To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge-org.demo.remotlog.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Chapter 1 introduces the main issues raised in Labour Law and its social and economic significance in regulating workplace relations. The chapter introduces the principal sources of labour law in the UK, which include statutes, the common law and European law and the difficulties in securing compliance by employers with those laws. It describes the system of employment tribunals and ordinary courts where disputes are resolved. Finally the chapter introduces some contemporary themes concerning precarious work, work/life balance and human rights at work.
Social adaptation requires humans to respond to others’ nonverbal emotional cues by selecting and executing adaptive motor responses. In this chapter, we provide a general overview of how visual perception of others’ emotional expressions, particularly threatening faces and bodies, promotes rapid processing and elaboration of multiple opportunities for action, at different levels of complexity. Notably, we will highlight how subcortical and cortical neural pathways interact to flexibly orchestrate our social behavior in response to threatening expressions, ranging from simple stimulus-driven reactions to more elaborated goal-directed actions. We will review recent findings from research on humans and other animals and discuss clinical implications, as well as future challenges and perspectives.
The brain faces an array of behavioral control challenges varying in complexity, abstraction, and temporal scale. Leveraging multiple decision-making strategies offers a clear advantage, allowing for adaptability to different contexts. Even when solving a single problem, the selection from or combination of different strategies can enhance the likelihood of success. Consequently, the brain faces the critical task of arbitrating between experts effectively. Here, we review theories of multiple controllers in value-driven decision-making, the mechanisms of arbitration between them, and the neural correlates of such processes. Although these theories have provided meaningful explanations for observed behavior and neural activity, fundamental questions persist regarding the precise nature of these controllers, their interactions, and their neural underpinnings. Notably, the role of subjective states in these computations has been largely overlooked, despite their obvious importance in the experience of making decisions.
This chapter explains the various mechanisms for the resolution of disputes, chiefly arising out of violations of the rules of the ITF, ATP and WTA. It focuses on ITF mechanisms, starting with internal processes and on-site quasi adjudicatory mechanisms. It then goes on to examine the ITF’s Internal Adjudication Panel, especially its first-instance, appellate and supervisory function, followed by the Independent Tribunal, which is an arbitral body. It proceeds to look at the various types of powers and functions conferred on the Tribunal and the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) arising out of appeals against the Independent Tribunal. The chapter examines briefly the very narrow ATP and WTA dispute resolution mechanisms and the role of national courts in dealing with contractual tennis disputes.
The enforcement of forum selection and arbitration agreements against consumers and other parties in disadvantaged bargaining positions has significant consequences for access to justice. As a result, some legal systems simply decline to enforce jurisdictional agreements against certain groups. This is not the case in the United States. To the contrary, such agreements enjoy a strong presumption of enforceability across the board. As a result, the ability of individual parties to secure remedies for violations of their legal rights is significantly curtailed. Because private enforcement plays such an important role in state and federal regulatory regimes, impairing the ability of individual litigants to sue also erodes the accountability of corporations for violations of law. This Article begins with the understanding that jurisdictional agreements constitute contractual waivers of rights. This highlights the two primary sources of law that can be used to police them: contract law and “anti-waiver” rules and doctrine. The Article considers each in turn. It concludes that contract law no longer provides a meaningful constraint on the use of adhesive jurisdictional agreements, but that anti-waiver rules at the state level may.
This chapter considers the various means and methods for the peaceful settlement of international disputes as envisaged under the UN Charter and associated mechanisms. The key provisions of the UN Charter are considered, followed by an assessment of various methods of dispute settlement: negotiation, enquiry, mediation and conciliation, arbitration and adjudication. Given its significance to international law, particular attention is given to the ICJ and its jurisdiction in contentious cases and to deliver advisory opinions. The relationship between the ICJ and the Security Council is assessed, as are trends in dispute settlement.
The archives of the London Corn Trade Association shed light on how open competitive commodity markets expanded during the First Global Era in spite of hard, non-cooperative geopolitics. This private body, fully controlled by elite merchants, standardised supply, turning grains into fungible commodities; it arbitrated disputes; and it offered to traders standard contracts that integrated the international value chains. Enforcement rested on market power: few merchant houses in the world dared being expelled from the London market. Private rules and contracts thus applied extra-territorially, without being much affected by the political regimes on the ground. But they were also upheld by the London courts and the Bank of England, so that they were both local and global, therefore imperial. Market power, private ordering, and legal pluralism should be seen as a defining feature of Britain’s global economic governance.
Legal, ethical, historical, cultural, and political questions in relation to African cultural heritage are increasingly the focal point of international, regional, and national debates. It is now widely recognized that African cultural disputes – often between African States (or State institutions) on the one hand, and Western States, State institutions and private actors on the other – are ripe for settlement, especially on the basis of law, including international law. This article focuses on international arbitration as a means for resolving African cultural heritage-related disputes and, for the first time analyses the benefits of all types of international arbitration (State-to-State arbitration, investment treaty arbitration and commercial (contract-based) arbitration) from the perspective of African States and actors in relation to the resolution of African cultural heritage disputes, which include disputes regarding the return of African cultural objects. This article examines for the first time the potential role of all types of arbitral proceedings ((i) State-to-State arbitration, (ii) international investment treaty arbitration (or, as often-called, Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)), and (iii) commercial arbitration) for the resolution of Africa-related cultural heritage disputes.
