Consumer Financial Dispute Resolution in a Comparative Context
Cambridge University Press, 3/31/2013
EAN 9781107028715, ISBN10: 110702871X
Hardcover, 250 pages, 23.5 x 15.5 x 1.9 cm
Language: English
Nearly all major global financial centres have developed systems of consumer financial dispute resolution. Such systems aim to assist parties to resolve a growing number of monetary disputes with financial institutions. How governments and self-regulatory organizations design and administer financial dispute resolution mechanisms in the context of increasingly turbulent financial markets is a new area for research and practice. Consumer Financial Dispute Resolution in a Comparative Context presents comparative research about the development and design of these mechanisms in East Asia, North America and Europe. Using a comparative methodology and drawing on empirical findings from a multi-jurisdictional survey, Shahla F. Ali examines the emergence of global principles that influence the design of financial dispute resolution models, considers the structural variations between the ombuds and arbitration systems, and offers practical proposals for reform.
Introduction
Part I. Principles
1. Principles of consumer financial dispute resolution in a global context
Part II. Ombuds Systems
2. Financial dispute resolution in the United Kingdom
3. Financial dispute resolution in Australia
4. Financial dispute resolution in Japan
Part III. Arbitration Systems
5. Financial dispute resolution in the United States
6. Financial dispute resolution in Singapore
7. Financial dispute resolution in Hong Kong
8. Emerging systems
financial dispute resolution in China
Part IV. Practice
9. Synthesizing lessons learned and policy recommendations
Conclusion
the way forward.
Advance praise: 'This book provides a wide-ranging comparative assessment that will be of great value to anyone analyzing or designing dispute resolution systems for consumer disputes. The detailed descriptions of arbitration and ombudsman mechanisms in six countries, as well as Dr Ali's recommendations, illuminate the continuing evolution of global norms for dispute resolution.' Stephanie E. Smith, Stanford Law School