Arbitration

Last updated

The London Court of International Arbitration LCIA.jpg
The London Court of International Arbitration

Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a way to resolve disputes outside the judiciary courts. The dispute will be decided by one or more persons (the 'arbitrators', 'arbiters' or 'arbitral tribunal'), which renders the 'arbitration award'. An arbitration decision or award is legally binding on both sides and enforceable in the courts, unless all parties stipulate that the arbitration process and decision are non-binding. [1]

Contents

Arbitration is often used for the resolution of commercial disputes, particularly in the context of international commercial transactions. In certain countries such as the United States, arbitration is also frequently employed in consumer and employment matters, where arbitration may be mandated by the terms of employment or commercial contracts and may include a waiver of the right to bring a class action claim. Mandatory consumer and employment arbitration should be distinguished from consensual arbitration, particularly commercial arbitration.

There are limited rights of review and appeal of arbitration awards. Arbitration is not the same as: judicial proceedings (although in some jurisdictions, court proceedings are sometimes referred as arbitrations [2] ), alternative dispute resolution (ADR), [3] expert determination, mediation (a form of settlement negotiation facilitated by a neutral third party).

Advantages and disadvantages

Parties often seek to resolve disputes through arbitration because of a number of perceived potential advantages over judicial proceedings. Companies often require arbitration with their customers, but prefer the advantages of courts in disputes with competitors: [4] [ failed verification ]

Some of the disadvantages include:

Arbitrability

By their nature, the subject matter of some disputes is not capable of arbitration. In general, two groups of legal procedures cannot be subjected to arbitration:

Arbitration agreement

Arbitration agreements are generally divided into two types:[ citation needed ]

The former is the far more prevalent type of arbitration agreement. Sometimes, legal significance attaches to the type of arbitration agreement. For example, in certain Commonwealth countries (not including England and Wales), it is possible to provide that each party should bear their own costs in a conventional arbitration clause, but not in a submission agreement.

In keeping with the informality of the arbitration process, the law is generally keen to uphold the validity of arbitration clauses even when they lack the normal formal language associated with legal contracts. Clauses which have been upheld include:

The courts have also upheld clauses which specify resolution of disputes other than in accordance with a specific legal system. These include provision indicating:

Agreements to refer disputes to arbitration generally have a special status in the eyes of the law. For example, in disputes on a contract, a common defence is to plead the contract is void and thus any claim based upon it fails. It follows that if a party successfully claims that a contract is void, then each clause contained within the contract, including the arbitration clause, would be void. However, in most countries, the courts have accepted that:

  1. A contract can only be declared void by a court or other tribunal; and
  2. If the contract (valid or otherwise) contains an arbitration clause, then the proper forum to determine whether the contract is void or not, is the arbitration tribunal. [20]

Arguably, either position is potentially unfair; if a person is made to sign a contract under duress, and the contract contains an arbitration clause highly favourable to the other party, the dispute may still referred to that arbitration tribunal.[ citation needed ] Conversely a court may be persuaded that the arbitration agreement itself is void having been signed under duress. However, most courts will be reluctant to interfere with the general rule which does allow for commercial expediency; any other solution (where one first had to go to court to decide whether one had to go to arbitration) would be self-defeating.

Comparative law

Nations regulate arbitration through a variety of laws. The main body of law applicable to arbitration is normally contained either in the national Private International Law Act (as is the case in Switzerland) or in a separate law on arbitration (as is the case in England, Republic of Korea and Jordan [21] ). In addition to this, a number of national procedural laws may also contain provisions relating to arbitration.

Arbitration procedures in the United States

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) of 1925 established a public policy in favor of arbitration. For the first six decades of its existence, courts did not allow arbitration for "federal statutory claims" through a bright-line "nonarbitrability" doctrine, but in the 1980s the Supreme Court of the United States reversed and began to use the act to require arbitration if included in the contract for federal statutory claims. [22] Although some legal scholars believe that it was originally intended to apply to federal courts only, courts now routinely require arbitration due to the FAA regardless of state statutes or public policy unconscionability determinations by state courts. [22] In consumer law, standard form contracts often include mandatory predispute arbitration clauses which require consumer arbitration. Under these agreements the consumer may waive their right to a lawsuit and a class action. In 2011, one of these clauses was upheld in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion . [22]

Several arbitration organizations exist, including the American Arbitration Association and JAMS. The National Arbitration Forum also conducts arbitrations, but it no longer conducts consumer arbitrations pursuant to a consent decree entered into in 2009 because of evidence that it had been biased toward, and had incentives that favored, credit card companies over cardholders. The AAA was also asked to exit the business, [23] but has not done so.