In this chapter, the authors frame the interwar period as instrumental for the institutionalisation of international dispute settlement, with respect to both the establishment of institutions and the development of new applicable law. The chapter focuses on the institutions, but equally emphasises the foundational principles which govern the field, with the principle of consent at the forefront; with all their characteristic features and limitations, such principles are conspicuous and remain valid today. The chapter gives context to the creation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) and the subsequent establishment and the main features of the Permanent Court; last but not least, it pays homage to the mixed arbitral tribunals, with their impressive machinery and cases decided. The interwar period was undoubtedly a time of experimentation, but it would be naïve to believe that it has come to an end: experiments remain ongoing.
The chapter gives an overview of dispute settlement during the Old Regime. Contrary to older assessments of the historiography, dispute settlement retained its importance in this era, both in qualitative and in quantitative terms. This was true for the field of theoretical literatures, which, from the last decades of the seventeenth century, dealt intensively with the subject. Normally, a clear distinction was made between an elected arbiter, who definitively decided a dispute, and a mediator, who only made peace proposals. Diplomatic practice, which made intensive use of the instruments of dispute settlement until the last decades of the eighteenth century, was much more flexible. The transitions between arbitration and mediation were fluid; the boundaries of confession and rank were also frequently crossed. In Old Regime Europe, mediation was also used for the first time in peace negotiations between Christian and Islamic powers. New forms of mediation emerged as well. One was the armed mediation, in which a power intervened in a conflict uninvited and set a peace ultimatum; this could easily lead to war. This indicates that dispute settlement did not automatically contribute to an increase in peace; the relationship of dispute settlement to war and peace remained rather ambivalent in Old Regime Europe.
Arbitration is increasingly employed to resolve disputes. Two arbitration mechanisms, conventional arbitration (CA) and final-offer arbitration (FOA) are commonly utilized, but previous theoretical and empirical research has found that they are unsatisfactory. Several alternative mechanisms have been proposed, but ultimately laboratory research has found that they do not offer an improvement. An exception is amended final-offer arbitration (AFOA), which not only has desirable theoretical properties but also has been demonstrated to outperform FOA in the laboratory. This study provides a direct laboratory comparison of AFOA with CA. Also, by utilizing an environment with an uncertain payoff to one of the parties, this study tests the robustness of AFOA's performance relative to FOA. The results indicate that AFOA does outperform FOA, but that AFOA is only weakly better than CA.
Over the years, the economic relationship between China and African states has continued to grow and this is evident in the volume of Chinese investments in Africa. In the wake of these investments, China and African states have signed bilateral investment treaties (BITs), which aim to promote the development of host states and protect foreign investments from one contracting state in the territory of the other contracting state, thereby stimulating foreign investments by reducing political risk. BITs are unique in character in that they provide substantive protections to foreign investors and a basis for claims by an individual or company against a host state on grounds that such substantive protections have been breached by the host state. To avoid the need to turn to the national courts in the host state for a judicial remedy, BITs usually contain an arbitration clause submitting disputes to a neutral arbitration tribunal. This case study demonstrates one such instance where, in a first-of-its-kind case, a Chinese investor sued Nigeria, an African host state, for breach of its treaty obligations under the China-Nigeria BIT 2001, and throws light on how BITs can be used in the protection of Chinese outbound investments, including in Africa.
