24 / 7 Live Support
+44 20 3286 9122
  • 中文 (中国)
  • English GB
  • English AU
  • English US
  • العربية (Arabic)



Category: Economics

In presenting this dissertation for assessment, I declare that it is a final copy including any last revisions. I also declare that it is entirely the result of my own work rather than where sources are explicitly acknowledged and references within the body of the text. [or: in footnotes, endnotes, as appropriate]. This dissertation has not been previously submitted for any degree at this or any other institution’




Signed by student

Humaid Al Ansaari
Student ID: 00454265





Abstract  3

Chapter One   4

Introduction   4

1.1         Background to the Research   4

1.2         Research Questions, Aims and Objectives  5

1.3         Justification for the Research   6

1.4         Outline Methodology  7

1.5         Outline of the Rest of the Dissertation   8

Chapter Two   10

Literature Review    10

Chapter Three   33

Methodology  33

Research Philosophy  33

Research Strategy  35

. 36

Research Design   36

Research Administration   38

Research Ethics  42

Chapter Four  44

Findings & results  44

Chapter Five   55

Limitations  55

Conclusion   56

Recommendations  57

Future research   58

Bibliography  59

Appendix  63









Chapter One


1.1         Background to the Research


1.2         Research Questions, Aims and Objectives




  • Finally, how do these advantages affect commercial dispute resolution?


1.3         Justification for the Research


1.4         Outline Methodology



1.5         Outline of the Rest of the Dissertation









Chapter Two

Literature Review














Coates and Rathke, (2015) two career lawyers specializing in supply chain dispute resolution, emphatically conclude that the contract drafting stage is the most important step in minimizing the risks for both involved. For businesses to be able to bring a case in a reputable dispute arbiter, the supplier contracts should contain a clause pertaining to how the parties should resort to the specified arbiter to settle their disputes.  Rosemary and Sarah (2014), contend that a well-drafted contract with clear provisions, and dispute resolution clause will do more than lessen the risks of disruptions and disputes.  As much as the studies analysed offered differing and in some cases, conflicting views about the methods of risk avoidance in supply chain, there seem to be a consensus as to the importance of identifying the sources of disputes as a feasible way of overcoming the threats posed by them.

Identification of the sources of conflicts in supply chain allow for better management of the conflicts that are bound to occur in the supply chain. This view, which is held by this paper, has been substantiated by Constantinescu (2017) who defined it being cognizant of the source of the conflicts was the ‘stepping stone’ to resolve those very conflicts. Kumar & van Dissel, (1996) harbour similar perceptions, and cite identifying the sources of supply chain conflicts was the first step in managing the conflicts and charting a proper course of action that would lead to favourable outcome for all the parties involved in the supply chain. Constantinescu (2017), takes a further step by identifying the types of destructive effects of supply chain conflicts. Constantinescu’s outcome in relation to the cross effects of supply chain conflicts have been corroborated by many authors (2017).

Since the myriad external factors that can exert far-reaching effect on the whole network of entities, individuals, operations, and the flow of information which embed the supply chain of any given product or service.  This has been underscored by Lunsford (2007), who cited the instructive example of Boeing to call attention to how far reaching of an effect supply chain disputes can have, and how the threat is aggravated international jurisdiction since the so-called actors in the supply chain are dispersed all over the globe. However, Rahim’s findings run counter to the findings in studies referred to above, which centre upon how destructive the effects of supply chain conflicts can be (2001). Rahim (2001), while he acknowledges supply chain conflicts can have destructive effects such how conflicts in the supply chain would lead to discontent  mistrust, and long-term damage in the relationship between the businesses involved, he also asserts that conflicts between the parties have the potential to encourage innovation and creativity, resulting in more effective decision making. Eisenhard (1997) also vociferously advocate for the ‘benefits of conflicts’ in supply chain management. The authors assert that conflicts are essential between the parties since it fosters effectiveness, and the need for better decision-making. Eisenhard (1997) even ventured further to claim that no conflict did not mean the parties were executing the task at the highest level, but it meant that they were apathetic, and aloof from all the operations.  Other studies have also concluded similar results to that of Bradford et al., (2003); Hagel & Brown, (2005) stress that, as opposed to the other findings about conflicts, conflicts help achieve a greater understanding of the relationship between the partnering parties in a supply chain.   Pondy (1967) also emphasize how constructive the effect of supply chain conflicts can be by pointing to their findings that conflicts afford opportunities to parties to voice their disagreements, and discontent in relation to the activities of one another, whereby allowing for a critical evaluation of their activities. (Pondy 1967) suggest , which is effected by conflicts, facilitate ingenious and inventive problem solution process. On the other hand, a plurality of studies conducted into the supply chain conflicts do not share the same enthusiasm as relative to its dispute settlement. Skinner, Gassenheimer & Kelley (1992) maintain that any conflicts in management, not just in supply chain, culminate in low level of cooperation, high levels of antagonism, and low levels of alacrity to team up between the conflicting parties. Similar viewpoints are demonstrated by Blackhursta et al., (2008), who denounces the destructive effects of conflicts in supply chain, and imputes degraded performance to the conflicts that might arise between the parties. Koza & Dant (2007) also delve into the destructive effect supply chain conflicts can have by concluding that conflicts retarded the communication between the partners, and led to decreased levels of flexibility and willingness to share information regarding the whole process. Wall & Callister (1995) ventures, and asserts that conflicts lead to restricted communication between the parties, Wall & Callister (1995) even reported of cases where parties tried to sabotage each other’s reputation and business when conflicts arose between them.