Arbitration Procedures in South Korea

The Korean Arbitration Act is the main law governing arbitration in the Republic of Korea. The official body which resolves disputes via arbitration is the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. Legal professionals and corporations, in Korea, are increasingly preferring arbitration to litigation. [24] The number of arbitrations, in Korea, is increasing year on year. [25]

Arbitration Procedures in North Korea

According to Michael Hay, a lawyer who specialised in North Korean law, North Korea has an advanced arbitration system even compared to developed countries, and foreign companies face an even playing field in dispute resolution. Arbitration cases could be concluded in as little as six months. According to Hay, North Korea maintains an advanced dispute resolution system in order to facilitate foreign investment. [26]

International

History

The United States and Great Britain were pioneers in the use of arbitration to resolve their differences. It was first used in the Jay Treaty of 1795 negotiated by John Jay, and played a major role in the Alabama Claims case of 1872 whereby major tensions regarding British support for the Confederacy during the American Civil War were resolved. At the First International Conference of American States in 1890, a plan for systematic arbitration was developed, but not accepted. The Hague Peace Conference of 1899, saw the major world powers agreed to a system of arbitration and the creation of a Permanent Court of Arbitration. Arbitration was widely discussed among diplomats and elites in the 1890–1914 era. The 1895 dispute between the United States and Britain over Venezuela was peacefully resolved through arbitration. Both nations realized that a mechanism was desirable to avoid possible future conflicts. The Olney-Pauncefote Treaty of 1897 was a proposed treaty between the United States and Britain in 1897 that required arbitration of major disputes. The treaty was rejected by the U.S. Senate and never went into effect. [27]

Arbitration treaties of 1911–1914

American President William Howard Taft (1909–1913) was a major advocate of arbitration as a major reform of the Progressive Era. In 1911 Taft and his Secretary of State Philander C. Knox negotiated major treaties with Great Britain and with France providing that differences be arbitrated. Disputes had to be submitted to the Hague Court or other tribunal. These were signed in August 1911 but had to be ratified by a two thirds vote of the Senate. Neither Taft nor Knox consulted with members of the Senate during the negotiating process. By then many Republicans were opposed to Taft, and the president felt that lobbying too hard for the treaties might cause their defeat. He made some speeches supporting the treaties in October, but the Senate added amendments Taft could not accept, killing the agreements. [28]

The arbitration issue opens a window on a bitter philosophical dispute among American progressives. some, led by Taft looked to legal arbitration as the best alternative to warfare. Taft was a constitutional lawyer who later became Chief Justice; he had a deep understanding of the legal issues. [29] Taft's political base was the conservative business community which largely supported peace movements before 1914. However, his mistake in this case was a failure to mobilize that base. The businessmen believed that economic rivalries were cause of war, and that extensive trade led to an interdependent world that would make war a very expensive and useless anachronism.

However, an opposing faction of American progressives, led by ex-president Theodore Roosevelt, ridiculed arbitration as foolhardy idealism, and insisted on the realism of warfare as the only solution to serious disputes. Taft's treaties with France and Britain were killed by Roosevelt, who had broken with his protégé Taft in 1910. They were dueling for control of the Republican Party. Roosevelt worked with his close friend Senator Henry Cabot Lodge to impose those amendments that ruined the goals of the treaties. Lodge thought the treaties impinge too much on senatorial prerogatives. [30] Roosevelt, however, was acting to sabotage Taft's campaign promises. [31] At a deeper level, Roosevelt truly believed that arbitration was a naïve solution and the great issues had to be decided by warfare. The Rooseveltian approach had a near-mystical faith of the ennobling nature of war. It endorsed jingoistic nationalism as opposed to the businessmen's calculation of profit and national interest. [32]

