Imre S. Szalai, Judge John D. Wessel Distinguished Professor of Social Justice at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, has authored “Reconciling Fault Lines in Arbitration and Redefining Arbitration Through the Broader Lens of Procedure,” 18 Nev. L.J. 511 (2018); Loyola University New Orleans College of Law Research Paper No. 2018-07. In his publication, Professor Szalai examines what he describes as the United States Supreme Court’s often inconsistent treatment of arbitration and proposes readers view arbitration as part of a larger procedural framework.
The abstract states:
The U.S. Supreme Court has been inconsistent in its treatment or conceptualization of arbitration. The Court in some cases conceptualizes the enforcement of an arbitration agreement as a substantive right but, in other cases, the Court appears to re-conceptualize the enforcement of an arbitration agreement as a procedural right. The Court has even vacillated between its different views of arbitration within the same case. This article examines arbitration law through a broader framework-the framework of procedure. The main thesis of this article is that one can develop a better understanding of arbitration law by viewing arbitration as part of a broader, procedural framework for dispute resolution.
This and other scholarly papers written by Professor Szalai may be downloaded from the Social Science Research Network.
Photo credit: Foter.com
Related Posts
The Three Phases of the Supreme Court’s Arbitration Jurisprudence
How the Supreme Court Used a Jedi Mind Trick To Turn Arbitration Law Upside Down
SCOTUS to Consider Whether Non-Signatory May Compel Arbitration Under New York Convention
Employee Voice in Arbitration
The Arbitration-Litigation Paradox
A New Legal Framework for Employee and Consumer Arbitration Agreements