Various studies analysed concur that natural disasters, bankruptcies and industrial strikes, regional conflicts, and even incompatible geopolitical interests are just some of the main factors that can affect unexpected disruptive threats to the supply chain. Risks usually occur in supply chain have been the focal point of a number of studies. Chopra (2014) has addressed several other risk categories, which encompass ‘disruptions, delays, systems, forecasts, intellectual property, procurement’. They both have furnished valid and research backed premises for the occurrence of each of these risks. However, as per the exhaustive research conducted for the purposes of this paper, Lee (2008) successfully identifies a risk- having multiple supply chain actors and partners. This particular risk has been overlooked by Chopra (2014). On the other hand, Denning (2008) expresses a rather conservative view in relation to supply chain risks. The author predicated the so-called threats, or risks in supply chain network, largely on logistics related delays in the ports, roads, and rail network.  Li, Du, and Wong (2005) explores the realm of supply chain management in terms that are strictly restricted terms of more efficient integration. Li, Du, and Wong (2005) espouses the of effective information integrations during virtually all the phases including planning and development in effecting a less risk-prone supply chain network. Wolf and Pickler (2010) cite another underestimated risk-access control conflict. Access control conflict occurs, the author explains, when the very same actors working on the same project have varying levels of access to data that is essential to the executions of that particular project. The Baker& McKenzie study, however, emphasizes the need for partners to be extra cautious when they share information with their suppliers and partners on the cloud system (2014). Better access control policies to police the practice of data sharing can ensure that there will be less risks, and that projects can be executed in a timely manner. Wolf and Pickler (2010) touch upon another type technology-borne conflict- propaganda conflict. The authors stress propaganda conflicts transpire when company A affords access to its data to a company B, and when that data might have information about company C, a third-party that is not involved in the   relationship between company A, and company B (Monczka et al, 2014).

It has been underlined by the studies referenced to above that risks in supply chain can stem from even factors that are ordinarily overlooked. Khan & A Zsidisin (2012) cites the case of Gazprom a state-owned Russian company, which abruptly turned off the gas supply to EU. The author capitalized on the case of Gazprom to illustrate the political risk that are inevitable in supply chain. Baker & Mackenzie (2014) study found that legal jurisdiction complication poses a greater threat to the settlement of supply chain disputes. According to the study, there are multitude of cases of supply chain disputes where companies were unable to have their rulings they had received from another jurisdiction (UK) be enforced by local jurisdictions (China). The study also cites problems that are associated with the courts that are predominantly in emerging markets. The study contends the courts in emerging markets do not usually afford the sufficient protections to either party, which renders resorting to courts into those countries not only cost-prohibitive, but also futile (Chopra and Sodhi, 2004). Overall, it can be concluded that there exists a common consensus as to the grave risks that are poised to be existent in supply chain.




The Law Reform Commission (2010) had defined Alternative Dispute Resolution as “a broad spectrum of structured processes, including mediation and conciliation, which does not include litigation though it may be linked to or integrated with litigation, and which involves the assistance of a neutral third party, and which empowers parties to resolve their own disputes.” Alternative Dispute Resolutions in the United Kingdom are not always mandated by law. Nevertheless, its prominence in settling dispute between parties have brought about legislation as exemplified by acts such as the Arbitration Act of 1996 and the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015. As such, since it does not include litigation, inherent in it is some differences from litigation. These differences, more or less, form part of the advantages of Alternative Dispute Resolutions. These advantages include (1) efficiency and/or practicality; (2) voluntary nature; (3) control exercised by parties; (4) binding effect; and (5) regulation (the Law Reform Commission, 2010)



It is important in Alternative Dispute Resolutions that both parties to the dispute agree to settle their differences in a venue other than the Court (Pryor, 2014).. As stated by the Law Reform Commission in their Consultation Paper on Alternative Dispute Resolutions, “Voluntariness is exercised at each moment a party chooses to remain at the table, and is best validated by the approach that any party may withdraw from the process at any time they choose.” (2010).