Although no general arbitration treaty was entered into, Taft's administration settled several disputes with Great Britain by peaceful means, often involving arbitration. These included a settlement of the boundary between Maine and New Brunswick, a long-running dispute over seal hunting in the Bering Sea that also involved Japan, and a similar disagreement regarding fishing off Newfoundland. [33]

American Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan (1913–1915) worked energetically to promote international arbitration agreements, but his efforts were frustrated by the outbreak of World War I. Bryan negotiated 28 treaties that promised arbitration of disputes before war broke out between the signatory countries and the United States. He made several attempts to negotiate a treaty with Germany, but ultimately was never able to succeed. The agreements, known officially as "Treaties for the Advancement of Peace," set up procedures for conciliation rather than for arbitration. [34] Arbitration treaties were negotiated after the war, but attracted much less attention than the negotiation mechanism created by the League of Nations.

International agreements

By far the most important international instrument on arbitration law[ citation needed ] is the 1958 New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, usually simply referred to as the "New York Convention". Virtually every significant commercial country is a signatory, and only a handful of countries are not parties to the New York Convention.

Some other relevant international instruments are:

International enforcement

It is often easier to enforce arbitration awards in a foreign country than court judgments. Under the New York Convention 1958, an award issued in a contracting state can generally be freely enforced in any other contracting state, only subject to certain, limited defenses. Only foreign arbitration awards are enforced pursuant to the New York Convention. An arbitral decision is foreign where the award was made in a state other than the state of recognition or where foreign procedural law was used. [36] In most cases, these disputes are settled with no public record of their existence as the loser complies voluntarily, [37] although in 2014 UNCITRAL promulgated a rule for public disclosure of investor-state disputes. [37]

Virtually every significant commercial country in the world is a party to the Convention while relatively few countries have a comprehensive network for cross-border enforcement of judgments their courts. Additionally, the awards not limited to damages. Whereas typically only monetary judgments by national courts are enforceable in the cross-border context, it is theoretically possible (although unusual in practice) to obtain an enforceable order for specific performance in an arbitration proceeding under the New York Convention.

Article V of the New York Convention provides an exhaustive list of grounds on which enforcement can be challenged. These are generally narrowly construed to uphold the pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.

Government disputes

Certain international conventions exist in relation to the enforcement of awards against states.

  • The Washington Convention 1965 relates to settlement of investment disputes between states and citizens of other countries. The Convention created the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (or ICSID). Compared to other arbitration institutions, relatively few awards have been rendered under ICSID. [38]
  • The Algiers Declaration of 1981 established the Iran-US Claims Tribunal to adjudicate claims of American corporations and individuals in relation to expropriated property during the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. The tribunal has not been a notable success, and has even been held by an English court to be void under its own governing law. [39]

Arbitral tribunal

The arbitrators which determine the outcome of the dispute are called the arbitral tribunal. The composition of the arbitral tribunal can vary enormously, with either a sole arbitrator sitting, two or more arbitrators, with or without a chairman or umpire, and various other combinations. In most jurisdictions, an arbitrator enjoys immunity from liability for anything done or omitted whilst acting as arbitrator unless the arbitrator acts in bad faith.

Arbitrations are usually divided into two types: ad hoc arbitrations and administered arbitrations.

In ad hoc arbitrations, the arbitral tribunals are appointed by the parties or by an appointing authority chosen by the parties. After the tribunal has been formed, the appointing authority will normally have no other role and the arbitration will be managed by the tribunal.

In administered arbitration, the arbitration will be administered by a professional arbitration institution providing arbitration services, such as the LCIA in London, or the ICC in Paris, or the American Arbitration Association in the United States. Normally the arbitration institution also will be the appointing authority. Arbitration institutions tend to have their own rules and procedures, and may be more formal. They also tend to be more expensive, and, for procedural reasons, slower. [40]

Duties of the tribunal

The duties of a tribunal will be determined by a combination of the provisions of the arbitration agreement and by the procedural laws which apply in the seat of the arbitration. The extent to which the laws of the seat of the arbitration permit "party autonomy" (the ability of the parties to set out their own procedures and regulations) determines the interplay between the two.

