See you in Geneva? Democracy, the Rule of Law and the WTO (Working Paper 16)

This paper is a constructivist attempt to understand a global political space where states as actors (the traditional domain of international relations theory and international law) are joined by international organizations, firms, NGOs, and others. Today we know that many supposedly private or international orders (meaning sources of order other than the central institutions of the territorial state) are engaged in the regulation of large domains of collective life in a world where the sources of power are multiple, sovereignties are overlapping, and anarchy is meaningless. The paper begins with an attempt, discussed in the first section, to sort out what the rule of law might mean in the context of the WTO, where we soon see that it can only be understood by also considering the meaning of Administrative Law. Much of the debate about rule of law depends on positivist and centralist theories of “law,” whose inadequacy for my purposes leads, in the second section, to a discussion of legal pluralism and implicit law in legal theory. These approaches offer an alternative theoretical framework that respects the role of the state while not seeing it as the only source of normativity. The third section looks directly at WTO law and dispute settlement. I tr y to show that the sources and interpretations of law in the WTO and the trading system cannot be reduced to the Dispute Settlement Body. I conclude in the fourth section with some suggestions on how a WTO rule of law could be understood as democratic.

Obligation des États de coopérer en droit international des cours d’eau transfrontaliers : état du droit et étude du cas Chinois

Le principe de coopération est considéré depuis longtemps comme l’une des pierres angulaires du droit international, toutefois, l’existence d’une obligation de coopérer en droit international reste encore controversée. Les ressources en eau, à cause de leur fluidité et de leurs multiples usages, démontrent toujours l’interdépendance humaine. En matière de cours d’eau transfrontaliers, la Convention de New York inclut explicitement dans son texte l’obligation générale de coopérer comme l’un de ses trois principes fondamentaux. Il nous incombe alors de voir quelle obligation de coopérer les États souverains s’imposent dans leurs pratiques ? Pour répondre à cette question, nous procédons tout d’abord à une étude positiviste du contenu normatif de l’obligation de coopérer. Nous constatons que l’incorporation de la notion de l’obligation de coopérer dans le principe de la souveraineté est une tendance manifeste du droit international qui a évolué du droit de coexistence composé principalement des règles d’abstention, au droit de coopération qui comporte essentiellement des obligations positives de facere, dont la plus représentative est l’obligation de coopérer. Néanmoins, il n’existe pas de modèle unique d’application pour tous les États, chaque bassin disposant de son propre régime coopératif. Pour mesurer l’ampleur des régimes coopératifs, nous étudions cinq paramètres : le champ d’application, les règles substantielles, les règles procédurales, les arrangements institutionnels et le règlement des différends. Quatres modèles de coopération ressortent : le mécanisme consultatif (l’Indus), le mécanisme communicateur (le Mékong), le mécanisme de coordination (le Rhin) et le mécanisme d’action conjointe (le fleuve Sénégal). Pour ce qui est de la Chine, il s’agit de l’État d’amont en voie de développement le plus important dans le monde qui a longtemps été critiqué pour son approche unilatérale dans le développement des eaux transfrontières. Nous ne pouvons pas cependant passer sous silence les pratiques de coopération qu’elle a développées avec ses voisins. Quelle est son interprétation de cette obligation générale de coopérer ? Notre étude des pratiques de la Chine nous aide, en prenant du recul, à mieux comprendre tous les aspects de cette obligation de coopérer en droit international. Afin d’expliquer les raisons qui se cachent derrière son choix de mode de coopération, nous introduisons une analyse constructiviste qui est plus explicative que descriptive. Nous soutenons que ce sont les identités de la Chine qui ont déterminé son choix de coopération en matière de cours d’eau transfrontaliers. Notre étude en vient à la conclusion que même s’il y a des règles généralement reconnues, l’obligation de coopérer reste une règle émergente en droit international coutumier. Ses modes d’application sont en réalité une construction sociale qui évolue et qui peut varier énormément selon les facteurs culturels, historiques ou économiques des États riverains, en d’autres mots, selon les identités de ces États. La Chine est un État d’amont en voie de développement qui continue à insister sur le principe de la souveraineté. Par conséquent, elle opte pour son propre mécanisme consultatif de coopération pour l’utilisation des ressources en eau transfrontalières. Néanmoins, avec l’évolution de ses identités en tant que superpuissance émergente, nous pouvons probablement espérer qu’au lieu de rechercher un pouvoir hégémonique et d’appliquer une stratégie unilatérale sur l’utilisation des ressources en eau transfrontalières, la Chine adoptera une stratégie plus coopérative et plus participative dans l’avenir.

