Realizing Rationality: An Empirical Assessment of International Commercial Mediation, by University of Missouri Law Professor S.I. Strong, is forthcoming in the Washington and Lee Law Review.
The abstract says "Numerous public and private entities have launched initiatives to encourage mediation in international commercial and investment disputes, and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) has taken up a proposal from the U.S. Government to consider whether a new treaty involving international commercial mediation is warranted."
Professor Strong's article "analyzes findings from the first-ever large-scale empirical study on international commercial mediation, providing hard data about current behaviors, beliefs and practices and testing fundamental theories about the use, nature and future of this particular process."
Principles of Alternative Dispute Resolution
Principles of Alternative Dispute Resolution, in its fourth edition, is a Concise Hornbook, published by West Academic. More information is available by clicking on the photo.
Tuesday, December 19, 2017
Monday, December 18, 2017
ADR Perspectives from Global Pound Conference
Pepperdine Law Professor Tom Stipanowich reports on the Kluwer Mediation Blog that
Recently, a series of day-long meetings styled as the Global Pound Conferences, conducted in cities worldwide, offered diverse stakeholders an opportunity to register perspectives on the current state and future of commercial dispute resolution. Each gathering brought together in-house lawyers and clients, external lawyers and consultants, providers of dispute resolution services, educators, government servants and others in order to elicit perspectives and encourage dialogue on dispute resolution, public and private.
Prof. Stipanowich summarizes the conclusions, including "According to Pound participants, efficiency—that is, the time and cost entailed in resolving a dispute outcome—was the most influential factor in choosing among dispute resolution processes (with a 61% ranking for the entire group, and 65% for “parties” (mainly in-house counsel)."
Recently, a series of day-long meetings styled as the Global Pound Conferences, conducted in cities worldwide, offered diverse stakeholders an opportunity to register perspectives on the current state and future of commercial dispute resolution. Each gathering brought together in-house lawyers and clients, external lawyers and consultants, providers of dispute resolution services, educators, government servants and others in order to elicit perspectives and encourage dialogue on dispute resolution, public and private.
Prof. Stipanowich summarizes the conclusions, including "According to Pound participants, efficiency—that is, the time and cost entailed in resolving a dispute outcome—was the most influential factor in choosing among dispute resolution processes (with a 61% ranking for the entire group, and 65% for “parties” (mainly in-house counsel)."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)