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.

Competition and cooperation between international courts: a critical approach to the new paradigms of cross-border dispute resolution model

This article examines the arising cross-border dispute resolution models (Cooperation and Competition among national Courts) from a critical perspective. Although they have been conceived to surpass the ordinary solution of a Modern paradigm (exclusive jurisdiction, choice of court, lis pendens, forum non conveniens, among others), they are insufficient to deal with problems raised with present globalization, as they do not abandon aspects of that paradigm, namely, (i) statebased Law; and (ii) standardization of cultural issues.

Energy subsidies and WTO dispute settlement: why only renewable energy subsidies are challenged?

Over the past few years, renewable energy subsidies have become one of the main sources of trade disputes in the WTO. A total of six cases have been initiated against renewable energy subsidy programs since the first of such disputes was brought by Japan against Canada’s Feed in Tariff (FIT) program in 2010. Yet not even a single case has so far been initiated against the much larger and environmentally harmful fossil fuel subsidies. The main objective of this paper is to examine what makes renewable energy subsidies vulnerable to WTO dispute, as compared fossil fuel subsidies.

The Brazilian experience in dispute settlement

Includes bibliography

Latin America's experience in dispute settlement within WTO: the cases of technical standards, sanitary and phytosanitary measures and intellectual property

Includes Bibliography

International arbitration based on investor-state dispute settlement clauses in international investment agreements: challenges for Latin America and the Caribbean

Incluye bibliografía

Ten Years of Operation of the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Outcome for Latin America and the Caribbean

Dispute settlement mechanisms help to create a fairly predictable and accurate environment in which economic agents can pursue their activities in the international arena. The World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) has now been in operation for 10 years and it is fitting, at this point to assess the progress achieved by Latin America and the Caribbean, the region that made most use of this mechanism during the period, and whose countries have made significant gains against protectionism in key export sectors. These successes constitute important precedents which will influence upcoming multilateral negotiations and future trade disputes.This article reviews the work carried out by the DSB, the role of the leading stakeholders in the system (the United States and the European Union) and progress made by countries of the region in a global context marked by the complexity of trade issues and the legal framework that regulates them. The findings presented in this article are based on the study "Una década de funcionamiento del Sistema de Solución de Diferencias de la OMC: avances y desafíos".

Whaling dispute continues

Apparently alarmed that an advertisement in Nature referencing the study of Baker and Palumbi (Science 265, 1538; 1994) might lend undeserved credence to the notion that illegal whale products find their way into Japanese markets, Milton Freeman (Nature 376, 11; 1995) reiterates the arguments of the Fisheries Agency of Japan (FAJ) that the study is fundamentally flawed. As Freeman's letter contains several serious errors, we feel obliged to comment.

The EU and Dispute Settlement within the WTO: a strategy for the protection of the Union’s autonomy in the domestic regulation of goods?

Oggetto della ricerca è l’accertamento dell’esistenza, nonché la definizione, della strategia dall’UE in materia di controversie commerciali aventi ad oggetto l’interpretazione e l’applicazione di norme facenti capo agli Accordi OMC in materia di misure sanitarie e di barriere tecniche al commercio. Nella prima parte della tesi, si ricostruiscono gli obbiettivi perseguiti dall’UE in materia di controversie SPS e TBT. In questo contesto, un’importanza di primo piano è attribuita alla difesa dell’autonomia regolamentare dell’Unione. Ad essa si riconduce la prassi UE finalizzata a prevenire il sorgere di controversie sul piano bilaterale attraverso la conclusione di accordi di mutuo riconoscimento, la cui portata ella sottolinea essere tuttavia limitata. L’analisi di cinque controversie sorte in ambito OMC di cui l’Unione è o è stata parte convenuta e che si fondano su presunte o accertate violazioni delle norme facenti capo ai due accordi menzionati consente di classificare gli argomenti giuridici avanzati dall’Unione nel contesto di tali controversie. Nella seconda parte della ricerca, la candidata identifica i mezzi a servizio della strategia UE, in primo luogo, attraverso l’analisi del quadro giuridico relativo alla partecipazione dell’Unione e degli Stati Membri al sistema OMC di risoluzione delle controversie; in secondo luogo, attraverso lo studio, da un lato, dello status delle norme OMC nell’ordinamento UE e, dall’altro, degli effetti delle pronunce dell’Organo di Risoluzione delle Controversie e della questione della responsabilità dell’Unione per violazione del diritto OMC. Sulla base del lavoro di ricerca svolto, si conclude che una strategia dell’UE esiste nella misura in cui l’Unione persegue l’obbiettivo di preservare la propria autonomia regolamentare attraverso, anche se non esclusivamente, gli strumenti afferenti all’ordine giuridico interno analizzati nella seconda parte. La candidata conclude altresì che la riforma del diritto delle relazioni esterne operata dal Trattato di Lisbona può indurre un cambiamento di tale strategia.