An Approach to International Arbitration: China & Chile - WAMR 2007 Vol. 1, No. 3
About the Editors:
Thomas E. Carbonneau holds the Samuel P. Orlando Distinguished Professorship at Penn State Law and directs The Penn State Institute on Arbitration Law and Practice. In his thirty-year career in law teaching, he has taught law and arbitration at Tulane University, Fordham, McGill, University of Denver, Hamline Dispute Resolution Institute, and University of California at Davis. He is a former Editor-in-Chief of the World Arbitration and Mediation Report and is the author of nearly twenty books and numerous articles on law and arbitration. He is the faculty adviser for the Penn State Yearbook on Arbitration and Mediation and its Vis Moot Court team.
Richard Chernick is Managing Director of JAMS’ National Arbitration Practice. Mr. Chernick has conducted hundreds of large and complex arbitrations and mediations employing various rules and before all major administering institutions, both nationally and internationally. He is Past Chair of the Dispute Resolution Section of the American Bar Association (ABA); Founding President of the College of Commercial Arbitrators (CCA); Founding Chair of the ADR Committee of the State Bar of California; Advisor to the ABA’s drafting committee for the Revised Uniform Arbitration; Past President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, and past Chairman of the Board of Dispute Resolution Services, Inc., the dispute resolution program of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. Mr. Chernick was a Partner with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1977-1994) where he specialized in commercial litigation and domestic and international arbitration.
Robert B. Davidson, Esq. is a full-time arbitrator and mediator, and the Executive Director of JAMS Arbitration Practice. He has sat in over 150 domestic and international arbitrations as sole arbitrator and as a member of tripartite panels in both institutional and ad hoc settings. Cases arbitrated have involved complex commercial and financial business issues, including contract actions, disputes under APA and SPA agreements, construction, insurance and reinsurance claims, oil and gas disputes, securities, tax, construction, real estate, intellectual property, employment disputes, and sports matters.
Mary Helen Mourra is former Executive Director of the Institute for Arbitration Law and Practice, Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law. She is the Editor-in-Chief of the Latin American Arbitration Review, and Managing Legal Editor of the Stockholm International Arbitration Review. She is also the principal author of Latin American Investment Treaty Arbitration: The Controversies and Conflicts and Co-editor of the Practitioner’s Handbook on Middle East and North African Arbitration. She has extensive work experience in and ties to the Middle East and Latin America. She was Counsel to the Hariri Foundation in matters before the United Nations from 2000 to 2005. Her professional experience has included consulting on international law and representing NGOs before the United Nations in New York and Geneva, Switzerland. She was Co-counsel with Professor John Quigley of Ohio State University School of Law in a number of international cases. She received her Juris Doctorate from Tulane University. She speaks English, French, Spanish, Arabic, and Creole and she is member of the Maryland Bar.
Originally from World Arbitration And Mediation Review (WAMR)
Preview Page
I. INTRODUCTION
In the Spring of 2006, we published the results of our national study on
the reported judicial opinions addressing mediation issues from 1999 to
2003. Our article was entitled Disputing Irony: A Systematic Look at
Litigation About Mediation. We, of course, found it ironic and unfortunate
that mediation, a process designed as an alternative to litigation, can, in
some circumstances, encourage rather than eliminate additional litigation.
The study was designed to address a number of issues. First, to what extent
does the mediation process create as opposed to resolve subsequent
litigation? Where is this litigation taking place, and what issues are being
litigated? What can we learn from the litigated cases about the fairness of
the mediation process and about the proper roles and conduct for counsel
and for the mediator? Finally, how are the courts dealing with the conflict
between the need for confidentiality in the mediation process and the need
for evidence when mediation conduct becomes an issue in subsequent
litigation?
II. 1999–2003 FINDINGS
We reached the following conclusions based on the 1999–2003 data:
• Litigation involving mediation issues increased at a rapid rate from
172 opinions in 1999 to 335 in 2003, a ninety-five percent increase.
• Although there was litigation involving mediation throughout the
country, most of the litigation in this five-year period took place in a
few states with Texas (178 state and federal opinions), California
(134 state and federal opinions), and Florida (112 state and federal
opinions) leading the way
Volume 1 2007 Number 3
Developments in US Mediation
Mediation Litigation Trends: 1999-2007
James R. Coben & Peter N. Thompson
Mediation Case Law Review Part II: July-January 2006
James R. Coben & Peter N. Thompson
Recent Developments in International Arbitration
Ten Years of UNCITRAL Model Law in Germany
Stefan Kroll & Peter Kraft
New Arbitration Rules for this Stockholm Chamber of Commerce
Marie Ohrstrom
Recent Precedents in Brazil Regarding Service of Process in International Arbitrations
Joaquim de Paiva Muniz
An Approach to International Arbitration: China & Chile
Nicolás Ossa G.
Book Review:
Review of "Global Trends in Mediation"
Michael Leathes
Bibliographic Resources
Recent Publications on Arbitration and ADR
Gail A. Partin
Events in Arbitration & ADR
Calendar