scholarly journals The Status Quo and Tasks of China’s Labour Dispute Resolution System

2010 ◽  
Vol 30 (null) ◽  
pp. 53-85
Author(s):  
彭光華
Obiter ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johana K Gathongo ◽  
Adriaan van der Walt

There have been notable concerns in the current dual dispute resolution system in Kenya. The problems include protracted referral timeframes for dismissal disputes, non-regulation of maximum timeframes for the agreed extension after 30 days conciliation period has lapsed, the absence of statutory timeframes for appointing a conciliator/ commissioner and arbitration process under both the Labour Relations Act, 2007 and the Employment Act, 2007. Likewise, the responsibility of resolving statutory labour disputes in Kenya is still heavily under the control of the government through the Ministry of Labour. There is still no independent statutory dispute resolution institution as envisaged by the Labour Relations Act, 2007. As a result, the Kenyan dispute resolution system has been criticised for lack of impartiality leading to the increase in strikes and lockouts.This article examines the effectiveness of the Kenyan labour dispute resolution system. The article evaluates the provisions of international labour standards relevant to labour dispute resolution. The article illuminates and describes the bottlenecks in the current Kenyan system and argues that it does not adequately respond to the needs of parties in terms of the international labour conventions. A comparative approach with South Africa is adopted to see how independent institutions, such as the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, Bargaining Councils and specialised Labour Courts can lead to effective dispute resolution. In view of that, a wide range of remedial intervention intended to address the gaps and flaws highlighted in the study are made. Systematically, the article provides suggestions and possible solutions for a better institutional framework and processes to address them.


2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 31-52
Author(s):  
Jisuk Woo

This study examines how Internaet domain names came to be governed by ICANN, a non-governmental, non-profit private international organization, and investigates how domain name disputes are dealt with by its newly adopted UDRP(Uniform Dispute Resolution System). The analysis examines UDRP policy and rules, and empirically assesses the relationship between decisions of the proceedings and the different factors involved. The findings show that UDRP operates in ways that maximize the commercial interests of existing, large companies at the expense of interests of individuals and small, new companies. The current regime, gives priority to preempting intellectual property-related disputes to protect intellectual property rights, rather than coordinating the use of domain names by individuals and companies. In this process, the commercial status quo of the Internet is reinforced, and the Internet is ironically placed under the most centralized control because the UDRP system is forces upon all gTLD domain names. This paper concludes excluding government and relying on private ordering and self-governance for rule making and the procedures of alternative dispute resolution, may be dangerous to individual interests, especially when the role of government is excluded and individuals' participation remains low.


1988 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 413-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
William L. Ury ◽  
Jeanne M. Brett ◽  
Stephen B. Goldberg

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document