Latest news with #disputeresolution
Forbes
10 hours ago
- Business
- Forbes
Dispute Resolution: Is Decentralization The Answer?
Saro McKenna is the CEO of Dacoco GmbH and cofounder of Alien Worlds. Although the godfather of online dispute resolution, Ethan Katsh, once observed that "the power of technology to resolve disputes is exceeded by the power of technology to generate disputes," as human beings, we cannot help ourselves. Even the prospect of AI sentience and bots capable of overpowering their flesh-and-bone creators cannot halt our penchant for relentlessly leveraging tech to achieve advancement in one area or another. As far as disputes are concerned, the technology that has increasingly been used to intercede is blockchain. This is no surprise. Of all the suggested use cases for a censor- and tamper-proof decentralized digital ledger, jurisprudence rightly ranks high. Over the past decade, many technologists have attempted to adapt traditional legal concepts and resolve conflicts on-chain, with mixed success. So, why is blockchain considered the best "lawtech" tool to settle disputes? Decentralized dispute resolution is appealing because of its ability to bypass centralized authorities that are prone to bias or bureaucracy. Smart contracts and empowered jurors streamline arbitration, handling all kinds of disputes with transparency. As traditional legal systems often prove unwieldy or unfit for specific disagreements, DDR offers fast, fair outcomes. Evidently, there are many factors that entice developers to build Web3 protocols that are concerned with dispute resolution. Blockchain, being apolitical, decentralized and transparent, is perceived to be perhaps the best vehicle for administering justice when two or more parties are in disagreement. These parties can consist of individuals or even companies and governments. Perhaps blockchain is too broad a term, however, because it is often specific features of certain chains, like decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and smart contracts, that prove useful in an arbitration capacity. The economic incentives baked into blockchains are another important consideration, with the general idea being that users can become jurors, reviewing evidence and voting for the party they believe is right. In blockchain-based systems, jurors are usually financially motivated to make a sound judgment, i.e., one that accords with the majority. Kleros is one of the earliest examples of a decentralized adjudication system, one that uses jurors and game theory to produce judgments in a secure and inexpensive way. Founded in 2017, the Ethereum-based arbitration service was designed to "resolve any kind of dispute," building on the work of early Web3 pioneers like Vitalik Buterin and Paul Sztorc, whose idea to use Schelling Point-based incentives for blockchain oracles gave rise to the notion of "decentralized truth-telling." In the case of Kleros, the probability of crowdsourced jurors being selected is proportional to the amount of tokens staked. Staking, then, signifies one's willingness to participate in the adjudication process in contrast to the traditional court system, where jurors are selected at random. Arbitration fees, meanwhile, make it difficult for attackers to spam the system by creating frivolous disputes. Many similar protocols appeared around this time, among them Jur (2018) and Aragon (2016). While the former focused on enterprise use cases and selected jurors based on their reputation rather than token stake, the latter favored a subscription model and was intended for arbitration within DAOs themselves. Although they held promise, neither project is currently actively maintained. The popularization of DeFi around 2020 prompted renewed interest in dispute resolution, most notably in the case of the UMA protocol's Data Verification Mechanism (DVM), which resolves disputes about the price of a synthetic token derivative contract. This type of system, of course, has a much narrower focus than projects like Kleros, which seek to be multipurpose courts. A watershed moment for DDR occurred in 2021 when a Mexican court enforced a decentralized arbitration award governed by Kleros, which related to a real estate dispute. Last year, Mexico also passed the General Law of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms, the first national legislation recognizing decentralized justice as a valid dispute resolution system. Central to the premise of DDR is the idea that arbiters can come to a fair and transparent judgment based on the available evidence: the wisdom of the crowd, enforced on-chain. Arbiters play a key role in the recently unveiled Worker Proposal System of blockchain-based metaverse Alien Worlds (which I cofounded), which is centered on the activity of various DAOs. While the system empowers users to suggest and execute new projects, arbiters act as neutral mediators in any disputes that arise. For example, arbiters can step in and cast a deciding vote when there is a disagreement about project milestones. In this particular arbitration model, a blockchain escrow account is also used since the Worker Proposal System is designed to furnish the awarded party with tokens for meeting pre-agreed