World Arbitration And Mediation Review (WAMR) - 2007 Volume 1 No. 5
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.
To view full journal at the subscription rate:
WAMR Vol 1 No. 5 Preview Page
The U.S. civil justice system is unique in many respects, from elaborate
pre-trial procedures to the use of biased experts and the absence of a cost
shifting mechanism between parties. Perhaps the United States’ most
unique characteristic is its discovery system. U.S. broad pre-trial discovery
sets it apart not only from civil law jurisdictions, but also fellow common
law jurisdictions. Pre-trial discovery from non-parties, pre-trial depositions,
and categorical document requests, all based on a relatively broad relevance
standard, have been criticized on a worldwide basis. The antipathy to U.S.
trial procedures has been manifested in blocking statutes,1 Article 23 of the
Hague Evidence Convention,2 and defensive judicial decisions by Canadian
and English judges rejecting judicial assistance requests for pre-trial
discovery by U.S. courts.
One unique aspect of U.S. civil justice related to its broad discovery that
has received considerable attention lately is the U.S. judicial assistance
scheme. Judicial assistance is the comity-based act of a court aiding a
foreign court or tribunal by compelling an individual or corporation within
its jurisdiction to produce evidence for use in a foreign proceeding. For
example, if a French court would like to hear testimony from a non-party
witness located in England, it would request the English court with
jurisdiction over the individual to compel the individual to provide
testimony for use in the French proceeding.