However, in almost all countries the tribunal owes several non-derogable duties. These will normally be:

Arbitral awards

Although arbitration awards are characteristically an award of damages against a party, in many jurisdictions tribunals have a range of remedies that can form a part of the award. These may include:

  1. payment of a sum of money (conventional damages)
  2. the making of a "declaration" as to any matter to be determined in the proceedings
  3. in some[ which? ] jurisdictions, the tribunal may have the same power as a court to:
    1. order a party to do or refrain from doing something ("injunctive relief")
    2. to order specific performance of a contract
    3. to order the rectification, setting aside or cancellation of a deed or other document.
  4. In other jurisdictions, however, unless the parties have expressly granted the arbitrators the right to decide such matters, the tribunal's powers may be limited to deciding whether a party is entitled to damages. It may not have the legal authority to order injunctive relief, issue a declaration, or rectify a contract, such powers being reserved to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts.

Challenge

Generally speaking, by their nature, arbitration proceedings tend not to be subject to appeal, in the ordinary sense of the word. However, in most countries, the court maintains a supervisory role to set aside awards in extreme cases, such as fraud or in the case of some serious legal irregularity on the part of the tribunal. Only domestic arbitral awards are subject to set aside procedure.[ citation needed ]

In American arbitration law there exists a small but significant body of case law which deals with the power of the courts to intervene where the decision of an arbitrator is in fundamental disaccord with the applicable principles of law or the contract. [42] However, this body of case law has been called into question by recent decisions of the Supreme Court. [43]

Unfortunately there is little agreement amongst the different American judgments and textbooks as to whether such a separate doctrine exists at all, or the circumstances in which it would apply. There does not appear to be any recorded judicial decision in which it has been applied. However, conceptually, to the extent it exists, the doctrine would be an important derogation from the general principle that awards are not subject to review by the courts.

Costs

The overall costs of arbitration can be estimated on the websites of international arbitration institutions, such as that of the ICC, [44] the website of the SIAC [45] and the website of the International Arbitration Attorney Network. [46] The overall cost of administrative and arbitrator fees is, on average, less than 20% of the total cost of international arbitration. [47]

In many legal systems – both common law and civil law – it is normal practice for the courts to award legal costs against a losing party, with the winner becoming entitled to recover an approximation of what it spent in pursuing its claim (or in defense of a claim). The United States is a notable exception to this rule, as except for certain extreme cases, a prevailing party in a US legal proceeding does not become entitled to recoup its legal fees from the losing party. [48]

Like the courts, arbitral tribunals generally have the same power to award costs in relation to the determination of the dispute. In international arbitration as well as domestic arbitrations governed by the laws of countries in which courts may award costs against a losing party, the arbitral tribunal will also determine the portion of the arbitrators' fees that the losing party is required to bear.

Nomenclature

As methods of dispute resolution, arbitration procedure can be varied to suit the needs of the parties. Certain specific "types" of arbitration procedure have developed, particularly in North America.

Such forms of "Last Offer Arbitration" can also be combined with mediation to create MEDALOA hybrid processes (Mediation followed by Last Offer Arbitration). [51]

History

England

Arbitration in its common law form developed in England; in the Middle Ages, tribunals such as the Courts of the Boroughs, of the Fair and of the Staple arose as the Royal Courts were not designed for trade disputes, and trade with foreigners was otherwise unenforceable. [52] In the mid-16th century, common law courts developed contract law and the Admiralty court became accessible for disputes with foreign merchants, broadening the venues for trade disputes. [52] Courts became suspicious of arbitration; for example, in Kill v. Hollister (1746), an English court ruled that the arbitration agreement could 'oust' courts of law and equity of jurisdiction. [53] Merchants, however, retained provisions to settle disputes among themselves, but tension between the arbitration proceedings and courts eventually resulted in the Common Law Procedure Act 1854 which provided for the appointment of arbitrators and umpires, allowed courts to 'stay proceedings' when a disputant filed a suit despite an agreement to arbitrate, and provided a process for arbitrators to submit questions to a court. [52] Later, the Arbitration Act 1889 was passed, followed by other Arbitration Acts in 1950, 1975, 1979 and 1996. Arbitration Act 1979 in particular limited judicial review for arbitration awards. [52]

