HARBEY PEÑA SANDOVAL, abogado egresado de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia con especialización en Derecho Constitucional de la misma Universidad y en Derecho Contractual y Relaciones Jurídico-Contractuales de la Universidad Externado de Colombia, conciliador en derecho formado en la Universidad Nuestra Señora del Rosario.
Profesional con formación y experiencia en el área de los Mecanismos Alternativos de Solución de Conflictos y la resolución de conflictos. A esta disciplina ha dedicado once años de ejercicio académico y profesional colaborando en diferentes proyectos de implementación de los M.A.S.C. en Colombia.
Se desempeñó como Director del Proyecto de Conciliación para el Tránsito y Transporte en Bogotá en los años 2002 a 2003 y como Profesional Especializado del Grupo de Conciliación y Arbitraje de la Dirección de Acceso a la Justicia del Ministerio del Interior y de Justicia de Colombia en los años 2003 a 2007. Durante el mismo periodo participó en la formación de conciliadores en diferentes universidades e instituciones públicas y privadas en Colombia. En la actualidad se desempeña como docente, consultor en resolución de conflictos y estudia la maestría en Análisis y Resolución de Conflictos en la Universidad de George Mason en Estados Unidos.

El presente documento tiene como objetivo presentar una propuesta académica que integra el modelo de práctica reflexiva en los cursos de formación de mediadores/conciliadores en los países de Hispanoamérica. La práctica reflexiva podría ser entendida como un modelo que ilustra e invita a pensar, preparar, aplicar y desarrollar las habilidades de los operadores de la resolución de conflictos a través de la reflexión. Primero, se describe el modelo de práctica reflexiva; segundo, se analizan tres currículos de capacitación de mediadores/conciliadores como ejemplos de la relación jerárquica entre teoría y práctica y, seguidamente se ofrece una propuesta que integra la práctica reflexiva en la formación de los operadores de la mediación/conciliación. Finalmente, se mencionan algunas conclusiones sobre las ventajas de esta propuesta.

Colegiado:

Ilustre Colegio de Abogados de Madrid, 1969. Barreau de Paris (Colegio de Abogados de París), 1986. Barreau de Bruxelles (Colegio de Abogados de Bruselas), 1986.



Educación:

Universidad de Sevilla (Licenciado en Derecho, 1965; Doctor, 1968); Universität Köln (Ph.D. 1967); Beca Fulbright, 1972; Profesor de Derecho, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.



Miembro:

Ex Representante Español en el Consejo de la International Bar Association; Co-Presidente del Consejo de Arbitraje y ADR del International Bar Association; Presidente de la Corte Española de Arbitraje; Ex Co-Chairman de la International Financial and Secured Transactions Committee de la American Bar Association; Consejo Internacional para Arbitraje Comercial; Cámara de Comercio Internacional del Institute of World Business Law; Ex-Representante de la Federación Española de la Bar Associations (1981-2000); Ex Vicepresidente London Court of Arbitration; Presidente Global Center for Dispute Resolution; Copresidente Foro Hispano-Alemán.



Idiomas:

Español, Francés, Inglés y Alemán.



Áreas de práctica:

Fusiones y Adquisiciones, Derecho Mercantil, Solución de Litigios, Arbitraje Internacional

Han pasado ya unos años desde la entrada en vigor de la Ley de Arbitraje del año 2003 y las expectativas generadas en aquel entonces, con actos incluso presididos por el Jefe del Estado, no se han visto correspondidos por la realidad. El arbitraje se presentó erróneamente como solución a la lentitud de la justicia estatal. El tiempo se ha encargado de confirmar que en un país sólo funciona bien el arbitraje cuando se puede también confiar en la eficacia y celeridad de la Justicia estatal. Es el momento, pues, de reflexionar sobre la situación de arbitraje en España y, más en concreto, del arbitraje celebrado en territorio español.

eith is a Commercial Dispute Resolution partner specialising in heavyweight dispute resolution, including high court /commercial court litigation, domestic and international arbitration, expert determinations, ADR, mediations with particular experience in the energy, construction and financial services sector. He is recognised respectively in the Asia Pacific Legal 500, most recently in the 07/08 edition in the Dispute Resolution section, being described as "having extensive experience of High Court litigation and a growing track record in CIETAC arbitrations", and accredited in the China Law Profiles (Asia Law & Practice) 2008 with the Far East firm being recognised for its Developing China Practice and “noted for its work in Heavy Weight Dispute Resolution”.

