أنشئ حسابًا أو سجّل الدخول للانضمام إلى مجتمعك المهني.
Arbitration should be viewed as a determinative decision process carried out by an independant panel of experts after what should be exhaustive investigation of the facts in dispute. It can be costly and lengthy dependant on the nature and value of the dispute and may not be the best solution if the needs of the Parties would be better suited by mediation or adjudication.
Certes, l'arbitrage est considérés la voie la plus modérne parmis les Modes Aletrnatifs de Résolutions des Conflits.
Pour répondre à cette question on doit voir en premier lieu s'il est le meilleur (1) pour voir en second lieu l'autre pére de manche relative au frais.( 2 )
en ce qui concerne l'utilité de l'arbitrage; certes il est utile sur tout en faisant la comparaison avec le temps à passé lorsque on au déposera la meme affaire auprés de la juridiction .
seuleumrnt l'arbitrage devrait etre notre second choix aprés avoir essayé la médiation entre les deux parties en conflit.
et si on compte donner une définition à la mediation c'est bien l'intervention d'un tiers pour faciliter la circulation d'information, éclaircir ou rétablir des relations. Ce tiers neutre, indépendant et impartial, est appelé médiateur.
(2) les frais : ca dépends toujours du type de l'arbitrage ad hoc ou institutionel. et dans les deux cas c'est un gagne temps par rapport les tribunals .
To answer to this question first of all we have to determinate what is the nature of dispute to introduce with great precision the content of the arbitral clause. And what about the cost it depend on what kind or what is the nature of the dispute we are talking about .
If it is institutional Arbitration, it is certainly time bound and effective though the cost may not be so. However considering that Court procedures are at times lengthy and cumbersome, Arbitration should be adopted mainly by the Corporates for speedy disposal.
The Center makes available a Guide to WIPO Arbitration, which may be ordered or downloaded (PDF).
Arbitration is a procedure in which a dispute is submitted, by agreement of the parties, to one or more arbitrators who make a binding decision on the dispute. In choosing arbitration, the parties opt for a private dispute resolution procedure instead of going to court.
Its principal characteristics are:
Arbitration can only take place if both parties have agreed to it. In the case of future disputes arising under a contract, the parties insert an arbitration clause in the relevant contract. An existing dispute can be referred to arbitration by means of a submission agreement between the parties. In contrast to mediation, a party cannot unilaterally withdraw from arbitration.
Under the WIPO Arbitration Rules, the parties can select a sole arbitrator together. If they choose to have a three-member arbitral tribunal, each party appoints one of the arbitrators; those two persons then agree on the presiding arbitrator. Alternatively, the Center can suggest potential arbitrators with relevant expertise or directly appoint members of the arbitral tribunal. The Center maintains an extensive roster of arbitrators ranging from seasoned dispute-resolution generalists to highly specialized practitioners and experts covering the entire legal and technical spectrum of intellectual property.
In addition to their selection of neutrals of appropriate nationality, parties are able to choose such important elements as the applicable law, language and venue of the arbitration. This allows them to ensure that no party enjoys a home court advantage.
The WIPO Rules specifically protect the confidentiality of the existence of the arbitration, any disclosures made during that procedure, and the award. In certain circumstances, the WIPO Rules allow a party to restrict access to trade secrets or other confidential information that is submitted to the arbitral tribunal or to a confidentiality advisor to the tribunal.
Under the WIPO Rules, the parties agree to carry out the decision of the arbitral tribunal without delay. International awards are enforced by national courts under the New York Convention, which permits them to be set aside only in very limited circumstances. More than 140 States are party to this Convention.
yes ,but Arbitration Always more costly
In the past few decades, arbitration has become a mainstay in resolving legal disputes. But is arbitration right for you? To find out, learn about the advantages and disadvantages of this dispute resolution technique. That way, you can make an informed decision when choosing arbitration or deciding to sign a contract that contains a mandatory arbitration clause.
An appropriate arbitration largely commercial transactions between private companies, it allows the expanse of the choice of law for determining the time of the dispute in addition to it is issued from one degree.
Arbitration is the most fast way to finish any disputes , but it should be mentioned in the specification of the projects , if not , you can not use it
Max of 18 months , the contractor is getting his claims , if in courts , years will be spending..
For major disputes where the claimed amounts are very high, arbitration is an effective method as to time and cost . in arbitration, the parties can choose the applicable law, arbitrators, language and even the place of arbitration. Arbitrators' awards are final and subject to no appeal . The winning party still has to refer to the local courts in order to ratify the arbitration award. once the arbitration award is ratified then it can become enforceable and executable. The parties has to refer to the local Civil Procedural laws to be aware of all the circumstances that may nullify the final award, before resorting to arbitration in the first place to avoid cost and time waste. arbitration may not be effective to small claims due to its high cost, thus resorting to litigation can be more effective.
Not always Dear Shanavas. Often arbitration is more time saving than courts but it may be as or more costly than courts. The major risk is always confronted later when you come to the enforcement of the award where a party may find that it is not enforceable which is a great disaster.
