvedev on the other. These disputes have been wide-ranging in nature, concerning economic policy, the scope of competency of individual members of the elite, but also the ‘tough line’ adopted by the Kremlin since Vladimir Putin’s return to the presidency. The Kremlin, which is still the main decision-making centre in Russia, has been effectively forcing its opinions through in its short-term disputes with the government. However, a new element in the ongoing conflicts, which is unfavourable to President Putin, is their exceptional strength, their much more public nature, and their wide range (which has included criticism of the president himself) and ever-changing context, especially the worsening socio-economic situation. These conflicts have been overlapping with signs of dissent among Putin’s business supporters, and their declining political willingness to support the leader unconditionally. The Kremlin’s response to the unrest consists of intensifying efforts to discipline the elite and weakening those groups in which Vladimir Putin has limited confidence. The elite’s support is crucial to the stability of his government; to maintain this support, the Kremlin is ready to introduce restrictive and repressive actions against both parliamentarians and government officials. In the short term, such a policy will force the Kremlin’s supporters back into obedience, but fears of a further increase in repression are also starting to be expressed on the sidelines.

Legal Services Corporation : grantee attorneys' handling of migrant farmworker disputes with growers.

At head of title: Report to Congressional requesters.

Judicial settlement of international disputes.

Includes 2d ed. of no. 1 and supplements for no. 2 and 9.

The National Mediation Board at 50 : its impact on railroad and airline labor disputes.

Item 834

Report of the Royal Commission on Industrial Disputes in the Province of British Columbia issued by the Department of Labour, Canada.

Mode of access: Internet.

Report to the President by the Emergency Board appointed April 10, 1948 pursuant to Section 10 of the Railway Labor Act, as amended : to investigate unadjusted disputes between the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and certain of its employees represented by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Philadelphia, Pa. and New York, N.Y. June 9, 1948 (N.M.B. case A 2791).

"Respectively submitted. Andrew Jackson, Chairman, James H. Wolfe, Member, E. Wight Bakke, Member"--Page [ii].

Report to the President by the Emergency Board appointed January 14, 1948 pursuant to section 10 of the Railway labor act, as amended, to investigate unadjusted disputes between the Chicago, North Shore and Milwaukee Railway Company and certain of its employees represented by International Union of Amalgamated Association of Street Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, a labor organization.

Signed, Harry H. Schwartz, chairman, Russell Wolfe, Robert E. Stone.

Report to the President by the Emergency Board created December 16, 1947 pursuant to Section 10 of the Railway Labor Act : to investigate unadjusted disputes between the Georgia Railroad and certain of its employees represented by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen (NMB case no. A-2518), Atlanta, Georgia, January 20, 1948.

Signed: Floyd McGown, chairman, John T. McCann, member, Eugene L. Padberg, member.

Report to the President by the Emergency Board appointed October 29, 1946, pursuant to Section 10 of the Railway Labor Act : to investigate unadjusted disputes between the Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Railway Co., and other carriers and certain of their employees represented by the fifteen cooperating labor organizations, Chicago, Illinois, December 4, 1946.

Signed: James H. Wolfe, chairman, Robert E. Stone, member, Floyd McGown, member.