Academic literature on the topic 'Amicable dispute resolution'

Abstract This article empirically analyses investor-State arbitration cases that settle amicably after the arbitration has commenced but before the final award is rendered. The study investigates whether, and to what extent, some common criticisms of amicable settlements are evident in practice. It examines four questions that correspond to the major critiques of amicable settlements in investor-State dispute resolution: (1) Are certain types of investor-State disputes unsuitable to be settled amicably? (2) Do amicable settlements impede transparency? (3) Do amicable settlements pay less compared to when investors win? (4) Is the non-enforceability of settlement agreements a problem in practice? The findings suggest that in practice, not all of these purported problematic aspects of dispute resolution mechanisms that result in amicable settlements are as evident as is commonly believed.

The article is devoted to Amicable Dispute Resolution (ADR). The essence of amicable means of dispute resolution and the basic forms of ADR (negotiation, mediation, arbitration) are considered. Author treats these forms as the first class justice. In his point of view mediation and the other basic forms of ADR are "the Complementary Forms of Justice". Then there is the detailed analysis focuses on the most important law acts concerning mediation in civil matters in Poland and the Russian Federation. The comparison presents the essential differences between the Polish and the Russian regulations. In conclusion, the five mainly motives of using ADR are noticed. The broader functions of ADR connected not only the classical regulatory, protective or harmonizing issues are shown.The article is devoted to Amicable Dispute Resolution (ADR). The essence of amicable means of dispute resolution and the basic forms of ADR (negotiation, mediation, arbitration) are considered. Author treats these forms as the first class justice. In his point of view mediation and the other basic forms of ADR are "the Complementary Forms of Justice". Then there is the detailed analysis focuses on the most important law acts concerning mediation in civil matters in Poland and the Russian Federation. The comparison presents the essential differences between the Polish and the Russian regulations. In conclusion, the five mainly motives of using ADR are noticed. The broader functions of ADR connected not only the classical regulatory, protective or harmonizing issues are shown.

An employment dispute is a dispute between a single worker and the employer, or between a trade union and employer or association of employers. The division of employment disputes is important because it indicates the method of the settlement of labour disputes. According to Serbian legal system, employment disputes can be settled in court or using one of the alternative labour dispute resolution methods (arbitration, conciliation, mediation). Based on the Law on the Amicable Settlement of Employment Disputes, an institution for the peaceful settlement of labour disputes was established - State Agency for Amicable Settlement of Employment Disputes. Arbitration is always voluntary. The Agency is to be in charge only if both parties accept to solve the dispute using arbitration. An individual employment dispute can be solved using arbitration only if that is allowed by work contract or a general employer act. A collective dispute can also be solved using arbitration. If one of the parties does not want to use an alternative method for solving the problem, arbitration cannot be an option. In that case, the only way to protect its rights is in court. The process of settling a dispute in court before a judge is an extremely strict and formal procedure required by law. The court is obligated to determine relevant facts and make a decision based on them. The judgment is binding for the parties and can be forcedly executed. Protection of rights is accomplished when the judgment or arbitration decision is made and executed. The arbitration decision can be voluntarily executed, unlike the judgment that can be forcedly executed. The arbitration decision cannot be forcedly executed and that is the main disadvantage of the arbitration. The arbitration procedure needs to be improved in order to guarantee the protection of rights.

The research article discusses the historical study for settlement of disputes under the umbrella of legal systems (formal and informal) prevailing in different civilizations and in various times. This research is briefly discussing the historical aspects of various legal systems in ancient times. This research highlights that human civilizations promoted both methods, but the most popular method was informal dispute resolution (ADR) in all over the world which still is needed and being popular day by day. From study, it has been founded that informal dispute resolution (ADR) has been the choice of people and they preferred to opt this process rather to go for litigation. The research has shown the benefits and importance of settlement of disputes through informal justice system. The study high lights that the system has been working very successfully in ancient times, therefore, this pre-tested process i.e., informal dispute resolution is more sustainable in any form than the formal system because it reflects amicable practices.

