In this chapter, we consider other forms of remedies which seek to vindicate the plaintiff’s rights by a public statement of those rights, including declarations and awards of nominal damages and apologies. The court may make a public statement of rights (as with declarations) or the defendant himself may be compelled to make the statement (as with apology orders). We first consider apologies, then declarations, nominal damages and contemptuous damages, and then finally other vindicatory awards available under the Australian Consumer Law.

The occurrence of parallel proceedings involving the same dispute and the same parties in international commercial arbitration is a well known phenomenon. In particular, this scenario arises when two identical proceedings regarding jurisdictional matters and/or the merits of the case are pending at the same time before a state court and a foreign arbitral tribunal, or before two arbitral tribunals seated in different jurisdictions. In order to prevent the undesirable effects of the proliferation of proceedings (namely the risk of lengthy and costly proceedings and the risk of irreconcilable decisions), different tools can be deployed. The analysis of the techniques most frequently employed to address this problem shows that many of the procedural mechanisms available are ill-suited, given the specificity of international commercial arbitration. Hence, the undisputed emergence of international arbitration as a reliable and effective alternative to court litigation and the judicial policy of minimal interference with the arbitration process suggest that a pro-arbitration approach in dealing with the lis pendens issue should be embraced. As regards the situation of lis alibi pendens before a state court and a foreign arbitral tribunal, this entails the prioritarization of arbitral tribunals over national courts as long as a dispute covered by a prima facie existent arbitration agreement is brought before an arbitral tribunal. Conversely, in a scenario in which proceedings are already pending before a national court, it is suggested that a (foreign) arbitral tribunal should be entitled to stay proceedings in order to avoid protracted and expensive parallel litigation, although it is certainly not to bound to do so, at least in the absence of a joint request by the parties or in presence of a clear waiver of the arbitration agreement. A comparable flexibility should also guide the solution to be adopted in parallel arbitral proceedings, where the tribunal second seized should be free to act according to case management considerations.

In this chapter, we consider other forms of remedies which seek to vindicate the plaintiff’s rights by a public statement of those rights, including declarations, awards of nominal damages and apologies. The court may make a public statement of rights (as with declarations) or the defendant himself may be compelled to make the statement (as with apology orders). Below, we first consider apologies, then declarations, nominal damages and contemptuous damages, and then finally other vindicatory awards available under the Australian Consumer Law.

Chapter 11 accounts for the redress required by Article 13. The chapter demonstrates that in early case law the Court mostly limited itself to a statement that redress had to be provided, without any further specification. However, increasingly, in some specific contexts, the Court has laid down the form and specific measures required. But the Court's reasoning is very case specific. This makes it hard to deduce general and principled starting-points which can be applied to new cases. For example, the Court has not in a general manner required that the remedy needs to be able to put an end to continuing violations, with possible proportional exceptions, or set out any principled starting-points as to when compensation and/or restitution is necessary. Further, the the case law concerning effective investigations is particularly unclear. Indeed, even though the Court requires effective investigations under Article 13, it is highly unclear how this requirement relates to similar requirements under substantive Articles and to what extent effective investigations is percieved as a form of redress, as such.

This chapter considers available responses to the government’s speech that endangers constitutional values. It starts by outlining possibilities for, and barriers to, constitutional remedies that include injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages. It then turns to a range of legislative, structural, and political possibilities for constructively influencing the government's expressive choices without resort to constitutional litigation. Statutory possibilities include laws that that require the government’s transparency, its deliberation, and its accuracy; or that limit the government’s speech on certain matters or for certain purposes. Other options include legislative oversight and impeachment, as well as rebuttals, protests, and other forms of counterspeech from other government officials, the press, and, of course, the people themselves—along with political remedies that include petitioning, lobbying, and voting.