Table of Contents
Arbitration entails the settlement of a dispute between two or more political parties by a person in authority. Political dispute tenacity through arbitration illustrates promotion of effective dispute resolution, which helps sustain healthy political affairs. Importantly, the presence of an arbitrator in the dispute resolution process allows a clear stipulation of the lawful conduit to be followed. Moreover, the arbitration process sustains peaceful conflict resolution amidst the parties. The involvement of an arbitrator in the conduct of solving dispute of political parties importantly creates historic evidence of reduced cost of conflict. Therefore, political differences that elicit party-political disagreements are effectively solved through solved through the arbitration procedure. The dependent variable for the study is the effectiveness of arbitration in quelling political tension emanating from different party policies and divided followers. The preceding section samples scholarly articles related to the effectiveness of arbitration in solving political disputes.
In a study by Jagannathan and Nidhi (2017), the authors divided the research design into stages. The theory behind the research is the changes in technological, industrial, and economical sectors that bring on complex issues in construction contracts. The multifaceted nature and the involvement of different parties in contracts make conflicts’ occurrences inevitable. As such, efforts should be made to manage and resolve them amicably. Arbitration is the third most method used in conflict resolution outside the court. It is a significant conflict resolution method as it involves experts with better understanding of a project’s problems (Jagannathan and Nidhi 2017).
The methodology section is divided into stages. The first stage is case analyses of construction contract arbitration in the public sector. The results from the case studies and review of literature informed the preparation is a questionnaire for distribution to arbitrators, engineers, and contractors. The responses given by the case studies and the respondents were then categorized and ranked using the relative importance index (RII) method. They also employed the use of SPSS software to find the correlation among the responses from engineers, contractors, and arbitrators. The SPSS software analyzed 42 reasons by the surveyed engineers, contractor, and arbitrators, the 3 being the independent groups.
Delay in payment is the top ranking call for arbitration in the construction contracts while the least ranked reason is delays in contract approval by the client. Regarding who is responsible for arbitrations, the study found that both contractors and clients have equal responsibilities. The application of this finding in the political parties’ dispute resolution case is essence of incorporating the key stakeholders in the arbitration process for effective resolution.
The study by Jagannathan and Nidhi (2017) incorporate a mixed methodology: case studies, questionnaire, and interviews. The data collected for interpretation is therefore diverse and can solve arbitration issues such as cost reduction in the arbitration process and the introduction of class arbitration when multiple parties are involved. The literature review is on the effectiveness of arbitration is solving disputes in political parties. The findings by Jagannathan and Nidhi (2017) may not necessary apply in the event of political party arbitration; though, it gives suggestions on the dynamics to consider.
Gent (2013) also tackles international arbitration and adjudication in the article by building the theory that arbitration and adjudication are the most effective and long term means of settling contentious disputes. There are political implications in international arbitration and adjudication that those in charge of conflict resolutions should know. In international arbitration and adjudication, there are three general characteristics. To begin with, it is the role of a third party to come up with the terms of conflict resolution. Secondly, in case of international dispute resolution, the states involved in the impasse must commit to abide by the outcomes of the process before arbitration begins. Lastly, the arbitration should incorporate the ideals of international law that are irrevocable in other negotiations types. The author clarifies the primary difference between arbitration and adjudication by stating that in the former, an arbitrator submits a decision while in the later, the International Court of Justice is involved.
The author identifies that implementation of the resolutions an arbitration process is easier at the state level than at international level because the latter lacks systems to enforce the legal rulings. Arbitration and adjudication are effective in resolving river disputes, territorial, and maritime issues. To claim such an assertion, Gent (2013) used data from Western Europe and the Americas as compiled by the Issue Correlates of War (ICOW) project. The author analyses data based on the 1816-2001 conflict cases within the specified boundary.