There are two types of Alternative Dispute Resolutions: determinative and non-determinative. Their difference lies on how the decision is reached. In the former, a neutral third person makes a decision, which is binding upon the parties. In the latter, it is the parties who negotiate with each other to reach a settlement (Nolan Haley, 2013).

Mediation and Conciliation, on the other hand, are two kinds of non-determinative Alternative Dispute Resolution. The Law Reform Commission (2010), in recommending that when a legislation with regard to Mediation and/or Conciliation is made, the former be defined as “a facilitative, consensual and confidential process, in which parties to the dispute select a neutral and independent third party to assist them in reaching a mutually acceptable negotiated agreement,” and the latter as “an advisory, consensual and confidential process, in which parties to the dispute select a neutral and independent third party to assist them in reaching a mutually acceptable negotiated agreement.”

Evidently, even in Court proceedings, there is a third body which interferes between the processes of resolution (Wang, 2014). The main difference is on how much these third persons interfere.  More than just provide for their definitions and outline the boundaries of third party interference, these kinds of Alternative Dispute Resolutions are shown to further emphasize the parties’ control, as posited by Blake et al (2014). The variations on third party interference allow the parties to freely choose the dispute resolution they may deem to fit in their particular case (Mackrell Turner Garret, 2017).

The parties also have relative control over who such third parties are. Their power to agree to submit to arbitration also gives them the power to choose the arbitrator, in the same way that they are free to decide on mediators or conciliators. The parties, therefore, have control over almost all the aspects of the process (Wang, 2014)..

Considering that Alternative Dispute Resolutions are not Court proceedings, their binding effect is a valid concern. True, it would prove useless to avail of these processes if the parties involved are, in the end, left with no means to have the decisions enforced Mistellis (2001).. Properly, determinative Alternative Dispute Resolutions are binding. By reason of their agreement to have their case handled by a competent party, the decision of made by their designated third party is binding upon them. On the other hand, non-determinative Alternative Dispute Resolutions have no binding decision by a third party. Instead, the parties themselves are forced to resolve on their own their disagreement (Mackrell Turner Garret, 2017). It is that agreement which is enforceable between the parties.

Unlike the English Courts which stand their ground and rely on previous decisions, the doctrine of Stare Decisis is not enforceable in Alternative Dispute Resolutions. This means that provided with essentially the same facts and issue surrounding two cases, the Court is generally bond to make the same decision(Nolan Haley, 2013)..

Such is not the case for Alternative Dispute Resolutions. A much wider leeway is given for the peculiarities of each case. The results, therefore, are binding or enforceable only as between the specific parties involved in the dispute. Previous decisions can nevertheless be used as guides, providing for a basic process and a skeleton resolution (Nolan Haley, 2013).

Given all the control the parties are allowed in Alternative Dispute Resolutions, unfairness and incompetence could be some of the risks encountered, as found by Blake et al (2014).. The English Courts provide for a system where, if the parties to a dispute provided for an arbitration clause in their agreement, then the Court would stay its proceedings(Mackrell Turner Garret, 2017.  That is to say, Court could not exercise jurisdiction until arbitration is sought Mistellis (2001).. In this case, the decision of the arbitration is recognized to the effect that it binds the parties, no longer with the need to further resort to a judicial decision (Griffiths and Robers 2014)..

Necessarily a process that affects the social interest as it provides for a binding decision in several fields of law like civil and commercial, the law provides for safeguards to regulate Alternative Dispute Resolutions(Wang, 2014).. An example of this is the Arbitration Act of 1996, which was passed in order to provide for better arbitration proceedings.


The same advantages noted above apply to the commercial disputes. As one that deals with the trade or exchange of goods and commodities, transactions are made keeping in sight, among other things, the value of time, money, and property (Blake et al 2014).. As it is common for the value of property to fluctuate with the passage of time, a resort to a quicker and cheaper dispute resolution is essential for parties who engage in the exchange of such goods and commodities(Wang, 2014). Even if the efficiency and practicality of resorting to Alternative Dispute Resolutions are dependent on the complexities of each case, nothing is taken away in considering such processes.