Abstract In the Islamic legal system, the ways in which disputes are resolved generally fall under two categories. The first category is through litigation, namely in Islamic courts (al-qaḍāʾ or adjudication), and the second is through amicable means such as negotiation, conciliation and compromise (naṣīḥah or sincere advice), mediation (ṣulḥ), arbitration (taḥkīm), mediation along with arbitration (ṣulḥ and taḥkīm), an ombudsman (muḥtasib), expert determination (Mufti’s fatwā, pl. fatāwā), etc. These mechanisms are called alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that refers to a range of dispute resolution processes which are alternative to traditional litigation. Over time, the term ADR is now coming to mean ‘appropriate dispute resolution’ or the most appropriate resolution process in the given circumstances. One of the principal goals of ADR is to provide parties with choices for the effective and efficient resolution of disputes. The above-mentioned dispute resolution processes have different characteristics. This article will discuss only the relevant mechanisms with a view to examine how far they may be suitable to resolve Islamic banking and finance disputes effectively, cheaply and quickly.

Since formally introduced the friendly Amicable Settlement mechanism in 1987, FIDIC’ s efforts to promote and improve the alternative dispute settlement mechanism for construction work have been greatly developed. The current laws and regulations in China on alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for construction disputes are not perfect, and the newly revised “Conditions of contract for Construction” (GF2017-0201) lacks operability. It is of great significance to improve the dispute settlement mechanism by drawing on the provisions of article 20 of FIDIC (New Red Book), accumulate international experience and develop “One Belt And One Road”.

The Sir Creek dispute remains a serious hurdle in the way of any meaningful progress on ties between Pakistan and India, but it also has huge potential to be resolved by recourse to international law and bilateral negotiations. In this respect, I will explore certain important historical, legal and political aspects of the Sir Creek dispute in order to betterinform future dialogue between the two states. Among otherthings, I will discuss the status of the law and its application to the dispute. With regards to Sir Creek, other considerations that will be examined include: the impetus for bothstates to adhereto the lawof the sea, the potential of international dispute resolution and the appropriate choice of procedure for settlement, the relevant weightageto be givento historical and special circumstances as well as the significance to relevant international legal proceedings on the dispute. The various factors relevant to the amicable settlement of such river boundary disputes will also be holistically examined.

The article deals with the issue of asserting the rights and interests of all employees who enjoy the representation of trade union organisations in their disputes with the employer. The aim of the article is to give a detailed presentation of issues related to collective labour disputes. To achieve this aim, the stages at which the rights and interests underlying collective labour disputes are presented in detail. This study employs the dogmatic-legal method. The author carries out an analysis and interpretation of the provisions relating to collective labour disputes in the field of labour law. It was vital to examine the legal norms established by the legislator. A description and systematisation of the applicable legislation was also conducted. Issues relating to the resolution of collective disputes in the workplace are presented theoretically with a detailed discussion of the specific stages. This presented work is divided into four parts. The first presents the basic notions related to collective labour disputes. The sections that follow present the problems involved in the particular stages of claims enforcement based on employment relationship, i.e. bargaining, mediation, and arbitration. The rules for joining specific stages of resolving the above mentioned disputes were also discussed. To a large extent, the issues elucidated here bring the reader, and above all entities involved in collective labour conflicts, closer to the methods of asserting their own rights and interests.

Abstract Embedded in a network constellation of multi-stakeholders with various professional backgrounds and differing goals, the construction industry is featured with adversarial relationships and inevitable disputes. Therefore, high quality communication and negotiation among the parties are essential in achieving speedy and less costly dispute resolution. As rational evaluation underpins quality negotiation decisions, are construction disputing parties rational as they assumed? Are there any biases that could possibly prohibit them from making prudent judgement? This study seeks to understand the existence and impact of bias in construction dispute negotiation (CDN). The existence of four types of bias in CDN were discussed: preconception, self-affirmation, optimism and interest-oriented. Three categories of de-biasing strategy were also suggested to support the efficient settlement of construction dispute. Vast resources would be saved and amicable relationship among the collaborating parties could be developed when the impact of bias was curbed. Stepping into the digital era, construction dispute resolution professionals should develop the capabilities needed to harness the benefits of technologies for innovative ways of designing a bias-free dispute resolution mechanism.

AbstractEvery third dispute brought to the WTO and not withdrawn early is settled amicably through a mutually agreed solution (MAS). This includes high-profile and long-standing WTO disputes such as EC–Bananas or Softwood Lumber. By offering a negotiated solution to hard cases, MAS have added stability to the multilateral trading system. MAS, however, also raise concerns. Settlements favour the instant resolution of disputes, but may conflict with third party interests and collective stakes. Where WTO members use their MAS to contract out of WTO law (‘WTO+’/‘WTO–’MAS), the multilateral trading system may be at risk. In addition, new forms of bilateral (interim-)settlements not foreseen in the DSU have recently emerged which currently escape multilateral disciplines. This article assesses how well the DSU balances the competing interests involved in amicable settlements, preserving the contractual flexibility of disputants while safeguarding multilateral interests. Contributing to current DSU reform debates, the article rejects the need for greater MAS enforceability, endorses the strengthening of procedural and substantive safeguards protecting collective stakeholders in settlements, and calls for new DSU disciplines on interim-settlements.