Normative conflicts in international investment law: the case of environmental law

This dissertation investigates the relationship between investment and environmental obligations from the perspective of international investment law. In order to do so, the dissertation will consider how these obligations might enter into conflicts and what tools are available to investment tribunals to solve these normative conflicts. The dissertation analyses in order interpretative techniques, conflict resolution tools available in general international law, as expressed in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and finally express clauses in international investment agreements. The dissertation includes the review of some relevant case law arising from investment agreements in investment treaty tribunals, to discover how in practice these conflict resolution tools are applied and to assess their effectiveness. This dissertation places itself squarely within the debate between the unity and the fragmentation of international law; therefore it tackles the issue of normative conflicts resolution in a dispute settlement environment with the view of gauging their value in maintaining the unity of international law and defuse the risk of fragmentation. The dissertation can only conclude that much work remains to be done, including by providing a more comprehensive taxonomy of possible interventions, both on the legal and political sphere.

Transatlantyckie Partnerstwo w dziedzinie Handlu i Inwestycji (TTIP) w kontekście europejskiego bezpieczeństwa ekonomicznego

Celem artykułu jest dokonanie charakterystyki Transatlantyckiego Partnerstwa w dziedzinie Handlu i Inwestycji (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership; TTIP) w szerszym kontekście europejskiego bezpieczeństwa ekonomicznego. Pomysł porozumienia zrodził się w rezultacie fundamentalnych zmian zachodzących współcześnie w gospodarce światowej oraz ich postrzegania w Europie i USA. W tekście stwierdzono, że w zamyśle architektów umowy handlowej główny cel TTIP ma wymiar przede wszystkim geopolityczny, a nie tylko ekonomiczny. Przedstawiono także najważniejsze wnioski, jakie płyną z dotychczas przeprowadzonych analiz dla gospodarki europejskiej, a także zidentyfikowano czynniki, które determinować będą wpływ porozumienia na poszczególne państwa europejskie. W artykule zaprezentowano także możliwe konsekwencje wynikające z wejścia umowy w życie dla Polski. Mogą one być istotne w szczególności dla potencjału rozwojowego polskiej gospodarki oraz bezpieczeństwa ekonomicznego.

Obligation des États de coopérer en droit international des cours d’eau transfrontaliers : état du droit et étude du cas Chinois

Le principe de coopération est considéré depuis longtemps comme l’une des pierres angulaires du droit international, toutefois, l’existence d’une obligation de coopérer en droit international reste encore controversée. Les ressources en eau, à cause de leur fluidité et de leurs multiples usages, démontrent toujours l’interdépendance humaine. En matière de cours d’eau transfrontaliers, la Convention de New York inclut explicitement dans son texte l’obligation générale de coopérer comme l’un de ses trois principes fondamentaux. Il nous incombe alors de voir quelle obligation de coopérer les États souverains s’imposent dans leurs pratiques ? Pour répondre à cette question, nous procédons tout d’abord à une étude positiviste du contenu normatif de l’obligation de coopérer. Nous constatons que l’incorporation de la notion de l’obligation de coopérer dans le principe de la souveraineté est une tendance manifeste du droit international qui a évolué du droit de coexistence composé principalement des règles d’abstention, au droit de coopération qui comporte essentiellement des obligations positives de facere, dont la plus représentative est l’obligation de coopérer. Néanmoins, il n’existe pas de modèle unique d’application pour tous les États, chaque bassin disposant de son propre régime coopératif. Pour mesurer l’ampleur des régimes coopératifs, nous étudions cinq paramètres : le champ d’application, les règles substantielles, les règles procédurales, les arrangements institutionnels et le règlement des différends. Quatres modèles de coopération ressortent : le mécanisme consultatif (l’Indus), le mécanisme communicateur (le Mékong), le mécanisme de coordination (le Rhin) et le mécanisme d’action conjointe (le fleuve Sénégal). Pour ce qui est de la Chine, il s’agit de l’État d’amont en voie de développement le plus important dans le monde qui a longtemps été critiqué pour son approche unilatérale dans le développement des eaux transfrontières. Nous ne pouvons pas cependant passer sous silence les pratiques de coopération qu’elle a développées avec ses voisins. Quelle est son interprétation de cette obligation générale de coopérer ? Notre étude des pratiques de la Chine nous aide, en prenant du recul, à mieux comprendre tous les aspects de cette obligation de coopérer en droit international. Afin d’expliquer les raisons qui se cachent derrière son choix de mode de coopération, nous introduisons une analyse constructiviste qui est plus explicative que descriptive. Nous soutenons que ce sont les identités de la Chine qui ont déterminé son choix de coopération en matière de cours d’eau transfrontaliers. Notre étude en vient à la conclusion que même s’il y a des règles généralement reconnues, l’obligation de coopérer reste une règle émergente en droit international coutumier. Ses modes d’application sont en réalité une construction sociale qui évolue et qui peut varier énormément selon les facteurs culturels, historiques ou économiques des États riverains, en d’autres mots, selon les identités de ces États. La Chine est un État d’amont en voie de développement qui continue à insister sur le principe de la souveraineté. Par conséquent, elle opte pour son propre mécanisme consultatif de coopération pour l’utilisation des ressources en eau transfrontalières. Néanmoins, avec l’évolution de ses identités en tant que superpuissance émergente, nous pouvons probablement espérer qu’au lieu de rechercher un pouvoir hégémonique et d’appliquer une stratégie unilatérale sur l’utilisation des ressources en eau transfrontalières, la Chine adoptera une stratégie plus coopérative et plus participative dans l’avenir.