The results show that in 63% of the cases, arbitration and adjudication ended claims held by disputants in the conflicts. This implies that arbitration and adjudication is most effective way of resolving conflicts given its success rate. The study however is limited in this literature review because of its methodological approach and the joint consideration of arbitration and adjudication. It is not clear how the percentage of success rate of arbitration only would remain at 63% if adjudication were not considered (Gent 2013). The chronological review of the past disputes leaves the research with no clarifications on the dependent and independent variables in the methodology section. As such, the effort to only se quantitative studies in the literature review was difficult to achieve.
Copeland (1999) article is on the role of arbitration in conflict resolution of territorial disputes. Territorial disputes affects international politics given the concerns of the involved parties and other interested ones. The fame or arbitration is dispute resolution began when the Great Britain and the United States accepted to obey the Jay Treaty on the territorial conflicts between the states. Given the success of arbitration to resolve conflicts, Copeland (1999) questions its limited application in solving ethnic-based political impasse. The proliferation of ethnic violence across the political parties fuel secession talks and as such, a threat the establishment of public order. Ethnic-based conflicts are about the control of land; making the process of a peaceful resolution a matter of profound significance.
Copeland (1999) delves into the role of arbitration through case analyses of territorial disputes that led to ethnic or religious conflicts. The research is a case study whose method is divided into two parts: Part I is an overview of the involved arbitral processes and Part II samples the successful arbitrations in solving terrestrial disputes between India and Pakistan (the Rann of Kutch Arbitration) and Israel and Egypt (the Taba Area Arbitration). Part III of the case analysis is an examination of arbitration over Brcko area in Bosnia (based on the Dayton Accords). Finally, Part IV looks at the appropriateness of other dispute resolution mechanisms applied in territorial conflicts.
The results of the study show that the methods of resolving terrestrial disputes are effective, but they do not apply in all cases. For effectiveness, the third party should understand the disputants’ willingness to compromise, an understanding of the nature of a dispute, and the pending terrestrial interests. According to Copeland (1999), “Arbitration has proved most productive in relatively apolitical disputes where the parties’ claims to the land are based on historical arguments and documentary evidence,” (3107). The Brcko Arbitration was a highly political one with complex legal issues, which led to the failed arbitration. The establishment of this failure is critical in the current literature review that is looking into effectiveness of the arbitration in resolving political disputes. From the failure, it is possible to define the ingredients of a successful process.
The Brcko arbitration was a contentious case in making territorial claims. In was not easy for the arbitrator to coerce the parties into agreeing on novel legal issues due to the escalation of future problems. For arbitration to be effective, Copeland (1999) proposes that the arbitrators should establish the nature of the dispute and then secure meaningful agreements to the process. Secondly, effective arbitration calls on the disputants to collectively and precisely determine the issues and the boundaries of a tribunal’s authority. These critical aspects of arbitration were overlooked in the failed Brcko arbitration.
The article by Copeland (1999) gives the lead for future studies by postulating the likely events that would lead to failed arbitration. Based on the suggestions, it is easy to make a hypothesis of a new study. From the successes and failures of arbitration in the cases, one identifies the dependent variables to put in a research.
your paper for you
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is the new frontier in the management of labor relations, domestic, and commercial among other disputes. Among the procedures of ADR is arbitration, which guarantees settlement as prescribed by an arbitrator in case of conflicts. As Dickenson (2001) notes, the success of arbitration lies in its ability to negotiate settlements. The effectiveness of arbitration depends on two factors: more negotiations in the settlement and the disputant’s ability to impose their settlement. The second factor is that less frequency of invoking arbitration leads to cost and time resources savings. In the study, the arbitration types re the dependent variables in which the author uses the probit model to test the correlation with dispute occurrence.
The researcher uses a controlled laboratory experiment to come up with behaviors that define arbitration rules. The research method aims at generating original data for the arbitrations types such as final-offer arbitration (FOA), combined arbitration (CombA), and conventional arbitration (CA). The subjects were given instructions that upon completion, rounds of disputants’ bargaining power started for all the pairs involved in the experiment. After finishing a five series of a particular treatment, they were given another set of instructions to explain the dispute resolution procedures to use in a conflict (Dickenson 2001).