Les processus de résolution amiable des différends – conciliation, médiation, procédure participative ou droit collaboratif – présentent une unité d’objectif. Leur mise en œuvre permet une tentative de conclusion d’un accord amiable : un contrat consacrant la solution du différend construite par les parties. Sans se départir d’une approche procédurale, cette étude propose une analyse contractuelle de la résolution amiable des différends. Au-delà d’une procéduralisation de la formation de l’accord amiable, le droit commun des contrats sert en effet de manière unitaire les négociations et la conclusion de l’accord amiable. Ce dernier présente néanmoins une certaine diversité au regard des qualifications contractuelles qu’il peut revêtir. Si le contrat de transaction apparaît comme un référent à l’accord amiable, tout accord amiable ne consiste pas nécessairement en une transaction. Mais au-delà du jeu des qualifications possibles, le droit commun des contrats fédère les conditions de validité et les forces de l’accord amiable. Une unité fondamentale des accords amiables se révèle ainsi, garantissant la résolution effective des différends
The amicable settlement process - conciliation, mediation, collaborative procedure or law - present the same aim. Every amicable settlement process permits the conclusion of an amicable agreement: a contract consecrating the solution built by the parties. Without distracting from procedural approach, this study offers a contractual analysis of the amicable dispute resolution. Beyond a proceduralisation of the negotiation and the amicable settlement formation, it is the general law of contract that insure a support to the amicable settlement process. However, the amicable settlement presents some diversity due to peripheral qualifications. If the transaction contract is a reference to the amicable settlement, every amicable settlement is not necessarily a transaction. Beyong the choice of qualifications, the general contract law unites the validity conditions and the forces of the amicable settlement. A fundamental unity of amicable settlements reveals, safeguarded the effective dispute resolution

Inscrits dans le contexte actuel de mondialisation, le développement et la promotion remarqués des modes amiables de règlement des différends (MARD) témoignent d’une nouvelle appréhension de la production normative où le justiciable est placé au cœur du droit, l’entente se substitue à l’autorité, la discussion et le dialogue prévalent. Tandis que le temps économique ne semble plus cadrer avec le temps judiciaire dans ce contexte concurrentiel qui exige des réactions rapides, les MARD répondent à une demande concrète des entreprises. Placées au centre de ce processus vivant et complexe, les entreprises adaptent leur stratégie de gestion des conflits en faisant appel à des moyens qui servent le mieux leurs intérêts. La prévention des risques est une priorité, la gestion de l’aléa, un défi quotidien et l’adaptation au contexte évolutif à l’espace et au temps, la marque de l’efficience des instruments normatifs adoptés. Les MARD laissent ainsi entrevoir la résurgence de la question de la légitimité du droit et de la justice étatique. On a qualifié ce phénomène de justice douce mais s’agit-il d’une forme de justice fut-elle alternative ? La réponse à cette question dépend de la compréhension globale que nous avons de ce phénomène. Cette réflexion se propose ainsi de le définir bien plus que comme la seule mise en œuvre de modes consensuels de traitement des différends, mais, véritablement comme l’expression d’un ordre juridique en développement. Approuvé par ses principaux usagers, les MARD deviennent un outil efficace de justice équitable. La notion de justice est alors envisagée, non pas dans son sens organique, mais substantiel, la justice pouvant être aussi consensuelle
As part of the current context of globalisation, the development and promotion of the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) clearly show a new approach in the production of norms, whereby the litigant is positioned at the very heart of the rule of law, and where mutual understanding replaces authority, and discussion and dialogue prevail. While economic time no longer correlates with judicial time in the competitive framework, which by its very nature demands rapid reactions, the ADR process meets concrete corporate needs. At the core of this active and complex process of globalisation, corporations adapt their conflict management strategies through ways which best serve their interests. Risk prevention is a priority, risk management a daily challenge and the adaptation to the evolving context, in space and time, the sign of efficiency of the normative tools used. Thus, ADR and its involvement in the globalisation process, raises anew the issue of the legitimacy of law and court justice. This phenomenon has been qualified as negotiated or consensual justice, but is it at its core a form of justice, even an alternative one? The answer to this question mainly depends on the overall understanding of the ADR phenomenon. That is why this thesis proposes to view it as more than just a simple implementation of a consensual dispute resolution tool as it is often depicted, but more genuinely as the expression of a developing legal order. Approved by its main users, the ADR process has become an instrument of fair and effective justice and has captured the concept of justice in its essence rather than in its structure