An analysis of dispute review boards and settlement mediation as used in the Australian construction industry

If there is a silver lining to the adversarial, dispute-prone nature of the building and construction industry, it can be found in the concomitant rise of innovative dispute resolution mechanisms. Time, cost and relationship concerns have meant that the formal adversarial system holds little appeal for disputing parties. As these alternative forms of dispute avoidance/resolution have matured in Australia over the last 20 years, attention has turned to the key characteristics of each process and their suitability to the building and construction industry. This article considers the role of dispute review boards (DRBs) and mediation as two alternative methods for avoiding/resolving disputes in the construction industry. Criteria are established for evaluating the efficacy of these procedures and their sensitivity to the needs of construction industry disputants. The ultimate conclusion reached is that DRBs represent a powerful, yet underutilised dispute resolution tool in Australia, and possess many industry-specific advantages that more traditional forms of alternative dispute resolution (particularly mediation) do not provide.

An evaluation of the sustainability of agreements reached through mediations conducted by the dispute resolution centres of the Department of Justice and Attorney General, Queensland between 1999 to 2003

In 1990 the Dispute Resolution Centres Act, 1990 (Qld) (the Act) was passed by the Queensland Parliament. In the second reading speech for the Dispute Resolution Centres Bill on May 1990 the Hon Dean Wells stated that the proposed legislation would make mediation services available “in a non-coercive, voluntary forum where, with the help of trained mediators, the disputants will be assisted towards their own solutions to their disputes, thereby ensuring that the result is acceptable to the parties” (Hansard, 1990, 1718). It was recognised at that time that a method for resolving disputes was necessary for which “the conventional court system is not always equipped to provide lasting resolution” (Hansard, 1990, 1717). In particular, the lasting resolution of “disputes between people in continuing relationships” was seen as made possible through the new legislation; for example, “domestic disputes, disputes between employees, and neighbourhood disputes relating to such issues as overhanging tree branches, dividing fences, barking dogs, smoke, noise and other nuisances are occurring continually in the community” (Hansard, 1990, 1717). The key features of the proposed form of mediation in the Act were articulated as follows: “attendance of both parties at mediation sessions is voluntary; a party may withdraw at any time; mediation sessions will be conducted with as little formality and technicality as possible; the rules of evidence will not apply; any agreement reached is not enforceable in any court; although it could be made so if the parties chose to proceed that way; and the provisions of the Act do not affect any rights or remedies that a party to a dispute has apart from the Act” (Hansard, 1990, 1718). Since the introduction of the Act, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Branch of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney General has offered mediation services through, first the Community Justice Program (CJP), and then the Dispute Resolution Centres (DRCs) for a range of family, neighbourhood, workplace and community disputes. These services have mirrored those available through similar government agencies in other states such as the Community Justice Centres of NSW and the Victorian Dispute Resolution Centres. Since 1990, mediation has become one of the fastest growing forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Sourdin has commented that "In addition to the growth in court-based and community-based dispute resolution schemes, ADR has been institutionalised and has grown within Australia and overseas” (2005, 14). In Australia, in particular, the development of ADR service provision “has been assisted by the creation and growth of professional organisations such as the Leading Edge Alternative Dispute Resolvers (LEADR), the Australian Commercial Dispute Centres (ACDC), Australian Disputes Resolution Association (ADRA), Conflict Resolution Network, and the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA)” (Sourdin, 2005, 14). The increased emphasis on the use of ADR within education contexts (particularly secondary and tertiary contexts) has “also led to an increasing acceptance and understanding of (ADR) processes” (Sourdin, 2005, 14). Proponents of the mediation process, in particular, argue that much of its success derives from the inherent flexibility and creativity of the agreements reached