Originally from Pro-Arbitration Revisited: A Tribute to Professor George Bermann from his Students Over the Years

Preview page

It is not an easy task to identify whether something is favorable to arbitration; dealing with a dualist model jurisdiction certainly adds an additional problem to the issue.

Indeed, there is clearly more than one angle to approach in a proper manner what it means to be in favor of arbitration.  The issue is even more complex if one considers not only the angle (a specific subject or target, whether a piece of legislation, a policy, an award, etc.) but also the point of view from which such analysis is to be conducted (from a practitioner point of view, from an arbitrator point of view, from a public policy perspective, and so on). The problem has an additional layer of complexity in those jurisdictions that adopted a dualist model regarding international arbitration, as in Chile.  In this note, I would like to address how easy it is to defend arbitration on grounds that, on its face, appear to be in protection of arbitration (or pro-arbitration), but after some scrutiny, they eventually turn to undermine it (or, at least, to create doubts as to whether they really are pro-arbitration).