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.
Arbitration has long provided a pragmatic alternative to court proceedings—to the formality, delays, financial onus, and generally destructive effects of full-blown litigation. Generally, the recourse to arbitration reflects a desire to pursue more rational and workable dispute resolution goals than those proffered by adversarial litigation.1 It is a commonplace remedy in domestic labor and commercial disputes; it is also used frequently to resolve claims arising from international contracts.2 In these specialty areas, arbitration acts as an adjudicatory means of maintaining “industrial peace” and commercial relations.
Table of Contents:
Chapter 9. Arbitration and the U.S. Supreme Court: A Plea for Statutory Reform
I. Introduction II. Arbitration and the Litigation Crisis III. The History of Arbitration: The Distance between Distrust, Acceptance, and Federalization
A. Arriving at the Apogee of Judicial Liberalism B. McMahon: The Epigee of the Liberal Doctrine C. The Likely Consequences and Possible Motives
IV. Reactions to McMahon
A. Volt: A Note of Dissonance B. Rodriguez: A Reaffirmation
V. Reasserting Juridical Control over Arbitration VI. Conclusion