through the mediation process and that it is a relatively low cost option in many cases (Menkel-Meadow, 1997, 417). It is also accepted that one of the main reasons for the success of mediation can be attributed to the high level of participation by the parties involved and thus creating a sense of ownership of, and commitment to, the terms of the agreement (Boulle, 2005, 65). These characteristics are associated with some of the core values of mediation, particularly as practised in community-based models as found at the DRCs. These core values include voluntary participation, party self-determination and party empowerment (Boulle, 2005, 65). For this reason mediation is argued as being an effective approach to resolving disputes, that creates a lasting resolution of the issues. Evaluation of the mediation process, particularly in the context of the growth of ADR, has been an important aspect of the development of the process (Sourdin, 2008). Writing in 2005 for example, Boulle, states that “although there is a constant refrain for more research into mediation practice, there has been a not insignificant amount of mediation measurement, both in Australia and overseas” (Boulle, 2005, 575). The positive claims of mediation have been supported to a significant degree by evaluations of the efficiency and effectiveness of the process. A common indicator of the effectiveness of mediation is the settlement rate achieved. High settlement rates for mediated disputes have been found for Australia (Altobelli, 2003) and internationally (Alexander, 2003). Boulle notes that mediation agreement rates claimed by service providers range from 55% to 92% (Boulle, 2005, 590). The annual reports for the Alternative Dispute Resolution Branch of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General considered prior to the commencement of this study indicated generally achievement of an approximate settlement figure of 86% by the Queensland Dispute Resolution Centres. More recently, the 2008-2009 annual report states that of the 2291 civil dispute mediated in 2007-2008, 86% reached an agreement. Further, of the 2693 civil disputes mediated in 2008-2009, 73% reached an agreement. These results are noted in the report as indicating “the effectiveness of mediation in resolving disputes” and as reflecting “the high level of agreement achieved for voluntary mediations” (Annual Report, 2008-2009, online). Whilst the settlement rates for the DRCs are strong, parties are rarely contacted for long term follow-up to assess whether agreements reached during mediation lasted to the satisfaction of each party. It has certainly been the case that the Dispute Resolution Centres of Queensland have not been resourced to conduct long-term follow-up assessments of mediation agreements. As Wade notes, "it is very difficult to compare "success" rates” and whilst “politicians want the comparison studies (they) usually do not want the delay and expense of accurate studies" (1998, 114). To date, therefore, it is fair to say that the efficiency of the mediation process has been evaluated but not necessarily its effectiveness. Rather, the practice at the Queensland DRCs has been to evaluate the quality of mediation service provision and of the practice of the mediation process. This has occurred, for example, through follow-up surveys of parties' satisfaction rates with the mediation service. In most other respects it is fair to say that the Centres have relied on the high settlement rates of the mediation process as a sign of the effectiveness of mediation (Annual Reports 1991 - 2010). Research of the mediation literature conducted for the purpose of this thesis has also indicated that there is little evaluative literature that provides an in-depth analysis and assessment of the longevity of mediated agreements. Instead evaluative studies of mediation tend to assess how mediation is conducted, or compare mediation with other conflict resolution options, or assess the agreement rate of mediations, including parties' levels of satisfaction with the service provision of the dispute resolution service provider (Boulle, 2005, Chapter 16).

Settlement outcomes in sexual harassment complaints

This article examines the dispute resolution process of conciliation through a detailed study of Australian workplace sexual harassment complaints. It links two data sets: settlement details of a census of conciliated complaints lodged under all federal, State, and Territory anti-discrimination laws in a six-month period; and interviews undertaken with 71 professionals who have extensive, first-hand experience of conciliation processes in anti-discrimination jurisdictions. The article provides a critique of the effectiveness of conciliation as a form of ADR within the individualised constraints of current anti-discrimination laws.

