The arbitration process in civil engineering

De Asís Ramírez, F; Seco, A and Miqueleiz, L (2013) The arbitration process in civil engineering. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 166(1), pp. 43-46. ISSN 17514304

Abstract

Perhaps one of the lesser-known aspects of the practice of engineering in general, and civil engineering in particular in Spain, concerns the work done by engineers in the field of the administration of justice. Within this area, because of its specific characteristics and importance, the authors highlight the preparation of arbitration reports, where the engineer has to act within a framework of competence in which strictly technical criteria are combined with the typical concepts, approaches and formalities of the legal environment. In spite of being a type of work of the utmost importance and responsibility, in reality the world of university teachers and of professional colleges and associations, at least in Spain, ignore its existence. As a result, civil engineers working in what might generically be called 'legal engineering', or rather engineering applied to legal processes, have gaps in their training and a certain degree of professional isolation. This article seeks, albeit briefly, to look more closely at some of the most important aspects of this professional field of engineering, showing the unique features involved in its practice, and setting out the most pressing problems besetting the sector.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: arbitration; engineering; procurement; disputes
Index terms: justice, civil engineer, competence, engineer, Spain, dispute, arbitration
Subjects: personnel development, dispute resolution, profession, Geography, legal systems
Topics: Human Resources, Roles and Professions, Legal Issues, Geographical Context
Descriptive scope: 2 PC

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here