<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>Enhancing the viability of maritime arbitration for trade dispute resolution in Tanzania</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2567583</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Maritime arbitration holds untapped potential for transforming trade dispute resolution within Tanzania’s vital maritime sector. Despite its advantages of speed, cost-effectiveness, and specialized expertise, the adoption of maritime arbitration remains limited due to legal, institutional, and awareness-related barriers. This study explores the current state of maritime arbitration in Tanzania, identifying key challenges such as insufficient legal frameworks, limited awareness among stakeholders, and a shortage of trained arbitrators. Through a qualitative approach, involving interviews, surveys, and a comprehensive review of legal documents, the research offers actionable insights to enhance arbitration’s effectiveness in resolving disputes. The findings highlight the need for targeted reforms, including aligning national laws with international standards, establishing training programs for arbitrators, and promoting awareness of arbitration’s benefits to the maritime community. These improvements promise not only faster and more cost-efficient dispute resolution but also a boost to Tanzania’s regional trade competitiveness. By fostering a transparent and predictable arbitration environment, Tanzania can position itself as a strategic hub for maritime trade in East Africa, attracting international investors and strengthening its role in global supply chains. The study’s recommendations offer a blueprint for other emerging maritime economies seeking to elevate their dispute resolution frameworks, emphasizing the broader relevance of Tanzania’s approach in shaping more integrated and resilient maritime sector worldwide.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 14:39:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2567583</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Resolving Construction Disputes: Review of State DOT Processes</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2422617</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes, such as mediation, dispute review boards, and arbitration, are tools that save time and money in resolving disputes concerning the construction of transportation projects. However, given the nature of these processes, their results on transportation projects are generally not accessible or found in a central location. This legal research digest (digest) provides a thorough review of the various dispute resolution processes used by state departments of transportation (DOTs) and the outcomes of those processes. This digest examines: State statutes and regulations that govern the resolution of disputes; Processes state DOTs are using for the resolution of construction disputes; and Rules used for the different ADR processes (e.g., timing, makeup, administration of panels, enforcement of contract clauses) and how the rules affect the outcome of disputes. Also, this digest provides an in-depth analysis of the use of arbitration among those DOTs that have used this binding dispute process. The analysis includes (1) contract provisions that arbitrators are regularly asked to enforce; (2) sample fact patterns; (3) levels of proof required to prove damages; and (4) differences in the levels of discovery conducted in arbitration versus proceedings in court. This digest would be helpful to all persons involved in transportation construction dispute resolutions, specifically administrators, attorneys, program officers, contracting officers, and risk managers.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2024 16:21:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2422617</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Arbitration in Public-Private Partnership Contracts: The MG-050 Highway Case Study</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2040506</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The arbitration in the Brazilian legal system and the consequent expansion and visibility of this instrument was brought up by the enactment of Law no 9.307/2006 (Brazilian Arbitration Law). The ratification and promulgation of the New York Convention by Decree no 4.311/2002, 44 years after the Convention held in 1958, conjointly to other regional conventions also address the issue of arbitration. Thus, Brazil incorporates arbitration in its legal practice as an alternative to litigation in a less consuming time.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:25:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2040506</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Legal Problems Arising out of Highway Programs. Topic 26-02. Analysis of Arbitration and Holdings in Construction Disputes</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1889476</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Arbitration can be a useful tool to save time and money in resolving disputes concerning the construction of transportation projects, but the process can be opaque and risky since the results are rarely made public. State departments of transportation (DOTs) would benefit from a database of the various dispute resolution processes being implemented, and the outcomes of those processes that could be used to spot trends in the processes and the results. The research team will ask state DOTs to share what processes they use to resolve construction disputes and the results from those processes, while working closely with the states to protect confidential and privileged information. Many of the available court records and reports may have sections redacted, but even heavily redacted information may be useful to help spot trends in processes and results since very little data currently exists. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to produce a legal research digest that includes the following:
1.    What state statutes or regulations are in place governing resolution of disputes?
2.    What processes are DOTs using for resolution of construction disputes (e.g., contracting officer decisions, executive directors or transportation commission decisions, mediation, dispute review boards (binding) or panels (non-binding), arbitration (binding, dispute size limits, etc.), and litigation)?
3.    What rules are used for the different processes (e.g., timing, makeup, and administration of panels, enforcement of contract clauses) and how do the rules affect the outcome of disputes?
4.    Analysis of binding dispute process decisions to determine whether it’s a useful tool to save time and money for construction disputes. Identify: (1) contract provisions that arbitrators are typically asked to enforce; (2) fact patterns and other issues that cause arbitrators to deviate from settled law and contract terms; (3) levels of proof required to prove damages; (4) percentage of holdings that materially deviate from settled law; and (5) differences in the levels of discovery conducted between the arbitration hearings and similar court hearings. 