The use of experiment as a method is not without limitations. The experiment set up was such that the no communication took place in the laboratory and this is quite unusual from the real world experience where people interact with fellow people and in different environments. These surroundings influence decisions at every instant, as face-to-face communication would lead to loss of control of an environment. The loss comes from uncontrolled social interaction when people meet. Variables in demography can control a number of the measurable variables in the experiment’s bargaining pairs. However, it is difficult to quantify some variables such as body language when they could be of significant interest for the various forms of arbitration. Besides, the experimental approach does not borrow from past studies. It is not designed to improve the methodological hitches or what could be called referred to as untested approach.
The Dickenson (2001) study is helpful in the present literature review due to the findings on effectiveness of arbitration in conflict resolution. Results of the study indicate that a pair of disputants most likely to use FOA and CombA and least likely to use CA in resolving conflicts. “The mere existence of arbitration procedures to handle dispute resolution promotes their use, as is evidenced by the fact that all arbitration procedures tested significantly increase dispute rates versus resolving disputes by destroying the disputed ‘pie,” (Dickenson 2001, 23). Also, the study found that the adopted procedures in arbitration decrease the duration within which parties can reach a settlement and this depicts the cost effectiveness of the method of conflict resolution. The background of a conflict, there being of female disputants, and the religious nature of the bargaining pairs increase the time spent in settling a dispute through arbitration. On the other hand, the power to bargain by the disputants in the natural environment such as taking part in court proceedings lowers the settlement time during arbitration.
Quintanilla and Avtgis (2017) study is another recent publication on the topic of interest. The authors identify the declining number of civil trials due to the ambiguous nature of the binding arbitration clauses used in contracts adhesion. They note the effort by transactional attorneys to engage in advocacy before writing such clauses. To first reasons is that in the US, the Supreme Court jurisprudence take back the authority to the creators of any binding contracts of arbitration. The second reason is that the public do not understand the clauses written with legal jargon.
The attached clauses have played a role in reducing and displacing the backdrop of legal fairness, legitimacy, and the justice of public institutions via dispute-system processes that most drafters of the adhesion contracts. In other words, the ideals of a zealous advocacy may crop against a virtuous ethic process that involves third party negotiations and the desire by the public for a just, fair, and legitimate civil process (Quintanilla and Avtgis 2017).
The research method used in the study was a single-factor and inter-subject design whose four conditions increase the exposure to information. The authors sourced for participants from the Amazon Mechanical Turk for national representation of the sample size. The dependent variables included familiarity, items of justice and legitimacy, feelings towards binding arbitration, favorability towards a binding arbitration, and manipulation check.
The findings by Quintanilla and Avtgis (2017) show that the public view arbitration process as unfair when they learn abut the working of predispute clauses in a binding arbitration. As such, the empirical study shows how zealous norms of advocacy do not conform to the ethical ideals when mitigating harm to the public and third parties. The action of the transactional attorneys may be able to advance their representatives’ economic interests when making binding contract predispute causes in adhesion contracts. The result of such actions would be the degradation in the application of the rule of law such as the rule-of-law culture and the rule-of-law norms to curtail the viability of the legal institutions in the long term. The Supreme Court of the US delegated discreet powers to lower firms so that they can draft arbitration clauses that are binding to the parties in contract adhesion. Companies and law firms with more psychological influence would make transactional attorneys to develop zealous advocacy than the mere virtuous agents with long-term concern of degradation of public institutions. The changes in the legal system may be due to structural changes for the benefit of the wider ethical ideals.