United States

Arbitration was common in the early United States, with George Washington serving as an arbiter on an occasion. [52] The United States had a notable difference from England, however, in that unlike England, its courts generally did not enforce executory agreements (binding predispute agreements) to arbitrate. [54] This meant that prior to an award, a claimant could sue in court even if they had contractually agreed to settle disputes by arbitration. After the award, courts reviewed the judgment, but generally deferred to the arbitration, [54] although the practice was not consistent. [53]

The lack of enforcement of predispose agreements led to the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, [53] [54] with New York leading with a state law enforcing predispose agreements. [52] In 1921, the American Bar Association drafted the Federal Arbitration Act based on the New York law, which was passed in 1925 with minor changes. [52] In the next decade, the American Arbitration Association promoted rules and facilitated arbitrations through appointments. [52]

In the 21st century, arbitration has been frequently given negative media coverage, especially during and after the Me Too movement and the US Supreme Court case Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis . [55] [56] In response, Democratic U.S. Representative Hank Johnson introduced the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act (FAIR Act) into the 116th United States Congress, which was cosponsored by Republican Representative Matt Gaetz and 220 other Democrats. The FAIR Act passed the House in the 116th Congress but did not pass the Senate; [57] Both Johnson and Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal reintroduced the act in the 117th United States Congress. [58] [59] In addition, Americans have also increasingly participated in "mass arbitration", a practice where consumers facing similar issues normally barred from participating in a class action lawsuit file multiple arbitration demands at once in an attempt to overwhelm a company's legal team. This has resulted in Amazon removing arbitration provisions from its terms of service, [60] and mass arbitration has additionally hit Chipotle Mexican Grill, Uber, Lyft, Intuit, Facebook, and JPMorgan Chase. [61] [62]

