Chapter 3: Complementarity Section 1: Introduction The legal framework for complementarity as referenced in the Rome Statute is set out in art. 1, 17 and 20 of the Statute. The principle of complementarity in the Rome Statute is one of the highlights of the Statute as it regulates and addresses a very profound question that usually arises in situations where one judicial entity fulfils functions, that can be fulfilled or in actual fact fulfilled by another judicial entity. The question that arises in this regard revolves around the governance of the mutual relationship and interaction, between both entities. This question of institutional relations equally applies to the relationship and interaction between, international and internationalized
The Arbitral Tribunal follows the procedure as per the law and after parties have finished their respective submission, makes its reasoned award on the claims and counter claims referred to it. INSTITUTIONAL ARBITRATION: If parties so decide they can refer their disputes to an institution like the Indian Council of Arbitration. The institution thereafter assists the parties in appointment of arbitrators and in conducting the entire arbitral proceedings as per its rules. The award given by the Arbitral Tribunal is final and binding on the parties. STATUTORY
The reason they give for this is that it must be assumed that when a dispute arises, parties who are subject to arbitration agreements “are to be dealt with in accordance with the arbitration agreement”. This idea of interpreting arbitration agreements broadly has been expressed by Lord Hoffmann in Fiona Trust v Privlov and in the more recent case, by MacEochaidh J, in P Elliot & Co. Ltd v FCC Elliot Construction Ltd. Regarding the second issue, Mr Eve is a party to the arbitration agreement as he is a
This may be included in the length of the contract terms or may be a collateral contract to this effect. (Gentleman’s agreement). On this basis, the arbitrator can depart from the general rule. The foundation of arbitration is mutual consent and agreement of the parties. Unless there is an agreement contrary , the tribunal is obliged to adopt the principle that cost follows the event.
If so, a prima facie duty of care arose. The first stage of the test in the case of Anns v Merton LBC  AC 728 incorporates the neighbour principle by Lord Atkin. Then, secondly, it was necessary to consider whether there were any considerations that ought to “negative, or to reduce or limit” that duty. The second stage of the test predicts ‘policy’ factors that negating, reducing or limiting a duty, which but for those policy reasons would be
These are mediation and arbitration. Gordon (2011) defines arbitration as a process where both parties to the dispute agree to have their case heard and determined before an agreed neutral party called the arbitrator. Arbitration can either be voluntary where parties agree to settle disputes through arbitration or mandatory where the decision to go to arbitration is embedded in an agreement. On the other hand, meditation refers to an informal process where both parties agree on a third party who will help them resolve the dispute. Unlike in arbitration, the mediator does not have control over the final outcome of the process and the decision of that process is not binding on parties unless they voluntarily adopt it (McLean & Wilson, 2008).
It should promote their general understanding of how mediation differs from adjudication, the mediator's role and how it differs from that of an arbitrator or judge, the specific norms that will govern the procedural aspects of the process, and the rules governing consent. "Outcome disclosure" should be such that it is sufficient to enable the parties to arrive at an agreement relying on sound judgment. It requires that parties have a general understanding of and address the relevant facts and understand their own interests and values. 2. ELEMENTS OF CONSENT There is a great deal of confusion surrounding the concept of consent in mediation.
ADR maybe conveniently categorized into two groups namely: The non-binding and binding ADR. The non-binding ADR includes mediation, negotiation and conciliation while binding ADR includes arbitration, mini-trial, expert determination (E.D) and mediation-arbitration
The primary purpose of granting interim relief is the preservation of property in dispute till legal rights and conflicting claims of the parties before the court are adjudicated. In other words, the object of making an order regarding interim relief is to evolve a workable formula to the extent called for by the demands of the situation, keeping in mind the pros and cons of the matter and striking a delicate balance between two conflicting interests, i.e., injury and prejudice, likely to be caused to the plaintiff if the relief is refused; and injury and prejudice likely to be caused to the defendant if the relief is granted. The court in the exercise of sound judicial discretion can grant or refuse to grant interim relief. The underlying
A dispute that might otherwise go to court becomes subject to binding arbitration only by the agreement of the parties. In this sense, arbitration is a creature of contract, and the terms of the parties’ particular arbitration agreement are generally controlling. Private arbitration is now governed by the Arbitration Act 1996. The Arbitration (International Commercial) Act 1998 introduced the UNCITRAL Model Law as the procedural framework for international arbitrations. Many commercial contracts include what is known as a Scott v Avery clause, whereby parties agree that in the event of a dispute arising between them, they will resort to arbitration to settle the dispute.