Unveiling Fairness for the Consumer:The Law, Economics and Justice of Expanded Arbitration

In recent years, the US Supreme Court has rather controversially extended the ambit of the Federal Arbitration Act to extend arbitration’s reach into, inter alia¸ consumer matters, with the consequence that consumers are often (and unbeknownst to them) denied remedies which would otherwise be available. Such denied remedies include recourse to class action proceedings, effective denial of punitive damages, access to discovery and the ability to resolve the matter in a convenient forum.

The court’s extension of arbitration’s ambit is controversial. Attempts to overturn this extension have been made in Congress, but to no avail. In contrast to American law, European consumer law looks at pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate directed at consumers with extreme suspicion, and does so on the grounds of fairness. In contrast, some argue that pre-dispute agreements in consumer (and employment) matters are consumer welfare enhancing: they decrease the costs of doing business, which is then passed on to the consumer. This Article examines these latter claims from both an economic and normative perspective.

The economic analysis of these arguments shows that their assumptions do not hold. Rather than being productive of consumer surplus, the use of arbitration is likely to have the opposite effect. The industries from which the recent Supreme Court cases originated not only do not exhibit the industrial structure assumed by the proponents of expanded arbitration, but are also industries which exhibit features that facilitate consumer welfare reducing collusion.

The normative analysis addresses the fairness concerns. It is explicitly based upon John Rawls’ notion of “justice as fairness,” which can provide a lens to evaluate social institutions. This Rawlsian analysis considers the use of extended arbitration in consumer matters in the light of the earlier economic results. It suggests that the asymmetries present in the contractual allocation of rights serve as prima facie evidence that such arbitration–induced exclusions are prima facie unjust/unfair. However, as asymmetry is only a prima facie test, a generalized criticism of the arbitration exclusions (of the sort found in Congress and underlying the European regime) is overbroad.

Public Interests, Private Disputes: Investment Arbitration and the Public Good

This paper seeks to investigate the bases for resistance to arbitration in general -and investor arbitration in particular- focusing on the way in which arbitral tribunals deal with notions of public interest and the public good. The paper hypothesises that while courts have within their terms of reference the capacity to consider notions of public interest, arbitral tribunals do not. It is this core difference in the scope of decision making between the two bodies that could render privately organised dispute resolution unsuitable for disputes that have public aspects, like investor-state disputes. The paper discusses the meaning of public interest and the public good as found in the literature. It then proceeds to consider how tribunals in the investment field have dealt with these concepts. This leads to a conclusion urging not abandonment of arbitration as a component of dispute resolution, but caution. It is argued that unchecked growth in private dispute resolution can threaten perceptions of legitimacy and democratic accountability. The paper adopts a socio-legal methodology in considering the effect of legal mechanisms on social and political phenomena. It is also informed by a law and economics methodology in addressing impacts of dispute resolution mechanisms on economic efficiency. The contribution of the paper rests on theorising motivations for resistance to private dispute resolution, a topical issue in light of the TTIP debate.

Sport-Specific Arbitration in Canada: A Qualitative Investigation of Four Athletes' Perceptions of the Fairness of the Process

This thesis explored Canadian high performance Athletes' perceptions of the fairness of the SDRCC sport-specific arbitral process. Leventhal’s (1980) model of procedural justice judgment was found to be an effective tool for exploring Athletes’ perceptions of the fairness of the process. Five of his six procedural justice antecedents: consistency, bias suppression, accuracy of information, representativeness, and ethicality influenced the Athletes’ perceptions of the fairness of the process. Emergent data also revealed that the Athletes’ perceptions of fairness were also influenced by three contextual factors and an additional antecedent of procedural justice. Efficiency of the process, inherent power imbalance between Athletes and NSOs, and the measurable effect of the process on personal and professional relationships differentiate sport-specific arbitration from most other processes of allocation. The data also indicated that the opportunity to voice one’s case was also an important determinant of the Athletes’ perceptions of the fairness of the process.

Arbitration and Judicial Power under the united States Constitution

Échange, dans le cadre des matinées constitutionnelles organisées par le CRDP, entre Peter Bowman Rutledge, Professeur agrégé à la Faculté de droit de la Catholic Universiy of America et Roderick MacDonald, titulaire de la Chaire F.R. Scott en droit public et constitutionnel à la Faculté de droit de l'Université de McGill. M. MacDonald est également, chercheur associé au CRDP.