See also

Notes

  1. O'Sullivan, Arthur; Sheffrin, Steven M. (2003). Economics: Principles in Action. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. p. 324. ISBN   978-0-13-063085-8.
  2. 1 2 In the United Kingdom, small claims in the county court are dealt with by a procedure called "small claims arbitration", although the proceedings are held in front of a district judge, paid for by the state. In Russia, the courts dealing with commercial disputes are referred to as the Supreme Court of Arbitration of the Russian Federation, although it is not an arbitral tribunal in the true sense of the word.
  3. Although all attempts to determine disputes outside of the courts are "alternative dispute resolution" in the literal sense, ADR in the technical legal sense, is the process whereby an attempt is made to reach a common middle ground through an independent mediator as a basis for a binding settlement. In direct contrast, arbitration is an adversarial process to determine a winner and a loser in relation to the rights and wrongs of a dispute.
  4. Hernández, Gabrielle Orum (9 October 2017). "Can Arbitration Solve Tech Sector's Litigation Cost Concerns". Legaltech News.
  5. 1 2 "The Supreme Court's retired, but hardly retiring, Ian Binnie". The Globe and Mail. Toronto. 15 June 2012.
  6. See for example the arbitration service offered by Falcon Chambers, the specialist property barristers chambers – www.falcon-chambersarbitration.com.
  7. Cologne, Prof. Dr. Klaus Peter Berger, LL.M., University of. "Principle XIII.5.1 - Confidentiality - Trans-Lex.org". www.trans-lex.org.
  8. Brown, Alexis (1 January 2001). "Presumption Meets Reality: An Exploration of the Confidentiality Obligation in International Commercial Arbitration". American University International Law Review. 16 (4).
  9. Cf. e.g. Section 1030 subsection 1 of the German Zivilprozessordnung.
  10. Larkden Pty Limited v Lloyd Energy Systems Pty Limited [2011] NSWSC 268 (1 April 2011), Supreme Court (NSW,Australia)
  11. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. , 473 U.S. 614 (1985)
  12. Section 1030 subsection 2 Zivilprozessordnung
  13. To be correct: certain form, as defined by statute, of an electronic signature using a chip card and a PIN code is also sufficient
  14. Section 1031 subesction 5 of the Zivilprozessordnung. The restriction does not apply to notarized agreements, as it is presumed that the notary public will have well informed the consumer about the content and its implications.
  15. Swiss Bank Corporation v Novrissiysk Shipping [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 202
  16. Hobbs Padgett & Co v J C Kirkland (1969) 113 SJ 832
  17. Mangistaumunaigaz Oil Production v United Kingdom World Trade [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 617
  18. Norske Atlas Insurance Co v London General Insurance Co (1927) 28 Lloyds List Rep 104
  19. Deutsche Schachtbau v R'As al-Khaimah National Oil Co [1990] 1 AC 295
  20. For example, under English law see Heyman v Darwins Ltd. [1942] AC 356
  21. Tariq Hammouri, Dima A. Khleifat, and Qais A. Mahafzah, Arbitration and Mediation in the Southern Mediterranean Countries: Jordan, Kluwer Law International, Wolters Kluwer – Netherlands, Volume 2, Number 1, January 2007, pp. 69–88.
  22. 1 2 3 Horton D. (2012). Federal Arbitration Act Preemption, Purposivism, and State Public Policy. Forthcoming in Georgetown Law Journal.
  23. Berner, Robert (19 July 2009). "Big Arbitration Firm Pulls Out of Credit Card Business". Business Week. Retrieved 3 March 2013.
  24. The Korean Law Blog, Arbitration versus Litigation in Korea
  25. "What's "Next" for Arbitration in Korea". 18 April 2019.
  26. Kim, Hyun-bin (22 January 2019). "[INTERVIEW] 'North Korea has advanced dispute resolution system'". The Korea Times. Retrieved 29 March 2020.
  27. Nelson M. Blake, "The Olney-Pauncefote Treaty of 1897," American Historical Review, (1945) 50#2 pp. 228–243 in JSTOR
  28. David H. Burton, William Howard Taft: Confident Peacemaker (2004) pp. 82–83.
  29. John E. Noyes, "William Howard Taft and the Taft Arbitration Treaties." Villanova Law Review 56 (2011): 535+ online.
  30. Robert J. Fischer, "Henry Cabot Lodge and the Taft Arbitration Treaties." South Atlantic Quarterly 78 (Spring 1979): 244–58.
  31. E. James Hindman, "The General Arbitration Treaties of William Howard Taft." Historian 36.1 (1973): 52–65. online
  32. John P. Campbell, "Taft, Roosevelt, and the Arbitration Treaties of 1911," Journal of American History (1966) 53#2 pp: 279–298 in JSTOR.
  33. Paolo E. Coletta. The Presidency of William Howard Taft (1975) pp 168–169.
  34. Genevieve Forbes Herrick; John Origen Herrick (2005) [1925]. The Life of William Jennings Bryan. Kessinger Publishing. p. 280. ISBN   9781419140396.
  35. Cordero-Moss, Giuditta (2014). International Commercial Contracts.
  36. Article 1 of the 1958 New York Convention
  37. 1 2 Argen, Robert (1 January 2015). "Ending Blind Spot Justice: Broadening the Transparency Trend in International Arbitration". Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. SSRN   2393188 .Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  38. Tupman, "Case Studies in the Jurisdiction of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes" (1986) 35 ICLQ 813
  39. Dallal v Bank Mellat [1986] 1 QB 441
  40. For example, all arbitral awards issued by the ICC have to be reviewed internally before being handed down, which helps certainty and improves the quality of awards, but leads to delay and expense.
  41. For example, in England these are codified in section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  42. The expression appears in the majority judgment in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wilko v Swan 346 US 427 (1953)
  43. "Guide to Arbitration in New York" (PDF). CMS Legal. Retrieved 8 May 2012.
  44. "Cost calculator – ICC – International Chamber of Commerce".
  45. "Singapore International Arbitration Centre". www.siac.org.sg.
  46. "International Arbitration – International Arbitration Information". International Arbitration Attorney Network.
  47. "Full Arbitration Cost Calculators".
  48. "Arbitration in New York" (PDF). CMS Legal. Retrieved 10 May 2012.
  49. R. Morek "The Regulatory Framework for Online Dispute Resolution: A Critical View" (2006) 38 Tol. L. Rev. 165.
  50. E.g., Section 44.103, Florida Statutes.
  51. http://www.altenburger.ch/uploads/tx_altenburger/jl_2007_The_Interaction_Between_Arbitration_and_Mediation.pdf Archived 6 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine .
  52. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Noussia, Dr Kyriaki (1 January 2010). "The History, Importance and Modern Use of Arbitration". Confidentiality in International Commercial Arbitration. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 11–17. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-10224-0_2. ISBN   9783642102233.
  53. 1 2 3 "Judicial Enforcement of Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreements: Back to the Future". ResearchGate. Retrieved 21 March 2016.
  54. 1 2 3 "State regulation of arbitration proceedings: judicial review of Arbitration Awards by State Courts". ResearchGate. Retrieved 21 March 2016.
  55. "An Epic Win for Employers". The National Law Review. Retrieved 23 August 2021.
  56. Doctorow, Cory (21 May 2018). "Supreme Court rules that employers can make signing away your right to sue them in a class a condition of employment". Boing Boing. Retrieved 23 August 2021.
  57. "H.R.1423 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act". www.congress.gov. 24 September 2019. Retrieved 23 August 2021.
  58. Blumenthal, Richard (1 March 2021). "S.505 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act". www.congress.gov. Retrieved 23 August 2021.
  59. "H.R.963 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): FAIR Act". www.congress.gov. 23 April 2021. Retrieved 23 August 2021.
  60. "Amazon Ends Use of Arbitration for Customer Disputes". The New York Times. 22 July 2021. Retrieved 25 August 2021.
  61. "JPMorgan, Facebook Fight Mass Arbitration Legal Strategy". news.bloomberglaw.com. Retrieved 23 August 2021.
  62. "Intuit Loses Bid to Avoid Mass Arbitration of TurboTax Lawsuits". news.bloombergtax.com. Retrieved 23 August 2021.

