The study discusses amicable dispute resolution in the light of the constitutional principle of the right to a trial and the constitutional concept of the “administration of justice”. In the paper, the author outlines the definitions and doctrinal approaches present in the ongoing debate in the Polish literature on the status of forms of amicable dispute resolution in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 1997. De lege ferenda, the author considers it practical and socially justified to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Poland by explicitly specifying the place of arbitration dispute resolution in the hierarchical system of the Basic Law, hence, as the principle of the right to a trial in its broad meaning, i.e., as the right to an effective means of dispute resolution, as well as by defining relevant relations with the conceptual scope of the “administration of justice”.

Arbitration has over the years gained prominence as a preferred method for dispute resolution especially for cross-border commercial disputes. One of the reasons is that the parties want to resolve their dispute in privacy and obtain an enforceable award as soon as possible. The choice of the arbitral seat during the negotiation of any international commercial arbitration agreement is perhaps one of the most overlooked influential aspects over the course of the arbitral procedures. The importance of a wise choice of an arbitral seat generally has two aspects, one of logistical convenience and the other is of a legal effect. For reason of the crucial legal effects of the place of arbitration, the parties have to be sure that they have chosen the best suitable jurisdiction as the seat of arbitration. The article will further analyse the concept of the seat of arbitration, its role, and importance in international commercial arbitration. It will also examine by reviewing the drawbacks of Nigeria as a preferred seat of international arbitration, particularly on the arbitration legislation and the respective judicial supervision and support in effectively conducting arbitration within the jurisdiction.

The Guarantor or an Arbitrator? The Role of the President of the Republic of Poland in the Light of Art. 126 sec. 1 of the Polish Constitution

The author of the study claims that assigning the role of an arbitrator to the President of the Republic of Poland is incorrect. It is a misleading reference to the constitutional position of the President of the Fifth French Republic, who vests much stronger power. It deprives the function of the guarantor of the continuity of power, referred to in Art. 126 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, of its content and systemic significance. The President of the Republic is not impartial and apolitical and takes part in the implementation of state policy. These features prevent him from taking a neutral position towards the participants in the conflict and from resolving it impartially. In addition, the Polish Constitution does not equip him with the appropriate competencies.

The article presents maters of contemporary Labour Law and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Switzerland, regulated – or “outlined” – for the first time only recently. Amongst main things the study refers to such matters as: arbitration and collective employment contracts, mediation, and arbitrability of international and domestic labour disputes. These are presented thoroughly and compared with conclusions, and future options.