 
]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 2021 15:06:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1889476</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Critical Analysis of Contract Clauses in Road Sector: Case Study</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1740032</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Construction litigation in the infrastructure sector has long had the potential of locking in investments. The court case in this study finally ended, with the judgment delivered by the high court of Delhi, on March 16, 2012. The court itself took 2.25 years to adjudicate and give its judgment. The case was filed challenging the arbitration award by a public authority. The reason for challenging the award arose out of claims emanating from alleged extra costs incurred by the respondent, particularly in the extended period of the contract which were upheld by the arbitral tribunal. The grant of extension of time was never a controversy in the present case, but the related costs formed the core issues under arbitration, followed by the litigation. The claims included amount against loss of profit and financing charges, and the award against these two claims by the tribunal was finally struck down by the court. The court was of the opinion that these two claims were beyond the scope of the contract provisions and that they were not costs but damages. The judgment in the case did not violate the established doctrine of precedent.” The award pronounced by the arbitral tribunal was not in the true spirit of the settled principles of law and not aligned to the appropriate interpretation of the clauses stipulated in the contract. Therefore, the judgment delivered by the high court quashed and modified many of the awarded amounts; still, this wasn’t a case of violation of the doctrine of precedent by any stretch of imagination. However, there are many cases where precedent has been violated. Examples of such cases include ONGC v. Saw Pipes Ltd. Although interference by courts is undesirable and it is settled that facts need not be appreciated again, the present case involved a mixing of facts and law with pure law. The methodology adopted involves ensuring the compliance of general and specific conditions stipulated while granting environmental clearance. These conditions comprise, for example, (1) whether or not a sewage treatment plant was built for the construction workers, (2) whether or not compensatory afforestation was taken up and completed, and (3) ensuring that the natural profile of the slopes were not disturbed. Whether or not these conditions were complied with by the concessionaire and public authority needed to be evaluated. Constraints to ensure compliance needed to be mitigated. This paper contributes toward greater awareness on the part of contract framers of apt language to be used when detailing contract clauses and provisions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2020 12:25:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1740032</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A win for the worker : truck driver earns the right to a class action lawsuit after a Supreme Court victory</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1602894</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Supreme Court ruling in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2019 12:10:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1602894</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court case could limit carrier use of arbitration process</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1585585</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Discussion of oral arguments in New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2019 15:09:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1585585</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Carrier arbitration issue argued before high court</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1585404</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Arguments in New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2019 15:05:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1585404</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>High court rules contractors may challenge fleets in court</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1584105</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Supreme Court ruling in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2019 15:54:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1584105</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Twenty Years of Prompt Release of Vessels: Admissibility, Jurisdiction, and Recent Trends</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1514409</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has a residual compulsory jurisdiction regarding the prompt release of seized vessels. This procedure is one of the novelties introduced in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and is unique in the international judicial universe because of both its procedural characteristics and its functions. This article highlights how prompt release cases do not necessarily stem from a dispute. This has a direct consequence for those whose interests the procedure protects and who can submit an application. The last part of this article discusses the recent trend where the release of vessels and crews has been requested in the context of provisional measures applications.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2018 14:44:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1514409</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Obligation to Negotiate in the Philippines v. China Case: a Critique of the Award on Jurisdiction</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1499519</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The two states in the Philippines v. China Case have continually reaffirmed in multiple documents and the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea that they agreed to resolve their disputes in the South China Sea through consultations and negotiations. However, the Arbitral Tribunal in its Award on Jurisdiction held that no obligation of negotiation was provided for in these instruments because they were not legally binding agreements. Moreover, the Tribunal found that the Philippines had satisfied the “obligation to seek a solution through pacific means, including negotiation.” There are problems and deficiencies in the reasoning of the Tribunal respecting these findings.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2018 16:40:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1499519</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Historic Titles and Historic Rights in the Law of the Sea in the Light of the South China Sea Arbitration</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1499534</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Historic titles and historic rights have been a complicated issue in the law of the sea both conceptually and practically. The South China Sea Arbitration between the Philippines and China raised important issues regarding the contemporary relevance and validity of historic claims, and the relationship between the Law of the Sea Convention and historic rights. This articles examines historic rights and historic titles in the law of the sea in the light of the South China Sea Arbitration and evaluates the contribution of the Tribunal's Awards to the clarification of these concepts.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2018 16:40:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1499534</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Philippines v China: assessing the implications of the South China Sea arbitration</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1498622</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The question concerning the legality of China’s nine dash line has been the subject of arbitration proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague. The case, which was submitted to the PCA by the Philippines for adjudication, raised issues which went beyond the main question concerning the legal status of the dash line as a maritime boundary under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 provisions. These included, inter alia, complaints concerning China’s activities within the area enclosed by the nine dash line, the status of maritime features within the maritime enclosure and alleged environmental damage caused by Chinese dredging and infrastructure-building activities within the contested area. On 12 July 2016 the PCA rendered its judgement on the merits of the case. The main objective of this paper is to critically assess the implications of the PCA’s decision for the region and for the international law of the sea.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:14:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1498622</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court to hear case on arbitration, driver pay</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1507443</link>
      <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2018 11:36:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1507443</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Ramp Up on Class Action Litigation in the United States — Impact on the Cargo Industry</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1483005</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This short article considers the impact of class action litigation on the cargo industry in the United States.  The authors remind readers that class action lawsuits are those in which one or more employees sue on behalf of a group of employees.  Claims alleged in these suits are often related to federal or state laws regulating employee wages and hours.  The cargo-handling industry may be particularly vulnerable to these wage and hour class action lawsuits because of the time-sensitive demands in this industry.  The author reviews how class actions are authorized by Federal code, the impact of different states or localities, and specific concerns with California’s strict wage and hour requirements regarding employee’s meal periods.  The author concludes with a section of tips for employers, including utilizing arbitration agreements in which employees waive their right to sue on a class basis; ensuring that the company’s written policies comply with applicable laws; and monitoring the practices in the real-world workplace setting.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:20:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1483005</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>