targets. Arbiters must complete an identity verification process, demonstrate a solid understanding of the Alien Worlds ecosystem, commit to a minimum term of four months to ensure continuity and dedicate specific weekly hours to their role. They are also paid a set rate for performing this role. As the primary contributor to Alien Worlds, my company, Dacoco, takes a notable approach to dispute resolution by blending Web2 and Web3 concepts in a unique way. While disputes are enforced on-chain, and a DAO system transparently manages worker proposals, the arbiter functions similarly to an independent mediator in any traditional legal process. In other words, Dacoco is not relying entirely on blockchain to adjudicate. In most cases, protocols promising to administer decentralized justice have failed to achieve their objectives, whether due to technical, market or other challenges. This is a great shame because on-chain arbitration offers many advantages over a sluggish legal system that is notorious for its inequity (the most powerful people can afford the best litigators) and complexity. Although decentralized dispute resolution has yet to gain widespread adoption, and many challenges remain, expect lawtech solutions to grow more sophisticated over time and for traditional courts to follow Mexico's lead in recognizing such systems. In a sense, it is analogous to the way in which the financial world has gradually recognized Bitcoin, a consequence of the number of individuals storing their wealth in the network. Ultimately, the best and most efficient solutions have a tendency to break into the spotlight. Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?
Associated Press
09-06-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
Globally Recognized Arbitration Practitioner J.P. Duffy Joins Bracewell's New York Office
New York, New York--(Newsfile Corp. - June 9, 2025) - Bracewell LLP announced today that James P. (J.P.) Duffy IV has joined the firm's New York office as a partner in Bracewell's international arbitration practice from Reed Smith LLP. Duffy is a globally recognized arbitration leader who has been acknowledged as one of the 10 'Most Highly Regarded' international arbitration partners in the Americas by Global Arbitration Review's Who's Who Legal. He has represented clients across various industries in international arbitrations conducted under all major arbitral rules in the United States, Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America, with a strong geographic focus on regions such as MENA, the Indian sub-continent, Sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia. 'We are thrilled to welcome J.P. to the firm,' said Bracewell Managing Partner Gregory M. Bopp. 'J.P.'s extensive experience and recognition as a leader in international arbitration will enhance our ability to serve the complex needs of our global clients.' Duffy regularly sits as an arbitrator in commercial disputes. He is listed on the arbitrator rosters of most major arbitral institutions. He conducts arbitration-related litigation globally and is qualified in New York, England & Wales and the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts. Duffy also practiced as a foreign legal consultant in the Dubai office of an international law firm. 'J.P.'s experience with disputes in emerging markets will expand the scope of our international arbitration practice and aligns well with the work currently being done out of New York and London by practice co-leads Martin Gusy and John Gilbert,' said Stephen B. Crain, chair of the firm's litigation section and member of the firmwide management committee. 'J.P.'s arrival will also help us expand our offerings in the MENA Region, Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa,' Crain added. Duffy received his J.D., cum laude, from St. John's University School of Law in 2001, and earned his B.A. from Colgate University in 1998. Before entering private practice, Duffy served as a law clerk to the Honorable Thomas C. Platt in the Eastern District of New York. 'Bracewell's strong platform, culture and deep commitment to international arbitration makes it a great fit for my practice,' said Duffy. 'I look forward to working with my new colleagues around the firm to build out a leading international arbitration practice, and to representing clients around the world facing complex international arbitrations.' [ This image cannot be displayed. Please visit the source: ] J.P. Duffy, Bracewell LLP, Partner To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit: About Bracewell LLP Bracewell is a leading law and government relations firm primarily serving the energy, infrastructure, finance and technology industries throughout the world. Our industry focus results in comprehensive state-of-the-art knowledge of the commercial, legal and governmental challenges faced by our clients and enables us to provide innovative solutions to facilitate transactions and resolve disputes. Contact: Bob Schranz T: +1.713.221.1470 E: [email protected] ### To view the source version of this press release, please visit
CNA
06-06-2025
- Politics
- CNA
'Culturally sensitive' mediation: Can a new China-led international outfit earn global trust?