Related Research Articles

Arbitration, in the context of the law of the United States, is a form of alternative dispute resolution. Specifically, arbitration is an alternative to litigation through which the parties to a dispute agree to submit their respective positions to a neutral third party for resolution. In practice arbitration is generally used as a substitute for litigation, particularly when the judicial process is perceived as too slow, expensive or biased. In some context, an arbitrator may be described as an umpire.

Permanent Court of Arbitration Intergovernmental organization

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organization located in The Hague, Netherlands. It is not a court in the traditional sense, but provides services of arbitral tribunal to resolve disputes that arise out of international agreements between member states, international organizations or private parties. The cases span a range of legal issues involving territorial and maritime boundaries, sovereignty, human rights, international investment, and international and regional trade. The PCA is constituted through two separate multilateral conventions with a combined membership of 122 states. The organization is not a United Nations agency, but the PCA is an official United Nations Observer.

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) is an international arbitration institution established in 1966 for legal dispute resolution and conciliation between international investors and States. ICSID is part of and funded by the World Bank Group, headquartered in Washington, D.C., in the United States. It is an autonomous, multilateral specialized institution to encourage international flow of investment and mitigate non-commercial risks by a treaty drafted by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development's executive directors and signed by member countries. As of May 2016, 153 contracting member states agreed to enforce and uphold arbitral awards in accordance with the ICSID Convention.

Forum selection clause

A forum selection clause in a contract with a conflict of laws element allows the parties to agree that any disputes relating to that contract will be resolved in a specific forum. They usually operate in conjunction with a choice of law clause which determines the proper law of the relevant contract.

Federal Arbitration Act

The United States Arbitration Act, more commonly referred to as the Federal Arbitration Act or FAA, is an act of Congress that provides for judicial facilitation of private dispute resolution through arbitration. It applies in both state courts and federal courts, as was held in Southland Corp. v. Keating. It applies in all contracts, except contracts of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers involved in foreign or interstate commerce, and it is predicated on an exercise of the Commerce Clause powers granted to Congress in the U.S. Constitution.

Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Award

The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, commonly known as the New York Convention, was adopted by a United Nations diplomatic conference on 10 June 1958 and entered into force on 7 June 1959. The Convention requires courts of contracting states to give effect to private agreements to arbitrate and to recognize and enforce arbitration awards made in other contracting states. Widely considered the foundational instrument for international arbitration, it applies to arbitrations that are not considered as domestic awards in the state where recognition and enforcement is sought.