The study by Quintanilla and Avtgis (2017) adopted a quantitative approach to establish the effectiveness of arbitration on each of the dependent variables. The authors singly performed the quantitative inquiry into the variables before developing the implications of ethics in resolving disputes in the court system. Nonetheless, not much focus was put into the political aspect in predispute binding arbitration clauses.
with any paper
Chukwuemerie (2009) is the writer of the sixth article on ADR for political parties in Africa. It builds on the finding by Quintanilla and Avtgis (2017) that the Supreme Court of the US delegated duties to lower courts for the formalization of binding arbitration clauses to solve disputes. In the same light, the author notes that most of Africa’s political disputes and troubles can be achieved outside the courts; through the ADRs. By making formal provisions for the resolution of political disputes, Africa will only be following the footsteps of the western nations. If Africa will blaze for following on this trail, then it warrants a special analysis to support the adoption of ADRs in dispute resolution.
Through a qualitative case analysis of the topic of interest, the author identifies some variables (dependent) that can increase the effectiveness of ADRs. It is worth noting that a number of challenges confront the adoption of ADRs such as lack of political will to enforce ADRs to solve political disputes. The reluctance by some disputant to engage in ADRs is another hurdle that confronts the alternative method of solving conflicts. The postulation is that by addressing these challenges, ADRs stand a better chance of increasing its effectiveness.
The exploration by Chukwuemerie (2009) makes three fundamental proportional. To begin with, they author contends that effectiveness of ADRS can be realized through Enactment of supportive statutes in the constitutions of the political parties in Africa citing the example of Nigeria. This is possible if the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly can draft a model Bill to administer the resolution of political disputes via the ADRs. According to Chukwuemerie (2009), “The statutes would provide for reference of intra and inter party disputes other than election petitions to the ADRs in the manners to be provided also. INEC or relevant Committees of the National Assembly can start the preliminary work…” (p.131).
The second recommendation is the speedy enforcement of decisions/outcomes. It should be noted that the challenges of applying ADRs would require quick action with creative and flexible edges to resolve political disputes. Creativity and flexibility will make sure that decisions can work in different circumstances as done in Nigeria’s Mutlidoor Court houses. An example is the Lagos State, where an ADR judge is available to take on political disputes. Regarding arbitration and other ADRs, Acts and state Laws are capable of removing enforceability of political disputes awards the normal courts and take them to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.
Thirdly, third parties and the lawyers may fail to cooperate and as such, the results f flexibility and adaptability may not suffice. The statues canvassed by Chukwuemerie (2009) are those that prescribe means and ways the proceedings may take place at the helm of any party’s recalcitrance or failure to cooperate. “Section 21 of the ACA is already a good example in this regard. In a situation where the claimant fails to attend proceedings or to present its case, the tribunal can dismiss the case,” (Chukwuemerie, 2009, p.131). On the other hand, if a respondent so fails, then Vol. 2, No. 4 Journal of Politics and Law 132 is activated to challenge it unless there is proof of liability. Given the elaborate process put in place, the same effort can be proposed to facilitate the application of ADRs in solving political disputes. Regarding political disputes, it is easy to apply arbitration and other forms of conventional ADRs and embrace the culture of out-of-court resolutions to conflicts.
Of all the articles processed in this review Chukwuemerie (2009), work is among the most relevant in that it talks about political disputes and proposes modalities of improving the effectiveness of ADRs. On the other hand, the author talks about ADRs in general instead of making specific reference to arbitration that is the interest of the current this review. This gap is identified and will inform the direction of new research of the effectiveness of arbitration in solving political disputes.
Waibel and Wu (2017) examine the arbitrators’ role background in the determination of arbitration outcome between a host nation and foreign investors. The specific objective of the study was to view arbitrator’s policy preference and politics in determining the outcomes of arbitration. The three special questions to answer in the research were:
Do non-legal factors, such as socialization or personal background of arbitrators, drive arbitral outcomes?
To what extent do arbitration outcomes differ systematically depending on arbitrator policy preferences relative to incentives?
Under what circumstances are the effects of arbitrators’ personal backgrounds stronger? (Waibel, & Wu, 2017, p.3).