Le développement des modes alternatifs de règlement des différends dans les contrats administratifs est une nécessité. En effet, l’encombrement des juridictions administratives, conjugué au besoin d’un règlement des différends plus consensuel et apaisé, plaide en faveur de l’émergence d’une justice alternative. Néanmoins, l’ordre public encadrant l’activité des personnes publiques, et protégé par des normes impératives, impose que le développement des modes alternatifs soit régulé. À ce titre, l’étude du droit positif démontre que ce phénomène n’est pas inconnu dans le règlement des différends intéressant les contrats administratifs. Par exemple, les parties à un différend peuvent déjà librement recourir aux modes amiables (médiation, conciliation ou transaction), et quelques dérogations au principe d’interdiction faite aux personnes publiques de recourir à l’arbitrage sont prévues. Cela étant, les lacunes et les défaillances du régime actuel des modes alternatifs dans les contrats administratifs (absence de véritable statut du médiateur, défaut d’encadrement de la conciliation inter partes, complexité de la notion de concessions réciproques ou, encore, difficulté pour le juge administratif d’asseoir sa compétence en matière d’arbitrage international...) complexifient leur compréhension et leur mise en œuvre et risquent, par suite, d’accroître les violations de l’ordre public. Il est donc nécessaire de proposer un régime pérenne des modes alternatifs permettant d’assurer, d’une part, la protection des normes impératives du droit public et, d’autre part, la liberté des parties dans le choix et la conduite d’une justice alternative. Pour cela, leur futur régime devra autoriser l’arbitrage dans les contrats administratifs et le doter de garanties procédurales prenant en compte sa nature spécifique mais, aussi, certaines caractéristiques inhérentes aux personnes publiques et au droit administratif. De même, les procédures de médiation et de conciliation devront être améliorées afin d’assurer aux parties, un encadrement souple et favorable à la conclusion de transactions équilibrées et sécurisées. Enfin, ce régime devra définitivement consacrer le rôle du juge administratif. À cet effet, ce dernier pourra être amené à assister les parties dans la mise en œuvre des modes alternatifs (création d’un juge administratif d’appui dans l’arbitrage, combinaison des procédures de référé avec les modes amiables...). Le juge administratif devra être aussi chargé du contrôle de conformité de la solution alternative à l’ordre public. Cette attribution de compétence, qui résonne de plus fort en matière d’arbitrage international, est indispensable à la protection de l’intérêt public. Ce n’est qu’à ces conditions, que le développement des modes alternatifs de règlement des différends pourra prendre toute sa place dans les contrats administratifs
The development of alternative dispute resolution in administrative contracts is a necessity. Indeed, the congestion of the administrative courts, combined with the need for a more consensual and calm settlement of disputes, pleads in favour of the emergence of an alternative justice. Nevertheless, the public order governing the activities of public bodies, and protected by imperative norms, requires that the development of alternative methods be regulated. As such, the study of positive law shows that this phenomenon is not unknown in the settlement of disputes concerning administrative contracts. For instance, the parties to a dispute can already freely resort to amicable methods (mediation, conciliation or settlement agreement), and some exceptions to the principle prohibiting public bodies from resorting to arbitration are provided for. However, the voids and shortcomings of the current system of alternative dispute resolution in administrative contracts (lack of proper status of the mediator, paucity of framework for inter partes conciliation, complexity of the concept of reciprocal concessions or, difficulty for the administrative judge to assert its competence in international arbitration...) make its understanding and implementation more complex and more prone to increasing public order violations. It is therefore necessary to propose a sustainable regime of alternative methods to ensure, on the one hand, the protection of peremptory norms of public law and, on the other hand, the freedom of the parties in the choice and conduct of an alternative justice. For that purpose, the future regime will have to authorize arbitration in administrative contracts and endow it with procedural guarantees taking into account its specific nature but also certain characteristics inherent in public entities and administrative law. Furthermore, the mediation and conciliation procedures will have to be improved in order to provide the parties with a flexible framework conducive to the conclusion of balanced and secure settlement agreements. Finally, this regime must definitively establish the role of the administrative judge. To this end, that judge may be called upon to assist the parties in the implementation of alternative methods (creation of an administrative support judge in arbitration, combination of interim reliefs with amicable procedures...). The administrative judge must also be responsible for checking the compliance of the alternative solution to the public order. This attribution of jurisdiction, which is resonates all the more in international arbitration, is fundamental for the protection of the public interest. It is only under these conditions that the development of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms can take its place in administrative contracts

