At the Crossroads of Legitimacy and Arbitral Autonomy - Chapter 4 - Carbonneau on Arbitration: Collected Essays
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 consensus among like-minded national legal systems regarding standards for the court supervision of arbitral awards excludes the judicial review of the merits of awards. The 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration,1 along with the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“N.Y. Convention”),2 both an integral part of the world law of arbitration, codify widely accepted grounds for the recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards. They implicitly exclude any judicial reassessment of the arbitrators’ decision on the merits.3
Chapter 4. At the Crossroads of Legitimacy and Arbitral Autonomy
II. The U.S. Law on Enforcement
III. The Impartiality of Arbitrators: The Sole Court-Sanctioned Constraint
IV. Vacatur as an Abridgement of Arbitral Confidentiality
V. Expanding Constricted "Manifest Disregard"
VI. Possible Change
VII. Freedom of Contract Innovation: Opt-In Provisions
VIII. A Judicial Addition: The Action to Clarify Awards