Further, the State supports the exercise of Alternative Dispute Resolutions by acknowledging their importance through means such as recognizing the latter’s jurisdiction through a staying of judicial proceedings and the enactment of laws that safeguard social equity. Case in point, the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015 was legislated for consumer protection. This set of regulations provide for the requirements “ADR entities” or simply those who wish to engage as arbitrators.

Although no such legislation is made for Mediation or Conciliation, the State supports these types Alternative Dispute Resolutions (Mistellis (2001). As reinforcement, the Law Reform Commission has published a Consultation Paper collecting studies on Mediation and Conciliation, thereafter providing a Report for their recommendations for law reform.

With regard to commercial disputes, Alternative Dispute Resolutions are not mandated by law as a pre-trial action (Ladder and Zeleznikow (2010).. At most, arbitration clauses are given importance and agreements, made by the parties through Mediation or Conciliation, are respected. Alternative Dispute Resolutions do not run counter to judicial proceedings . In fact, they are as beneficial to the Courts as they are to the parties as cases settled through Alternative Dispute Resolutions are cases that do not further congest the dockets of the Courts (Ladder and Zeleznikow (2010). Nevertheless, if ever the parties could not settle on their own through non-determinative Alternative Dispute Resolutions, they could resort to Court (Wang, 2014).. On the other hand, although a decision made through Arbitration is binding between the parties, it is not truly without law, as various legislations regulate not only arbitral process, but the entities engaged in Arbitration as well (Griffiths and Robers 2014).




The efficiency and effectiveness, and the advantages of the DIFC courts have been explored by many scholars such as AlGhafri (2013). This suggests the improved legal infrastructure for the supply chain disputes settlement in arbitration.There have been further, noticeable strides in the ADR laws made by the UAE government, as confirmed by numerous studies. To facilitate the whole arbitration process, and to ensure that awards of arbitration awards issued in UAE is enforceable in other foreign countries, or vice versa, the UEA government signed New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958.

As a Signee to the New York Convention, the awards that were presented in UAE are enforceable elsewhere, as asserted by Dla Piper (2017)

Notwithstanding all the advances in the realm of Alternative Dispute resolution realm, many studies asm in relative to ADR. The UAE legal system still lacks a federal lasert there is still room for improvement in UAE legal systew governing arbitration, such the one in the UK- the Arbitration Act 1996 (Mistellis, 2003). Overall, the analysis of studies suggests that the prevailing conditions in the countries being studies are highly comparable, and that UAE has made great headways in improving its legal system to facilitate the mechanism of better ADR, concludes a report by Herber Smith (2011).










Chapter Three


Research Philosophy



Research Strategy






Research Design






Research Administration

Treatment of Data


Sampling Method


Hence the procedures for recruiting participants are as follows:




Validity and Reliability


Procedure and Timeframe




Analysis Plan




Research Ethics








Chapter Four

Findings & results








Interviewee Expertise (UK or UAE) Age Industry interviewee method
Interviewee 1 UK 37 Food phone
Interviewee 2 UK 36 Clothing face to face
Interviewee 3 UK 28 Pharmaceutical email
Interviewee 4 UAE 54 Food phone
Interviewee 5 UK 35 Pharmaceutical face to face
Interviewee 6 UAE 67 Clothing email
Interviewee 7 UAE 27 Pharmaceutical face to face
Interviewee 8 UK 29 Finance phone
Interviewee 9 UAE 46 real estate phone
Interviewee 10 UAE 30 real estate phone
Interviewee 11 UK 45 Fashion face to face
Interviewee 12 UAE 48 Pharmaceutical email
Interviewee 13 UK 39 real estate phone
Interviewee 14 UK 55 Fashion face to face
Interviewee 15 UAE 51 Pharmaceutical phone
Interviewee 16 UAE 49 Food phone
Interviewee 17 UK 50 Food email
Interviewee 18 UK 45 Pharmaceutical face to face
Interviewee 19 UAE 54 real estate phone
Interviewee 20 UAE 39 real estate phone


Table 1.0










Table 2.0










Table 3.0














Chapter Five


There have been a few limitations during the course of conducting the interview. The most sever limitation was the limited number of interviewees, which has the potential to detract from its validity and reliability. As the case with qualitative data, the increased levels of potential bias harboured by the interviewees was also seen as some limitations, thus, every effort has been to ensure that the data collected with interview method was as objective as possible.