Vu la nature complexe de la matière fiscale et son lien étroit à un environnement évolutif, le litige entre contribuables et administration devient une réalité inéluctable. Aujourd’hui, la pratique fiscale révèle que la voie juridictionnelle n’est pas toujours la meilleure façon de satisfaire aux besoins des litigants. Sous cet angle, le fisc veut instaurer de nouveaux instruments de règlement du litige, dit modes amiables, pour des nouveaux rapports avec le contribuable. En effet, la DGI examine aujourd’hui les différentes dimensions de ses litiges avec les contribuables, dont le but est d’aboutir à une gestion participative. Pour ce faire, elle cherche à mettre en place une pratique qui fournit de nouvelles manières d’aborder les difficultés. Il s’agit d’une nouvelle approche qui se focalise sur les éléments les plus importants du litige, elle propose un mode de règlement amiable de style coopératif, visant d’abord à identifier les intérêts mutuels pour une solution consensuelle. Cette pratique non juridictionnelle du règlement de litige évolue très rapidement. Elle a suscité un débat passionnant au sein de la théorie du droit public, tant sur le plan du fond que sur le plan de la forme. Les spécialistes ont débattus en effet les différentes possibilités juridiques de l’intégrer dans les procédures et de la mettre en examen pour tester sa comptabilité avec le système fiscal. Au bout du compte, la pratique qui a été admise par la DGI est celle de règlement négocié du litige, aboutissant à une transaction. Cette évolution reflète la montée en puissance de l’autorité de la fonction consultative en matière fiscale. En pratique, cela entraîne l’invention des instruments administratifs ou juridiques propres à l’administration fiscale qui facilitent le mécanisme de règlement du litige. L’incorporation des pratiques amiables reconnaît l’intérêt croissant de faire face au litige, mais quelques améliorations restent encore à réaliser, car le mécanisme a besoin d’un appui législatif et juridique, mais aussi d’une véritable volonté d’éliminer tout litige de la part du contribuable
Given the complex legal nature of the tax and its close connection to a changing environment in Morocco, the conflict between the tax administration and its users become an inescapable reality. The judicial process was and is the traditional tool to adjust, but the Moroccan tax practice today reveals that this route is not always the best way to meet the needs of litigants. From this angle, the Moroccan tax legislator wants to introduce new tax disputes resolution tools for new relations between the tax authorities and taxpayers. The Moroccan tax administration examines now the different dimensions of his disputes with the different categories of taxpayers. The long term goal is to achieve participatory management of disputes. To this end, the DGI seeks to put in place following the new instruments that provide new ways to see the disputes that may arise between different tax services and their users. The current approach focuses on the most important elements of the conflict between the administration of the taxpayer, and that impact on how to approach and manage. This approach offers alternative methods of settling tax disputes cooperative style first to identify mutual interests for a consensual solution. These non-judicial methods of settling tax disputes evolve very quickly in the Moroccan case. They aroused passionate debate in the theory of public law, both on the substance of the plan on the level of form. Moroccan specialists have indeed discussed the various legal possibilities of integrating them into the overall system of dispute resolution, which have been under investigation to test their compatibility with the tax system. The accepted and mastered by DGI modes are negotiated settlement of tax disputes techniques such as negotiation and transaction. Other collection methods and under different and innovative forms in tax matters are being explored to integrate into the system. This reflects the rise of the authority of the advisory function in tax matters. In practice, this leads to the invention of administrative or legal instruments to the tax authorities that facilitate dispute resolution mechanism. Thus, the incorporation of alternative dispute resolution recognizes the growing interest to deal with tax disputes, but some improvements are still to be made, since the mechanism needs a legislative and legal support in Morocco, but also a real willingness to eliminate tax disputes from Moroccan citizens

For many executives and other participants in the mining industry, litigation or arbitration is an avenue of last resort; the resolution of disputes is a priority. This chapter focuses on the informal resolution of international or domestic disputes, often referred to as alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The various forms of ADR differ from international arbitration in that they provide for a non-binding means to assist the parties in attempting to reach an amicable consensual resolution of the dispute. While mediation and conciliation are the most widely used form of non-arbitration ADR, parties also use other forms of ADR such as expert determinations, mini-trials, and neutral evaluations. One of the incentives for parties to amicably resolve an intentional mining dispute is that it gives them the opportunity to restore or improve the original bargain. The final section of the chapter discusses the timing and procedural steps of ADR.

