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.
The 1994-1995 Term of the U.S. Supreme Court was a “happy” event for the American law of arbitration. The Court heard and ruled upon no fewer than four arbitration cases. Prior to these most recent pronouncements, the Court’s decisional law on arbitration was already extensive and appeared well-settled.1 The “emphatic federal policy favoring arbitration” was neither equivocal nor ambiguous.2 Moreover, arbitration hardly has a glaring public law dimension. A subject matter, like arbitration, usually does not receive significant, let alone disproportionate, judicial consideration, especially in a constitutional forum.3 Arbitral proceedings are a commercial remedy; they involve rules of procedure.4 It was, therefore, surprising that the Court should dedicate such a large part of its coveted decisional agenda to the birthing of yet more arbitration law.
Table of Contents:
Chapter 5. Beyond Trilogies: A New Bill of Rights and Law Practice through Arbitration
I. Introduction II. Affirming the Policy of Federalization (Terminix and Mastrobuono) III. Revisiting Internationalism (Vimar) IV. The Contract of Arbitration as Law (Kaplan) V. Exploring the Contractualist View VI. The New Lawyering VII. Conclusions