Small claims courts are usually used to resolve minor monetary disputes. A limited number of state small claims courts allow other forms of remedies in addition to money, such as evictions or claims for restitution of personal property. However, individuals generally cannot go to Small Claims Court to file for divorce, guardianship, bankruptcy, name changes, custody of children or an “injunction” (emergency assistance, usually to discourage someone from doing anything). In many states, they cannot sue for defamation (defamation or defamation) or false arrest in small claims court. Finally, they cannot sue the federal government or any of its branches, agencies or employees in their official capacity in Small Claims Court. In the context of mass actions, the courts have taken into account the singularity of the dispute between all claimants in establishing their jurisdiction.13 See also Mass Actions, Section III.B. In Sociedad Anónima Eduardo Vieira v. Laboratory experiments and case studies in this field have shown how the dispositions and capacities for social cooperation inherited from natural selection and evolution lead humans to configure the dispute as a mixture of discussions about factual reality, disagreements over the interpretation of norms, and the search for impartial solutions. that protect the interests of all parties equally. This neurobiological legacy can be difficult to appreciate, resist and control, but it is something that any theory of dispute negotiation, both adversarial and communal, must take into account.
Theories that ignore it are limited to telling only part of the story of negotiation. The term “dispute” is not defined in the Convention, but has been accepted by arbitral tribunals as a “conflict of laws” that goes beyond a mere “conflict of interest”,18 as noted in the Directors` Report on the Investment Disputes Agreement.19 The Argentine Republic, an ICSID tribunal, established a two-step test for identifying a “dispute” within the meaning of Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention: first, whether the claimant raised questions of law relating to a specific situation; second, whether the Tribunal`s decision on the answer to these questions would have practical and practical consequences.20 Most applicable instruments, such as NAFTA, USMCA, ECT and the ICSID Convention, do not define the term “dispute”. However, they contain several restrictions that limit the scope of litigation that can be brought before a court. These include the legal nature of the dispute (see section IV below), the directness of the investment dispute (see section V below) and the timing of the dispute. The existence or absence of a dispute is one of the most important elements of the substantive jurisdiction of an investment arbitral tribunal. The jurisdiction of the court is based on a specific definition and/or scope of the term “dispute” in the applicable instruments. These include treaties, national investment laws and various applicable bilateral and multilateral investment treaties. Other tribunals have upheld the general unity of an investment transaction and rejected similar objections by respondent states that the dispute did not arise directly from the investment but from an ancillary activity.29 See ownership of investments. ICSID tribunals have also clarified that the legal nature of a dispute is not affected by the existence of any element of a dispute of an economic or political nature.21 In contrast, it is based solely on the presentation of the claim by the investor, i.e.: .