Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Rawlsian fairness and international arbitration
|Title:||Rawlsian fairness and international arbitration|
|Authors:||Desierto, Diane A|
|Publisher:||University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law|
|Citation:||Desierto, D (2014). Rawlsian fairness and international arbitration. 36 U. Pa. J. Int'l L. 939 2014-2015|
|Abstract:||Critics of international arbitration predominantly invoke the concept of "fairness" in four ways. First,fairness is associated with procedural due process concerns, involving the expected trade-off between party demands for efficiency and confidentiality in dispute resolution and in court litigation where there are expectations of full presentation and disclosure of evidence and transparency in the conduct of arbitration proceedings. Second, fairness is also used as a criterion for assessing dispute resolution outcomes, in regard to how arbitral tribunals choose their interpretive methodologies or retain subjective discretion when applying substantive law or rules to the given facts of a dispute. Third, critics assert unfairness in pointing out the absence of full judicial review of arbitral awards with merely a limited recourse to appeal as the control mechanism in international arbitration. Fourth, recent empirical attempts by scholars argue fairness synonymously with the legitimacy of community decision-making and participation rights, where questions have arisen in regard to perceived inequalities in the appointment of arbitrators, the composition of arbitral tribunals, and the ability of arbitrators to resolve public interest dimensions attaching to international arbitration disputes...etc|
|Appears in Collections:||Desierto, Diane|
Please contact email@example.com if you need this content in an ADA compliant alternative format.
Items in ScholarSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.