Originally from World Arbitration And Mediation Review (WAMR)

Preview Page

INTRODUCTION TO SESSION TWO:

PARTY AUTONOMY AND ITS LIMITS
Margaret L. Moses

Good morning. I am Margaret Moses and I have the pleasure
of introducing the speakers and moderating this second panel.
This panel is on party autonomy. What we mean by party
autonomy is, of course, basically freedom of contract, but it is
more than just choosing the law of the contract. In arbitration,
the parties, as you know, generally establish the whole
framework of the dispute resolution process, at least in those
arbitrations that are not based on adhesion contracts. The parties
choose the decision-makers, the place, the language, the rules, the
procedures. Because they have given up the right to go to court,
one of the things that they expect in return is the right to have
maximum control over the dispute resolution process. But, of
course, party autonomy is not absolute. The states where the
arbitration is held and the states where the award is sought to be
enforced have an interest in and a concern about parties
complying with norms and rules and laws. And that is where we
start to see tension and certain fault lines. States impose limits on
party autonomy by legislation and courts impose limits by
interpretation of that legislation. And so our speakers will be
dealing with some of those limits.

Our first speaker, Professor Linda Silberman will be dealing
primarily with issues that have risen out of recent Supreme Court
decisions, such as Hall v. Mattel. Our second speaker, Bill Rowley,
will be discussing party autonomy limits imposed by arbitrators
and by mandatory rules. So let me introduce our speakers.