In the method, the authors come up with 500 unique data set of arbitrators’ data that have been given the role of adjudicating for investment disputes before International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). They then combined data from ICSID website and manual collection from other available personnel from various locations with the required information. Moreover, a panel of 5 investment arbitrators were asked to evaluate the cases to come up with independent measure of legal aptness. The dependent variable is arbitrator’s decision to in case were jurisdiction and liability that were explained using a probit-regression analysis.
To begin with, they found that arbitrators’ policy views seem to affect their decision in some way considering some cases; hence, the conclusion that arbitrators may not apply the law when determining investment disputes. The study shows that if an individual’s personal characteristics show a strong correlation with arbitration outcomes then the correlation between arbitral decisions and a case’ legal strength is weak. The second outcome of the study is with reference to an arbitrator’s policy preferences and personal characteristics that outweigh given incentives when making arbitral decisions. The unique finding goes against the notion that international investment arbitration cases are biased to favor one party (investor) as arbitrators change their arguments depending on the incentive they get. “Among a wide range of policy preferences, developing status matters a great deal: arbitrators with the nationality of a developing country are significantly less likely to affirm jurisdiction and liability,” (Waibel, & Wu, 2017, p.24). Lastly, the research shows that when an arbitrator develops liking for one party involved in a dispute, they are likely to be biased and favor one side. However, decision bias characteristics in most cases relate to an arbitrator’s policy preference and not the selection by the disputing parties.
The strength of the study by Waibel and Wu (2017) is its quantitative methodology developed with tested hypotheses through the data collection and analysis. This is backed by empirical strategy to achieve the aim of the research and propose changes. The topic addressed in the paper falls within the current study; dispute resolution through arbitration. Nonetheless, the consideration is on foreign investment disputes against the host state. As much as this could elicit political solutions, they authors do not incorporate much political connotation into their methodology. The study does not also address the effectiveness of arbitration passé; but, discuss issues that influence outcomes of arbitration from the personnel’s perspective.
We can do it today.
The research by Colvin (2011) is on employment arbitration motivated by the slow and lack of gathering voluminous data set to inform public policy on the issue. Availability if data is the main reason for this problem. Most empirical studies on arbitration only sample case files whose access is provided by individual organizations that provide arbitration services. Part of the reason for this is the lack of publicly available data on arbitration. Most empirical research has had to rely on cases or files that individual service provider organizations avail. The inadequacy of data causes lack of enough representation of the broader situation of arbitration cases. The purpose of Colvin (2011) study is to make available a large data set on employment arbitration by the American Arbitration Association (AAA).
In the methodology, the author mined data from the AAA on arbitration reports pursuant to California Code requirements to examine employment arbitration outcomes. The quantitative study analyzes 3,945 cases of arbitration cases out of which, 1,213 were cases met the threshold of inclusion into the study. The cases were purely on employment arbitration for a selected period as administered by the AAA. A regression analysis was performed to identify effect of independent factors and their impact on arbitration. The analysis model was for employee wins and award amounts using the predictor variables.
The findings of the research show that win rates for employee was 21.4%, which is low compared to the wins reported in litigation trials. Moreover, that employees won had a median incentive of $36,500 while mean was $109,858. The two quantities were substantially low for employee arbitration compared to employment litigation. The mean time to disposition for the arbitration cases was 284.4 days for settled disputes while the time was 361.5 days for cases settled after a hearing. The times reported were short compared to time used to dispose litigation. The mean fee for arbitration cases was $6,340 generally, but was $11,070 for disposed cases by award that followed hearing. Employees involved in employment arbitration in 82.4% of the cases made less than $100,000 annually. On the other hand, the claimants received a mean of $844,814 in payment.
Colvin (2011) also examined the effect of repeat player effect the determination of in employer arbitration. The finding gives a strong evidence of an existing repeat employer effect. On award amounts and win rates were low when employers took part in multiple arbitration cases. The explanation given for is the existence of accruing advantages for organizations with much resources and the expertise they use in resolving disputes. There is an existing and significant effect in employer-arbitrator pairing as on average, employees have low win rates and get small damage awards even when the same arbitrators are involved.