This commentary analyses Article 10.7 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the effects of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) on limitation periods. The provisions of Arts 10.5 and 10.6 apply with appropriate modifications to other proceedings whereby the parties request a third person to assist them in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of their dispute. This commentary considers the definition of ADR and three requirements that must be met for a suspension of the limitation period in accordance with Art 10.7. It also discusses appropriate modifications with regard to the commencement and end of suspension of the limitation period.

AbstractThis chapter maps the structure of the Nordic justice systems and explores whether and why one could argue that there is a ‘Nordic’ structure. The aim is also to examine recent changes and to investigate whether these entail a cultural shift in some or all Nordic countries. It examines shifts in the intended functions of the courts; changes in the court structure; and the use of alternative dispute resolution outside courts. It argues that the while the private functions of Nordic courts have been accentuated in recent decades in that courts are increasingly expected to facilitate amicable solutions, while alternative dispute resolution outside courts has also been important. It also discusses how the ideal of the generalist judge has been important in consolidating the Nordic court structure. While most of these changes are congruent across the Nordic countries, and have hence strengthened the Nordic court culture, differences among the countries regarding recourse against administrative decisions are growing. New differences among the Nordic countries have emerged and these do not follow the existing divide between the East-Nordic and the West-Nordic countries.

This chapter assesses dispute resolution in Islamic finance. Simply referred to as ‘IDR’ (Islamic Dispute Resolution), this Shari’a-based form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) not only provides desperately needed subject matter expertise in Islamic finance dispute resolution but at the same time accommodates Islamic legal values and traditions in resolving the disputes that inevitably arise in the context of Islamic finance. As with construction arbitration, or labour arbitration, or any other subject-specific ADR process, IDR for Islamic finance is simply another mode of private commercial adjudication. Moreover, from the viewpoint of the State, it is much less threatening than a parallel system of Shari’a courts, which may reach decisions over which the State has no ultimate say. In fact, contrasted with such a parallel system, absent an amicable settlement—in which case the State would have no stake or direct interest anyway—the ultimate adjudication by an IDR intermediary would be subject to review and affirmation by the courts as an arbitral award. Rather than popular or state resistance to the idea of IDR, currently the greatest obstacle to increased and more widespread implementation of IDR for Islamic finance disputes is insufficient expertise and extremely limited facilitative legal and institutional frameworks.

In managing the action, the presiding judge has to apply the general principles of case management set out in Rule 332 with the competences set out in Rule 334. The presiding judge may—as with the judge rapporteur during the interim procedure—inform the parties about the services offered by the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre and support the parties proactively in reaching an amicable resolution of their dispute (→ Rule 332(e) and (f) UPCARoP).

This chapter examines the various ways in which merchants dealt with actual disputes over business transactions. Drawing on the available evidence on commercial litigation in Bruges, Antwerp, and Amsterdam, it shows that merchants used a combination of peer pressure, arbitration, local court proceedings, and, occasionally, appeals to central courts to end their disputes, albeit with an overwhelming preference for amicable settlement. The chapter first provides an overview of amicable settlement in the three cities before discussing commercial litigation in Bruges, the courts in Antwerp, and conflict resolution in Amsterdam. It also considers the role of the central courts in settling disputes between merchants and concludes with an analysis of law merchant (lex mercatoria) in the three cities. The chapter shows that urban magistrates allowed merchants to use arbiters to settle disputes amicably and according to their own chosen standard.

Islamic ethics provides a compact infrastructure for conflict management. Islamic ethics mandates maintaining a shura (expert or advisory council) as a permanent feature of the society or an organisation to handle conflicts amicably. Appointment of a muslih (mediator) in case of a conflict must be a key feature of workplace according to Islamic ethics with responsibilities of (1) verifications and (2) nasihah (advice). The Qur'an gives precise guidance toward conflict management and resolution with prescribed hierarchy by directing believers to refer to the Qur'an and Prophetic traditions to settle disputes. This chapter discusses that the impact of religion and religiosity at the workplace cannot be ignored in almost all aspect of management; it takes even more importance when it comes to developing conflict management strategies.