Originally From: Carbonneau on Arbitration: Collected Essays

I. INTRODUCTION

Organized discussions among legal scholars rarely instigate roiling controversies. Truth to tell, it is generally deemed an achievement to maintain a wakeful state during these enclaves. The Cardozo conference gauging the future of arbitration was exceptional in a number of respects. The topics and presentations generally were invigorating. Several practitioners in particular delivered outstanding papers. The sponsoring student journal demonstrated nimble managerial skills. No stone of accommodation or convenience was left unturned for the participants. I was also very impressed with the young academic lawyers who are active in the area of arbitration. Their contribution and commentary bespeak a most promising future for the field. In addition, far from inducing intellectual somnambulance, the proceedings generated in me a need to respond in writing to aspects of the conference, aided by the benefit of distance and further reflection.

In this article, although I include a development on international arbitration, I am responding primarily to the panel discussion on disparate-party arbitration in which I was a participant. The last occasion to move me to write a written response to an academic event was nearly twenty-five years ago when Professors Willis Reese, Charles Szladits, and George Bermann put me through the paces of my doctoral defense at Columbia. The committee’s observations inspired me to write an article exploring the analytical implications of the views that were exchanged.1 The topic under discussion then was also arbitration.2