You are here: Home / Archives for Thailand

5 things you should know about litigation vs. arbitration | Lexology.com

May 10, 2010 By Leave a Comment
The London Court of International Arbitration
Image via Wikipedia

When deciding whether to agree to arbitration in your next automation contract, keep in mind the following differences between resolving disputes via the traditional litigation process versus arbitration:

  • Arbitration can be cheaper and faster. The general rule is that arbitration is a faster and more streamlined process, making it cheaper than the typical litigation process in most, but not all, cases.
  • Possibility of knowledgeable arbitrator. Because of the way an arbitrator is chosen, the parties can agree to an arbitrator who has specialized knowledge, which can be an advantage when technical issues are involved.
  • Very limited appeal rights in arbitration. The parties generally have to abide by an arbitrator’s decision, even if it is wrong. Cases that are litigated can be appealed and reversed.
  • Limited consolidation in arbitration. In a typical court case, all parties who may be involved in or contributed to a dispute can be compelled to join one lawsuit. In arbitration, parties cannot be made to join in someone else’s arbitration process unless they agree.
  • No jury in arbitration. There is no right to a jury trial in arbitration. Instead, disputes decided in arbitration will often be decided by one arbitrator

via Lexology – 5 things you should know about litigation vs. arbitration.

Related articles by Zemanta
Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“International Investment Law and Alternative Dispute Resolution” « Benjamin Ersing

March 30, 2010 By

The premise behind Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is such that both parties involved in a potential litigation can benefit from resolving the conflict amicably through arbitration. Since this saves significant amounts of time and money, it would appear to be a logical solution. Unfortunately this is not always the case…especially for emerging markets. Thailand’s Minister of Foreign Affairs stipulated that they faced a constant battle with (1) the lack of a coordinating arbitration agency, (2) firms’ lack of experience with investment arbitration (3) lack of experienced arbitration lawyers, (4) significant language barriers increasing costs, and (5) lack of political willingness to uphold a ruling in which the state is the losing party.

Legal representatives of multiple underdeveloped states were present (Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia), and though there was no verbal affirmation from them regarding the impact of the aforementioned struggles to push for arbitration in their countries, I can assure you that they exist. As a student of international political economy who is interested in emerging markets and development studies, this is yet another example of the way in which incomplete information and inequalities has led to the current situation of global inequality. It was widely recognized that without properly trained legal counsil, many parties are incredibly hesitant to consider an approach of arbitrage rather than litigation. What the panel really stressed was finding a way to universalize the concept of this amicable approach to dispute resolution (arbitrage), so that individual parties do not feel threatened by it because they are unaware of the concept and therefore are fearful of the consequences.

via “International Investment Law and Alternative Dispute Resolution” « Benjamin Ersing.

Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Justice Department Hosts International Intellectual Property Program on Advanced Computer and Digital Foresncis « USDOJ: Justice Blog

December 11, 2009 By Leave a Comment

Building upon the successes of earlier efforts by the IP Crimes Enforcement Network IPCEN for Asia, the U.S. Department of Justice today announced a three-day training program on advanced computer and digital forensics for 15 key law enforcement officials from five IPCEN nations. The training seminar is designed to strengthen international cooperation in fighting large-scale intellectual property theft and disrupting the criminal networks that profit from the trade in stolen IP.

Police and prosecutors from the Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand are participating in the training, which will enhance cross-border cooperation in the fight against intellectual property theft by increasing the ability of the trainees to use advanced computer forensics techniques to track down, arrest and prosecute IP criminals. Training is taking place over three days at the GIPA facility, and will be lead by Ovie Carroll, Director of the Cybercrime Lab at the Justice Department’s Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section.

This specific, targeted forensics training is a groundbreaking effort for the IPCEN, which was established in 2007. The IPCEN serves two primary functions: to facilitate the exchange of successful investigation and prosecution strategies in combating domestic piracy and counterfeiting crimes; and to strengthen communication channels to promote coordinated, multinational prosecutions of the most serious offenders. By preparing a group of investigators to conduct sophisticated analysis of computer data, the mission of the IPCEN will be advanced and the opportunity for larger domestic and multi-national cases will increase.

[continued] Justice Department Hosts International Intellectual Property Program on Advanced Computer and Digital Foresncis « USDOJ: Justice Blog.

Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,