SINGAPORE: A new international mediation group spearheaded by China - with most of its founding members from Asia, Africa and the Caribbean - could serve as a 'softer' alternative to existing dispute resolution bodies like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) that are perceived to be Western-led, analysts say. Signed into law on May 30 at a ceremony in Hong Kong presided over by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, the International Organisation for Mediation (IOMed) aims to 'resolve world issues through dialogue and understanding'. 'The establishment of the IOMed helps to move beyond the zero-sum mindset of 'you lose and I win',' said Wang, who also hailed it as an 'innovative step in international rule of law'. 'It will fill an institutional gap in international mediation and serve as an important public good in the field of the rule of law for better global governance,' he added. Analysts observe that the IOMed is being positioned as a model that is more acutely attuned to cultural sensitivities. 'What sets IOMed apart from institutions like the ICJ or PCA is its philosophical orientation,' said Kun Fan, an arbitrator and associate professor at the University of New South Wales (UNSW). 'While those global bodies centre on binding adjudication, IOMed will adopt a softer, consensus-based model grounded in mediation, compromise and cultural sensitivity,' she added. Enthusiasm and support from developing countries have also signalled Beijing's efforts to court the Global South, experts noted. Global bodies like the ICJ, PCA and International Criminal Court (ICC), 'lack objectivity and neutrality and cannot be trusted to deliver justice in global governance', said Joyce Chimbi, a journalist from Kenya, one of 33 countries which joined the IOMed. 'Africa has long been dissatisfied with the existing world order, especially with international dispute settlement instruments bred in the West, which are often blind to the cultural sensitivities of African states and their societies,' Chimbi told the Chinese state tabloid Global Times after Friday's signing ceremony. She also noted the significant role China played in brokering a reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran back in 2023 - a deal hailed as a major step towards peace and stability in the Middle East. 'When China brokered a reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023, it proved that mediation comes with many advantages, including cultural sensitivities and inclusion. It is also cost-effective, flexible, convenient, fast and easy to implement,' Chimbi said. Yet not everyone is convinced by China's growing role as a global mediator. In an era of tariffs, trade wars and heightened geopolitical tensions, analysts said the Chinese-led mediation body will need to earn global credibility and demonstrate impartiality in resolving conflicts. 'What would happen if its rulings differ from the ICJ and other global courts?' said political scientist Chong Ja Ian from the National University of Singapore (NUS). WHO'S IN? Thirty-three countries so far have signed up. Among them, long-term Beijing allies like Cambodia, Pakistan and Belarus - and Pacific nations like Vanuatu, where competition between the US and China has been escalating. Also joining them are multiple African countries including Algeria, Ethiopia, Kenya, Benin, Cameroon, Uganda, Sudan and Zimbabwe. 'The signatories definitely lean towards (being) more China-friendly, but they are also generally countries China wants to court,' noted China analyst Robert Rust from the US science advocacy nonprofit the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). 'Most are also countries in the Global South where China wants to position itself as a global leader.' Also on the list are Venezuela, Iran and Cuba, which Rust described as countries 'targeted or excluded by the US and its connected international bodies to varying degrees'. And for now, the usual China-friendly countries like Russia, as well as Central Asian states, have not signed up as members. 22:28 Min Fan from UNSW also noted that several countries are Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) member-states. 'These early signatories signal that the IOMed is an institution clearly positioned within the BRI ecosystem,' she said. "The aim is not simply to serve disputes but to offer more inclusive and culturally resonant institutional architecture that reflect BRI values and interests." 'NO LOSERS' IN MEDIATION The ICJ, which has its seat in The Hague, is the world's highest court - established after World War Two as a judicial organ of the UN to adjudicate disputes between countries and provide advisory opinions on issues arising under international law. The Chinese-led IOMed will also function on the basis of international law, according to officials, but with a focus on resolving global disputes through mediation. Its scope covers disputes between states, disputes between states and foreign nationals, as well as commercial disputes between private parties. 