Another limitation was the available academic papers and materials into this particular field, as mentioned above the topic of ADR in supply chain conflicts, unfortunately, still remain unexplored by the researchers. This limitation was even aggravated by the fact that some reliable sources as to the UAE law were in Arabic, however, there were a few sources on the internet, which were deployed for the purposes of this research. As the case with many foreign sources, there was heightened levels of anxiety over the reliability of foreign sources. To ensure that this limitation was did not dilute the overall value of this particular study, reasonable care was exercised.




Overall, comparative analysis of the Alternative Dispute Resolution as to the supply chain conflicts in UK and UAE provided some there is an increased amongst the interviewees practicing both in British and Emirate law that there is an increased alacrity to choose ADR wherever possible.  The research also found that, in consistent with the literature review, the prevailing conditions that pertain to supply chain conflict avoidance and resolution are almost comparable. Risk avoidance strategies such as drafting the right contracts, maintaining the flow of information were found to be indispensable in averting any supply chain conflicts by interviewees, representative of both countries. While everyone was positive about the ADR mechanism in UK, which is in keeping with the literature, not every interviewee was enthusiastic about the prevailing conditions pertaining to ADR in UAE. There were lots of studies done into the sources of supply chain conflicts, which many studies emphasized was necessary in drafting optimal risk avoidance strategies. The ADR system’s efficiency that was the main focus of so various studies mentioned above, has been further corroborated by the data gathered with the interview method. It is hoped that the research answers its research questions satisfactorily. There is a proven need to further improve the conditions in both countries, UK and UAE. Overall, even in the face of lack of research and some other limitations, the main findings of the research were that the drafting the most effective contracts were considered to be the most viable method of conflict avoidance, and the most viable method of resolving the conflicts was alternative dispute resolutions in both countries.


These recommendation concerns reforms that could likely yield favourable results to the ADR mechanism in UAE and UK, and these recommendations are strictly based upon the findings and results of this study. Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the research did not suffer from over speculation and unwarranted assumptions.

As for recommendations, it is suggested that UAE legal system should codify and assemble all the existing laws into a single law, just like the English equivalent- the Arbitration Act 1996. This will further act as the federal law governing all the laws that pertain to arbitration, streamlining the system of ADR more accessible and efficient to all parties involved. The inception of FDIC arbitration, which was largely based upon the English equivalent-LCIA-has been well received, however, there is still some improvements UAE can execute that will result in an ADR system that is more efficient and effective.




Future research

This study objectified to answer a number of pressing questions regarding the alternative dispute resolutions in supply chain conflicts in the background of two very distinct legal jurisdiction-UK and UAE. During the research process, it was discovered that there was a huge scientific and academic gap in research into supply chain and its ADR methods. Supply chain management is a wide-ranging topic that deserves academic interest.




Scholarly Articles



















  • Arbitration Act 1996
  • Competent Authorities and Information Regulations 2015
  • Dubai Courts, Centre for Amicable Settlements of Dispute 2014.
  • Dubai Law No 16
  • The Arbitration Act 1996
  • The DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Rules 2008.





Table 1.0

Interviewee expertise (UK or UAE) Age Industry interviewee method
Interviewee 1 UK 37 Food phone
Interviewee 2 UK 36 Clothing face to face
Interviewee 3 UK 28 Pharmaceutical email
Interviewee 4 UAE 54 Food phone
Interviewee 5 UK 35 Pharmaceutical face to face
Interviewee 6 UAE 67 Clothing email
Interviewee 7 UAE 27 Pharmaceutical face to face
Interviewee 8 UK 29 Finance phone
Interviewee 9 UAE 46 real estate phone
Interviewee 10 UAE 30 real estate phone
Interviewee 11 UK 45 Fashion face to face
Interviewee 12 UAE 48 Pharmaceutical email
Interviewee 13 UK 39 real estate phone
Interviewee 14 UK 55 Fashion face to face
Interviewee 15 UAE 51 Pharmaceutical phone
Interviewee 16 UAE 49 Food phone
Interviewee 17 UK 50 Food email
Interviewee 18 UK 45 Pharmaceutical face to face
Interviewee 19 UAE 54 real estate phone
Interviewee 20 UAE 39 real estate phone



Table 2.0


Table 3.0


Interview questions


  • Can you explain your preference for ADR?
  • How would you rate UAE government’s efforts in streamlining ADR?
  • How advantageous was the enactment of Dubai Law 16?
  • How efficient is the ADR process in UK?
  • How efficient is the ADR process in UAE?


How The Order Process Works

Amazing Offers from The Uni Tutor
Sign up to our daily deals and don't miss out!

The Uni Tutor Clients