Colvin (2011) research finds a way of increasing the effectiveness of employment arbitration. They find that resourcefulness of the disputants determines the compensations given to the claimants in disputes. The effectiveness of arbitration is achieved when parties hire experts in dispute cases. This implies that knowledge and experience of arbitrators makes then stand a better chance of resolving disputes and in cases where employees win the cases, arbitrators significantly lower the paid amounts. The second thing that makes this study relevant in this literature review is its adoption of quantitative approach to analyze a broad data set that can apply in a wider spectrum in the society. Nonetheless, the study did not focus on the arbitration of political disputes, which is the purpose of the current research. It would be interesting to determine if the same results would be justified in political disputes resolved via arbitration.
Freyens and Gong (2016) look at the social values that government provides determine the outcomes of disputed arbitration in the Australian labor courts. To analyses the outcomes the dismissal of arbitration cases, the researchers isolated two paths along which the effects sufficed: the strategic appointment to alter the composition of the court and the statutory reforms that have a bearing on the legal standards (Freyens, & Gong, 2016).
The quantitative approach of the research carried out analysis on the chances of plaintiff success in a court session with 81 judges in a panel that handled 2,223 decisions of judicial proceedings between 2001 and 2015. The data used in the study came from electronic transcripts on the labor courts’ documentation such as the Fair Work Act (FWA) and the former Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) addressing unfair dismissal disputes. The method tested and exploited the random matching of unfair dismissal of judges from the courts. The Priest-Klein selection effect was a concerned that the author handled to avoid the invalidation of analysis of court trials (Freyens, & Gong, 2016).
Freyens, & Gong (2016) find significant effects of judges’ ideological background and legal standards changes as the channels proposed in the introduction stage. The channels are strong predictors of dismissal case outcomes. Besides, further evidence shows the effect of compensation. Judges with a comprehensive work background favor employees dismissed if the legal provisions adversely limit their chance of success in the courts.
The empirical analysis by Freyens and Gong (2016) emphasizes the take that the frequency of judges rule in favor of the dismissed employees depend on the political motives towards the reforms established in the rules. The rulings by judges are also influenced by nomination bias in the preceding court appointments. However, the researchers do not give evidence of the deliberate move by judges to promote the agenda of political parties in the discussion of their agenda.
Instead, we contend that in ideologically charged areas of the law, such as dismissal law, where judges interpret rather than make the law and where legal standards are relatively weak, judicial processes are very unlikely to be free of social values and judicial decisions will regularly rest on the ideological stance of the judge (Freyens, & Gong, 2016, p.18).
The ideological stances by judges are studied closely by the political class before their appointment. The favors of appointment and the ideological stance by the judges show a correlation with political motive and a potential influence in judicial rulings. The changes in the judiciary and legal provisions by government are a motivation to attract favors.
The study by Freyens and Gong (2016) is essential in this literature view because it addresses the role of judges in the dismissal of arbitration cases over a period (2001-2015). The discussion also takes a political connotation as the author talk about the role of political parties in influencing the court composition and making changes to the legal provisions to influence the outcome of arbitration cases. As they discuss, the appointment by the political parties consider the ideological backgrounds of the judges before their appointment and as such, the parties can pre determine the outcomes of the dismissal cases that would be presented to the judges. The second superiority of Freyens and Gong (2016) is its methodological approach to arrive at the conclusions. The dependent variable used in the method is the case outcome that is analyzed by OLS regression model. The sample size was also broad enough to inform findings with wider impact and application. The sample was also spread over a period (2001-2015), which caters for changes in the judicial systems over time to make the determinations by the authors very dynamic.