'Unlike the ICJ or the PCA, which adopt largely adversarial processes based on legal rights, the IOMed will use mediation,' said Lawrence Boo, a Singaporean professor and arbitrator, noting that there are 'no losers' in mediated settlements. While both arbitration and mediation involve neutral third parties, they differ in a crucial way. An arbitrator hears evidence and makes a binding decision. A mediator, by contrast, does not decide the outcome - instead they facilitate difficult conversations to help disputing parties find a mutually acceptable solution. 'Mediation creates space for win-win solutions that foster long-term relationships and preserve sovereignty - priorities that resonate not only with China's vision, but with many countries in the Global South that are seeking more balanced, inclusive dispute resolution mechanisms,' said Fan. 'In that sense, China's leadership in establishing IOMed is both a strategic effort to shape international legal norms and a response to broader demands for more cooperative and culturally sensitive governance frameworks.' IMPACT ON REGIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTRES The new mediation body, headquartered in Hong Kong, aims to cement the city's presence as a top centre to resolve disputes between countries, Chief Executive John Lee said. Work could begin as early as the end of this year, Hong Kong government officials said, revealing that the IOMed would later establish a secretariat and governing council. Signatory countries will be eligible to nominate their own nationals as mediators, said Hong Kong's Secretary for Justice Paul Lam. 'The acceptance and influence of the IOMed will depend much on how it will administer the organisation and more importantly, how professional are their mediators - they must get those in the field and not just political figures,' Boo said, adding that he was 'hopeful initial reservations and anti-China bias would give way to pragmatic acceptance'. Hong Kong is already an arbitration hub, tying with Singapore for second place, behind London, as the top choice for a seat of arbitration this year, according to the 2025 International Arbitration Survey conducted by Queen Mary University of London. While some view the China-led IOMed as a potential competitor to existing dispute resolution centres in the region, analysts say the initiative is more likely to complement rather than displace established players in the region. These include the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) and Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), both of which have earned reputations as leading institutions in Asia. 'We're witnessing the emergence of a more multipolar dispute resolution ecosystem,' said Fan, describing it as multiple tracks 'reflecting different legal traditions and institutional logics, which can be tailored to different users' needs'. Boo views IOMed's arrival as a positive step - particularly in raising global awareness of mediation as a viable and often underused method of resolving international disputes. 'There is now an international organisation willing to champion mediation as the more appropriate form of dispute resolution,' he said. Institutions like Singapore's SIMC and SIAC will 'continue to be relevant', Boo said, suggesting that IOMed might need the 'support of existing institutions to promote its cause'. In his view, increased global awareness of mediation could in fact raise caseloads for SIMC, rather than divert them. He added that arbitration and mediation are not mutually exclusive but 'different nodes of resolving disputes' which could 'grow in tandem without affecting the other'. But IOMed's primary focus would still be on state-to-state disputes as well as Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS) - mechanisms in trade and investment agreements allowing for foreign investors to resolve disputes with foreign governments of countries they are investing in. This is distinctive from commercial caseloads that dominate Singapore's arbitration and mediation landscape, Boo said. 'IMPORTANT QUESTIONS' REMAIN While China has said that the IOMed would adhere to international law and the United Nations Charter, experts have raised questions about its impartiality and credibility. 'Like many major global powers, China often tries to ignore or go around international legal proceedings and rulings which are not in their favour,' said Chong from NUS, noting that Beijing's record of solving disputes tended to be 'primarily political rather than legal'. He recalled Beijing's dismissal of a 2016 landmark PCA decision in the Hague, which ruled in favour of the Philippines - concluding that China had no legal basis to claim historic rights to the bulk of the disputed South China Sea. 'China's new mediation body will ultimately serve as an alternative to the ICJ (by providing) a more suitable legal system which Beijing is comfortable with,' he said. However, major questions remain, Chong said. For instance, he questioned whether the IOMed would be able to rule against Beijing given that courts in both Hong Kong and mainland China have refused to do so in the past, and whether it could also re-litigate decisions made previously at the ICJ. 'Would this encourage other major powers to further ignore international law - if global rulings (elsewhere weren't in their favour)? Could these major powers start setting up their own courts that conform more with their own legal systems and comfort levels?' he asked. 'These are important questions that remain unresolved and ultimately, more questions remain than answers.'
