Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNguyen Thi Hoa
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-18T12:20:04Z
dc.date.available2022-08-18T12:20:04Z
dc.date.issued2022/06/23
dc.identifier.other%28ASCE%29LA.1943-4170.0000550.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4286445
dc.description.abstractInternational construction is a significant element of world trade. In the international construction sector, forms of contract have become necessary and International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) forms of contract have progressively emerged. Since 1999, under FIDIC forms, the dispute adjudication board (DAB) has been empowered to resolve disputes between parties to a contract by making a binding decision. Therefore, enforcement of the DAB’s decision attracts attention from practitioners. In regard to the enforcement of a dispute settlement decision, there are two important international treaties: the Singapore Convention on mediation and the New York Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Thus, the main focus of this paper is a response to the question: Should the FIDIC DAB’s decision be considered as an award to be enforced under the New York Convention 1958 or as a mediated settlement agreement under the Singapore Convention?
dc.publisherASCE
dc.titleConsideration of whether the FIDIC Dispute Adjudication Board’s Decision Should Be Regarded as an Award or as a Mediated Settlement Agreement
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.journal.volume14
dc.journal.issue4
dc.journal.titleJournal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
dc.identifier.doi10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000550
dc.journal.fristpage04522016
dc.journal.lastpage04522016-8
dc.page8
dc.treeJournal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction:;2022:;Volume ( 014 ):;issue: 004
dc.contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record