Arbitration — Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Jurisdiction — Scope of jurisdiction — Existence of dispute — Characterization of dispute — Whether dispute concerning interpretation or application of UNCLOS — Whether real issue in the case being immunity of Italian marines — Whether immunity of marines incidental to real issue in the case — Whether UNCLOS provisions constituting a renvoi to customary international law — Whether jurisdiction over immunity of marines based on UNCLOS Article 297 — Jurisdiction over Italy’s additional claim concerning India’s maritime zones legislation — Whether dispute concerning compatibility of India’s maritime zones legislation with UNCLOS existing at the time of notice of arbitration — Admissibility of Italy’s additional claim — Whether Italy’s additional claim transforming subject-matter of dispute — Admissibility of India’s counterclaims — Agreement of Parties that India’s counterclaims admissible
Sea — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Article 87(1) — Italy’s claims — Freedom of navigation — Whether India impeding Enrica Lexie’s freedom of navigation by requesting that it sail to port of Kochi — Meaning of “freedom of navigation” — UNCLOS Article 92 — Exclusive flag State jurisdiction corollary of freedom of navigation — Whether India breaching Italy’s exclusive flag State jurisdiction by requesting that Enrica Lexie sail to port of Kochi — Whether India exercising its jurisdiction in the exclusive economic zone — Whether India’s acts amounting to enforcement jurisdiction — UNCLOS Article 97 — Collision at sea — Whether risk of collision between Enrica Lexie and St Anthony — Meaning of “incident of navigation” — Meaning of “persons in the service of the ship” — UNCLOS Articles 100 and 300 — Duty to co-operate in repression of piracy — Whether marines reasonably apprehending threat of piracy — Whether India’s legal system implementing obligation to co-operate in repression of piracy — Remedies — Satisfaction — India’s counterclaims — UNCLOS Article 56 — Whether marines’ actions limiting India’s right to explore and exploit resources of EEZ — UNCLOS Article 58 — Whether marines’ actions breaching Italy’s obligation to give “due regard” to India’s rights — UNCLOS Articles 87 and 90 — Whether St Anthony having Indian nationality — Whether causing change of course of St Anthony breaching India’s freedom of navigation — UNCLOS Article 88 — Whether marines’ actions breaching Italy’s obligation to reserve sea for peaceful purposes — Remedies — Satisfaction — Compensation — Parties to agree on compensation within a year of date of award — Arbitration tribunal to remain seised of matter for a year of date of award
State immunity — Customary international law — Immunity ratione materiae — Whether marines entitled to immunity for acts committed on board the Enrica Lexie — Whether marines State officials — Whether marines exercising official functions — Whether territorial tort exception excluding immunity of marines — Remedies — Cessation and non-repetition — Satisfaction
This chapter delves into the question of the impact of extraterritorial and secondary sanctions on private contractual relations. It opens with a discussion of the characterisation of extraterritorial and secondary sanctions as potential legal or factual impediments to the performance of contractual obligations. A detailed analysis of the case law follows, bringing to the fore some degree of reluctance on the part of judicial authorities to allow operators to suspend the performance of their contractual obligations or to terminate contractual relations on account of their exposure to extraterritorial or secondary sanctions, at least in the absence of sanctions or force majeure contractual clauses. The chapter also explores the potential tension between such sanctions, on the one hand, and measures – commonly referred to as blocking statutes – enacted by states or by the EU to thwart their effects, on the other hand. A discussion, in this respect, of the relevant case law reveals a quest for a balance between policy objectives and economic soundness and shows the existence of incongruent views on the compatibility of sanctions clauses with blocking statutes.
To litigate or not to litigate, that is the question any Chinese companies operating in the United States long enough must contemplate. For American companies, litigation is nothing but an unavoidable business risk and often a vital competition strategy, routinely dealt with by legal and managerial professionals applying monetarized cost–benefit analysis. Such analysis typically incorporates attorney fees and other litigation expenses, potential reputational damage, time and human resource consumption, and the present value of expected litigation gains or losses. By contrast, litigation in China carries complex social meanings and is often avoided to preserve long-term cooperative relationships or to signal desirable attributes to uninformed third parties. When lawsuits do occur, they are often handled by stakeholders without professional legal assistance. Disputants consider a wide range of material and nonmaterial interests that are shaped by both formal institutions undergoing significant transformation and complex, entrenched social norms governing dispute resolution. Chinese companies immersed in these two disparate institutional environments approach legal disputes in the United States.
Chapter 4 surveys a wide range of friendly and hostile interstate relations in ancient societies, where war was often the normal state of affairs. Notwithstanding the numerous conflicts, polities tried in the end, through alliances and diplomatic relations, to establish peaceful relations in view of political stability and economic prosperity. The chapter analyses hospitality rules regarding foreigners, treaties between polities and the establishment of diplomatic relations, which emerged as an international system in the ancient Near East during the mid-fourteenth century bce. An alternative to diplomacy in conflict management, typical of the Greek world, was arbitration and mediation with the help of a third party. In a final section, the chapter outlines how states, when diplomacy failed, started a war procedurally. In conclusion, the chapter argues that, in the absence of an international court, the enforcement of diplomatic rules and treaties was in many ancient societies ensured by the supranational authority of the gods.
Although civil trials provide for the lawful resolution of many kinds of disputes, the vast majority of civil matters are resolved through other processes: Negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. This chapter provides an overview of the main psychological and structural factors that influence disputants’ decisions to select and use these primary alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes. Further, the chapter discusses the psychology of decision-making in the context of alternative dispute resolution, including identifying what constitutes successful outcomes and how biases and other tendencies can prevent parties from realizing these outcomes. Finally, the chapter addresses research on the ways in which non-parties such as mediators, facilitators, arbitrators, and judges can improve (or diminish) the likelihood that parties’ voices will be heard, that parties will be satisfied with the process, and that the selected process will result in substantively satisfactory outcomes. Major research gaps and policy implications are identified and discussed.
Does arbitration permit a self-sufficient contract? To what extent can relevance be disregarded without affecting the validity and enforceability of an award? What power does the arbitral tribunal have?
Contract practice andthe reasons for its standardised style. A discussion ofboilerplate clauses. A presentation of the theories of the relational contract and of the autonomous contract.