South China Morning Post
30-05-2025
- Business
- South China Morning Post
Hong Kong-based legal body can fill ‘glaring' global gap, justice minister says
A newly established international mediation body headquartered in Hong Kong can fill a gap in existing global dispute resolution systems, the city's justice minister has said, as he stressed the importance of institutional support. Advertisement Secretary for Justice Paul Lam Ting-kwok said on Friday that Hong Kong's advantages under the 'one country, two systems' governing principle made it the most suitable location for setting up the International Organisation for Mediation. Lam was addressing guests at a forum on mediation, held just after 33 countries had signed on to become founding members of the China-led legal body. 'While mediation may be conducted on an ad hoc basis, there are clear advantages to conducting mediation with institutional support,' Lam said. He cited guidance on procedures, the identification of a pool of mediators and help in making appointments as examples of support. Advertisement 'It is most desirable to have an intergovernmental organisation devoted to the use of mediation to resolve international disputes,' he said.
The Independent
30-05-2025
- Business
- The Independent
China establishes mediation forum in Hong Kong to rival International Court of Justice
Dozens of countries joined China on Friday in establishing an international mediation-based dispute resolution group. Representatives of more than 30 other countries, from Pakistan and Indonesia to Belarus and Cuba, signed the Convention on the Establishment of the International Organisation for Mediation in Hong Kong to become founding members of the global organisation, following Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi. The support of developing countries signaled Beijing 's rising influence in the global south amid heightened geopolitical tensions, partly exacerbated by US president Donald Trump 's trade tariffs. At a ceremony, Mr Wang said China has long advocated for handling differences with a spirit of mutual understanding and consensus-building through dialogue, while aiming to provide 'Chinese wisdom' for resolving conflicts between nations. 'The establishment of the International Organisation for Mediation helps to move beyond the zero-sum mindset of 'you lose and I win,'' he said. The body, headquartered in Hong Kong, aims to help promote the amicable resolution of international disputes and build more harmonious global relations, he said. Beijing has touted the organisation as the world's first intergovernmental legal organisation for resolving disputes through mediation, saying it will be an important mechanism in safeguarding the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. It also positioned Hong Kong as an international legal and dispute resolution services center in Asia. Mr Wang said the city's rule of law is highly developed, with the advantages of both common law and mainland Chinese law systems, asserting that it possesses uniquely favorable conditions for international mediation. Hong Kong leader John Lee said the organisation could begin its work as early as the end of this year. The ceremony was attended by representatives from some 50 other countries and about 20 organisations, including the United Nations. Yueming Yan, a law professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said the new organisation is a complementary mechanism to existing institutions such as the International Court of Justice and the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague. 'While the ICJ and PCA focus on adjudication and arbitration, IOMed introduces a structured, institutionalised form of alternative dispute resolution — namely, mediation — on a global scale,' she said. Although many details about the new body are yet to be clarified, it could open the door for greater synergy between formal litigation or arbitration and more flexible methods like mediation, she said. Shahla Ali, a law professor at the University of Hong Kong, said the International Organisation for Mediation would have the capacity to mediate disputes between states, between a state and a national of another state, or in international commercial disputes. 'Conventions can provide opportunities to experiment with new approaches," she said, noting rising interest in mediation globally as a means to resolve investor-state disputes.