Arbitration clause

An arbitration clause is a clause in a contract that requires the parties to resolve their disputes through an arbitration process. Although such a clause may or may not specify that arbitration occur within a specific jurisdiction, it always binds the parties to a type of resolution outside the courts, and is therefore considered a kind of forum selection clause. It is also known as the "Scott v. Avery clause."

International arbitration is arbitration between companies or individuals in different states, usually by including a provision for future disputes in a contract.

An arbitration award is a determination on the merits by an arbitration tribunal in an arbitration, and is analogous to a judgment in a court of law. It is referred to as an 'award' even where all of the claimant's claims fail, or the award is of a non-monetary nature.

Arbitral tribunal

An arbitral tribunal or arbitration tribunal, also arbitration commission, arbitration committee or arbitration council is a panel of unbiased adjudicators which is convened and sits to resolve a dispute by way of arbitration. The tribunal may consist of a sole arbitrator, or there may be two or more arbitrators, which might include a chairperson or an umpire. Members selected to serve on a arbitration panel are typically professionals with expertise in both law and in friendly dispute resolution (mediation). Some scholars have suggested that the ideal composition of an arbitration commission should include at least also one professional in the field of the disputed situation, in cases that involve questions of asset or damages valuation for instance an economist.

Emmanuel Gaillard was a prominent practicing attorney, a leading authority on international commercial arbitration, and a law professor. He founded the international arbitration practice of the international law firm Shearman & Sterling before launching Gaillard Banifatemi Shelbaya Disputes, a global law firm dedicated to international arbitration, in 2021. He frequently acted as an arbitrator in international commercial or investment disputes. Emmanuel Gaillard died on 1 April 2021 at the age of 69.

International Commercial Law is a body of legal rules, conventions, treaties, domestic legislation and commercial customs or usages, that governs international commercial or business transactions. A transaction will qualify to be international if elements of more than one country are involved.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), or external dispute resolution (EDR), typically denotes a wide range of dispute resolution processes and techniques that act as a means for disagreeing parties had not to come to an agreement short of litigation: a collective term for the ways that parties can settle disputes, with the help of a third party. However, ADR is also increasingly being adopted as a tool to help settle disputes alongside the court system itself.

Jean-Paul Béraudo

Justice Jean-Paul Beraudo is a lawyer, academic and author of legal works. He was Justice at the French Supreme Court and Vice-Chairman of the International Court of Arbitration. He lectures on International Private Law and International Trade Law at Panthéon-Sorbonne University and on Company law at Sciences-Po, Paris. The International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) appointed him correspondent for France and a member of the scientific committee.

Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) or investment court system (ICS) is a system through which investors can sue countries for alleged discriminatory practices concerning foreign direct investment. ISDS is an instrument of public international law, contained in a number of bilateral investment treaties, in certain international trade treaties, such as the USMCA.

The Beijing Arbitration Commission (BAC) is an independent non-profit organization based in Beijing offering services in arbitration, mediation, and other dispute resolution mechanisms. The BAC was established in 1995 following the passage of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China. In accordance with the theories of other ADR channels, the BAC encourages arbitration and mediation forums as "win-win" alternatives to litigation. The BAC serves both domestic and international clients. An article in Business China declared the Beijing Arbitration Commission (BAC) as "the only local arbitration commission which meets or surpasses global standards.”

Arbitration Act 1996 United Kingdom legislation

The Arbitration Act 1996 is an Act of Parliament which regulates arbitration proceedings within the jurisdiction of England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning arbitration of antitrust claims. The Court heard the case on appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which had ruled that the arbitration clause in a Puerto Rican car dealer's franchise agreement was broad enough to reach its antitrust claim. By a 5–3 margin it upheld the lower court, requiring that the dealer arbitrate its claim before a panel in Tokyo, as stipulated in the contract.

Disputes between consumers and businesses that are arbitrated are resolved by an independent neutral arbitrator rather than in court. Although parties can agree to arbitrate a particular dispute after it arises or may agree that the award is non-binding, most consumer arbitrations occur pursuant to a pre-dispute arbitration clause where the arbitrator's award is binding.

Arbitration in the British Virgin Islands is regulated principally by the Arbitration Act, 2013 which came into force on 1 October 2014. Prior to that date, arbitration was regulated by the Arbitration Cap, 1976.

References

International arbitration