Settlement offers on appeal : when might costs be awarded on the indemnity basis?

In Roberts v Prendergast [2013] QCA 89 the respondent had offered to settle the appeal, purporting to make the offer under Chapter 9 Part 5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). Differing views were expressed in the Court of Appeal regarding the impact in the circumstances of the offer to settle, with the majority concluding that the appellant should pay the respondent’s costs on the standard basis.

The development of an effective and efficient dispute resolution processes for strata scheme disputes in peninsular Malaysia

Dispute resolution in strata schemes in Peninsular Malaysia should focus on more than just "settlement." The quality of the outcome, its sustainability and its relevance in supporting the basic principles of a good neighbourhood and self-governance in a strata scheme are also fundamental. Based on the comprehensive law movement, this thesis develops a theoretical framework for strata scheme disputes within the parameters of therapeutic jurisprudence, preventive law, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and problem-solving courts. The therapeutic orientation of this model offers approaches that promote positive communication between disputing parties, preserve neighbour relations and optimise people's psychological and emotional well-being.

Costs - solicitor's retainer on 'no win, no fee' basis - meaning of 'win' - solicitor not entitled to recover excess of costs over amount paid on settlement - no consideration for variation of oral retainer.

In Baker Johnson Lawyers v Jorgensen [2002] QDC 205 McGill DCJ considered the meaning of a 'no win, no fee' retainer and concluded that, in the absence of qualification by agreement, solicitors retained on that basis were not entitled to recover costs exceeding the amount of any judgment or settlement.

The trials and tribulations of partnerships in refugee settlement services in Australia

The ascendency of neoliberal ideas in education and social policy in the 1980s and 1990s was succeeded in the new millennium by a ‘new’ social democratic commitment with emphases on community empowerment, building social capital and a ‘whole of government’ approach to partnering with civil society to meet community needs. In Australia this approach has resulted in the development of partnerships between schools and community organisations formed as part of a targeted, holistic approach to service delivery to meet the settlement and educational needs of refugee youth. Drawing on interviews conducted with community workers and government officers involved in the school-community partnerships, we document how these partnerships are working ‘on the ground’ in Queensland schools. We analyse our findings against the international literature on changing notions of neoliberal governance, and discuss the implications of the shift to the ‘partnering state’ for schools and community organisations working with refugee young people.

Google book search settlement : implications for Australia

In 2005, the Association of American Publishers (AAP) and the Authors Guild (AG) sued Google for ‘massive copyright infringement’ for the mass digitization of books for the Google Book Search Project. In 2008, the parties reached a settlement, pending court approval. If approved, the settlement could have far-reaching consequences for authors, libraries, educational institutions and the reading public. In this article, I provide an overview of the Google Book Search Settlement. Firstly, I explain the Google Book Search Project, the legal questions raised by the Project and the lawsuit brought against Google. Secondly, I examine the terms of the Settlement Agreement, including what rights were granted between the parties and what rights were granted to the general public. Finally, I consider the implications of the settlement for Australia. The Settlement Agreement, and consequently the broader scope of the Google Book Search Project, is currently limited to the United States. In this article I consider whether the Project could be extended to Australia at a later date, how Google might go about doing this, and the implications of such an extension under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). I argue that without prior agreements with rightholders, our limited exceptions to copyright infringement mean that Google is unlikely to be able to extend the full scope of the Project to Australia without infringing copyright.

Structural equation model of construction contract dispute potential

This paper presents the results of a structural equation model (SEM) for describing and quantifying the fundamental factors that affect contract disputes between owners and contractors in the construction industry. Through this example, the potential impact of SEM analysis in construction engineering and management research is illustrated. The purpose of the specific model developed in this research is to explain how and why contract related construction problems occur. This study builds upon earlier work, which developed a disputes potential index, and the likelihood of construction disputes was modeled using logistic regression. In this earlier study, questionnaires were completed on 159 construction projects, which measured both qualitative and quantitative aspects of contract disputes, management ability, financial planning, risk allocation, and project scope definition for both owners and contractors. The SEM approach offers several advantages over the previously employed logistic regression methodology. The final set of structural equations provides insight into the interaction of the variables that was not apparent in the original logistic regression modeling methodology.