The articles reviewed in this literature review are diverse and varied concerning the effectiveness of arbitration in resolving disputes in the society. A number of studies are qualitative analysis of cases and literature on the topic on interest such as Chukwuemerie, Andrew (2009); Copeland (1999) while others are experiment-based; Dickenson (2001), while most are quantitative studies that are most relevant in this quantitative review of literature. The choice review the studies irrespective of the type of research was their relevance in addressing the issues that surround the effectiveness of arbitration in solving political disputes. A number of issues such as the expertise of the third parties in the dispute cases, political persuasions, the legal frameworks that set grounds for arbitration, and knowledge and experience of the arbitrators among many other factors influence arbitration effectiveness (Freyens, & Gong, 2016; Colvin, 2011; Dickenson, 2001).
Even though such studies as Waibel and Wu (2017) on arbitration in resolving disputes between foreign investors and the host state does directly refer to political disputes, it is difficult to exclude politics in the process through which foreigners establish business overseas. The establishment of interstate cooperation is founded on political grounds and as such, this puts directly brings the role of politics in relations. To future study will fill this gap and report the political disputes and the role of arbitration in conflict resolution that lacks.
Time within which a study in carried out is a critical consideration for in this literature review. While Freyens and Gong (2016) study is relevant regarding the timeline and period within which the results were established, Gent (2013)’s compilation was from 1816-2001. Nonetheless, the two studies are important in setting different tones in the theoretical frameworks of future studies to consider. Considering the current applicable laws, Freyens and Gong (2016) is more preferable than Gent (2013). It would be difficult to identify the state of current legal provisions when the timeline used by the author are factored in the current applicable laws.
These studies reviewed have gaps for future studies seeking to explore the effectiveness of arbitration are resolving political disputes through a quantitative research method. This gap is the basis for conducting research on the topic. The literature present different methodological approaches; some are mixed methods while others are purely qualitative or quantitative. It will be a thought to consider the application of mixed methods for qualitative review of the current available information before delving into the quantitative approach in the analysis of the effectiveness of arbitration as alternative of conflict resolution. As political differences can elicit party-political disagreements, the role of arbitration is eminent. With dependent variables being the effectiveness of arbitration on conflict management, the outcome of the study will inform the solution to political intrigues and reduce the court process in finding political justice. The arbitration process may not offer solution in certain jurisdictions such as Nigeria where election petitions cannot be arbitrated.
- Excellent quality
- 100% Turnitin-safe
- Affordable prices
- Chukwuemerie, Andrew I. 2009. “Necessity as the Mother of Trail Blazing: Applying Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms to Political Party Disputes in Africa.” J. Pol. & L. 2, 4 (December): 121-137.
- Colvin, Alexander J. (2011). “An Empirical Study of Employment Arbitration: Case Outcomes and Processes.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8(1), 1-23.
- Copeland, Carla S. 1999. “The Use of Arbitration to Settle Territorial Disputes.” Fordham Law Review, 67, 6: 3073-3108.
- Dickenson, David L. 2001. “A Comparison of Conventional, Final-Offer, and “Combined” Arbitration for Dispute Resolution.” Economic Research Institute Study Papers (July): 217.
- Freyens, Benoit Pierre, and Xiaodong Gong. 2016. Politics, the Judiciary, and the Arbitration of Unfair Dismissal Disputes.
- Gent, Stephen E. 2013. “The Politics of International Arbitration and Adjudication.” Penn St. JL & Int’l Aff., 2, 66 (April): 67-77.
- Jagannathan, P, and Herenz Nidhi. 2017. Analysis to identify the prevailing causes that leads to arbitration in construction contracts International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8, 4 (April): 2069-2076.
- Quintanilla, Victor D, and Alexander B. Avtgis. 2017. The Public Believes Predispute Binding Arbitration Clauses Are Unjust: Ethical Implications for Dispute-System Design in the Time of Vanishing Trials, 85 Fordham Law Review, 85,5: 2119-2148.
- Waibel, M., & Wu, Y. (2017). Are Arbitrators Political? Evidence from International Investment Arbitration.