He has a varied client base with an international background operating in a diversified number of jurisdictions, with particular experience of the Far East including Hong Kong, mainland China, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and the Middle East, including the Indian sub continent.

In this continuing series about different forms of dispute resolution commonly found in International construction contracts, this article, being Part 2 of an earlier introductory article, seeks to examine the experience of Chinese companies using Dispute Review Boards (“DRB’s”) in construction projects in China.

In Part 1, the authors suggested that DRB’s have growing International recognition with increasing popularity in global construction projects, and the authors of the article suggested that statistics tended to suggest that where DRB’s are used on projects, the likelihood is those projects are less likely to have costly and destructive disputes between the parties which impact so negatively on the eventual out come for project participants.

In Part 2 of the article the authors intend to review whether such experiences have been shared by those using DRB’s here in projects in China and regionally.

Keith is a Commercial Dispute Resolution partner specialising in heavyweight dispute resolution, including high court /commercial court litigation, domestic and international arbitration, expert determinations, ADR, mediations with particular experience in the energy, construction and financial services sector. He is recognised respectively in the Asia Pacific Legal 500, most recently in the 07/08 edition in the Dispute Resolution section, being described as "having extensive experience of High Court litigation and a growing track record in CIETAC arbitrations", and accredited in the China Law Profiles (Asia Law & Practice) 2008 with the Far East firm being recognised for its Developing China Practice and “noted for its work in Heavy Weight Dispute Resolution”.

He has a varied client base with an international background operating in a diversified number of jurisdictions, with particular experience of the Far East including Hong Kong, mainland China, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and the Middle East, including the Indian sub continent.

In this continuing series about different forms of dispute resolution commonly found in International construction contracts, this article in Part 1 seeks to give a general overview about the nature of Dispute Review Boards. In Part 2, we will examine the use and success of Dispute Review Boards in construction projects in China.

Now, more than ever, the global construction industry is under enormous financial pressure. A lack of adequate cash flow towards the contractor and professional team is a major reason that construction projects fail in tough economic times. As a result of this initial cash flow problem, there is even harder cash flow for the sub-contractors and specialist sub-contractors further down the supply chain and their ongoing projects grind to a halt.

Despite the tough time undergone by global construction industry, there will still be much activity in the Chinese domestic market in the near future. In total, spending in the Chinese construction industry will grow 9.7% annually until 2010, with non-residential buildings and infrastructure remaining the most significant sectors.

Furthermore, Chinese construction companies sphere of influence on the international construction stage continues to grow. Increasingly these companies will become exposed to the growing risks of contractual disputes in international construction projects where the need for flexible, less adversarial dispute resolution procedures, other than court proceeding and arbitration, to facilitate smooth project flow is becoming ever more prevalent.

ICDR international Arbitrator; IACAC international Arbitrator; former member of the ICC Court of International Arbitration; former Guayaquil Chamber of Commerce arbitrator;former Supreme Court Civil and Commercial Chief Justice; former State Attorney General of Ecuador; former Dean and Professor of the Catholic University of Santiago de Guayaquil School of Law; Partner of the LawFirm of JIMÉNEZ-CARBO TORBAY RODRÍGUEZ & ASSOCIATES, in charge of arbitration and international cases.

The essay describes the constitutional and legal developments of Arbitration in Ecuador, from the beginning of the XX century to the present, in a comparative study of the "civil" and "commercial" arbitration laws; with emphasis on the present status of international arbitration especially from the Public Secctor's and the private entrepreneurs standpoint; and proposes legal reforms in order to pave the way to a more efficient arbitration practice.

Philip Adams is an Associate Director at Systech in Dubai. He has provided commercial, contractual and dispute resolution advice on a range of projects. He is a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and a fellow at the Chartered Institute of Arbitration

Discusses some procedural difficulties for parties attempting to enforce an arbitration award in Dubai