Arbitration under the regulations on the guarantee of new residential buildings in Quebec

Dans ma mémoire, j’ai discuté les concepts d’arbitrage comme méthode de résolution d’un litige et par après, je donne un court historique de l’acceptation d’arbitrage au Québec. Le Chapitre I étudie la structure des règlements du R.B.Q., qui est un gendre d’arbitrage obligatoire institutionnelle, et j’inclus les diverses procédures dans ce système d’arbitrage. La sécurité offert par le plan de garantie règle par le R.B.Q. est discuté dans le Chapitre II en autant qu’il est relié avec le system d’arbitrage R.B.Q., y compris la structure du plan et le contenu de la sécurité. Chapitre III parle des recours disponible aux Bénéficiares ainsi que les avantages et désavantages de l’arbitrage sous les Règlements du R.B.Q. Un court étude comparative de quatre autres juridictions est recherché en Chapitre IV, incluant notre voisin, Ontario, les Etats-Unis et on croise dans les juridictions de Royaume Unie et Allemagne. En conclusion, j’établis que notre système d’arbitrage sous le Règlement protéges notre publique plus que d’autres juridictions. Je suggère des améliorations au système, par contre, incluant l’agrandissement du plan de garantie, l’ajout des pouvoirs donnés aux arbitres américains et ensuite d’intègré un système d’arrêt semblable aux Royaumes Unis.

Alternatives to Reparations in International Investment Arbitration– A Debate Between Theory and Practice

An analysis of the alternatives of compensation in relation to international investment disputes is relevant, because a pecuniary award is not always the appropriate remedy to solve disputes arising between investors and States. This is the case because States may be increasingly interested in opting for a different type of compensation. Furthermore, it is still not clear whether arbitral tribunals have recognised alternative types of awarding damages in respect of international investments disputes. This analysis comprises two principal components, the first, is to identify whether or not the tribunals may render an award that not only demands the payment of a sum of money but also considers some other means of compensation. The second, centres on how compliance with these non-pecuniary awards may be demanded. Our approach to these two principal components will always revolve around the idea of respecting the sovereignty of the State, bearing in mind that the execution of an arbitral award, which obliges the State to refrain from or to perform an act in its territory, relies precisely on the sovereignty of the State to execute it. 

The mutual agreement procedure and arbitration of double taxation disputes

It is in the interest of most states to eliminate double taxation (i.e. the payment of the same tax in two jurisdictions) of transnational commercial enterprises. Because such disputes involve, on the one hand, the state imposition of taxes, a right universally asserted by all states, and private entities on the other, taxation disputes between such parties are not, on their face, easily susceptible to arbitration. This article analyzes two dispute settlement procedures-the OECD First Model Tax Convention and a similar EU Convention-with the exclusive focus on disputes relating to the imposition of double taxation. It will look at the ways in which state roles may vary under these procedures from assisting in the negotiation process to taking a part similar to, but with important differences from, diplomatic protection on behalf of an affected enterprise. The article will examine the situations under which the settlement procedure is required and/or available, how the procedures are triggered, the obligations and parts played by the parties, the means by which the disputes are resolved (from negotiations to tribunals) and the limitations of the procedures. Are they “taxpayer friendly”? As a result the reader may draw comparisons between the two procedures. Finally, the article will look at the proposed OECD Arbitration Clause which is intended to be incorporated into Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention as well as how these mechanisms relate and/or conflict with bilateral tax treaties and the GATS.

Mining, grievance and conflict in rural Tanzania

This paper provides an extended analysis of the tensions that have surfaced between large-scale mine operators and artisanal miners in gold-rich areas of rural Tanzania. The literature on grievance is used to contextualise, these disputes, the underlying cause of which is artisanal miners' mounting frustration over not being able to secure viable concessions to work. Newly implemented legislation has, for the most part, empowered foreign large-scale mine operators, while simultaneously disempowering indigenous small-scale miners. In many cases, the former have addressed mounting security and community problems on their own. Until the country's major mine operators extend assistance to marginalised small-scale mining groups, the likelihood of violent conflict unfolding between these parties will increase.