Rawlsian fairness and international arbitration
Date
2014
Authors
Contributor
Advisor
Department
Instructor
Depositor
Speaker
Researcher
Consultant
Interviewer
Narrator
Transcriber
Annotator
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law
Volume
Number/Issue
Starting Page
Ending Page
Alternative Title
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
Description
Keywords
Citation
Desierto, D (2014). Rawlsian fairness and international arbitration. 36 U. Pa. J. Int'l L. 939 2014-2015
Extent
55 pages
Format
Geographic Location
Time Period
Related To
Table of Contents
Rights
Rights Holder
Local Contexts
Collections
Email libraryada-l@lists.hawaii.edu if you need this content in ADA-compliant format.