Default Rules from Mandatory Rules: Privatizing Law Through Arbitration

Q3 Social Sciences Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation Pub Date : 1999-01-04 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.140738
S. Ware
{"title":"Default Rules from Mandatory Rules: Privatizing Law Through Arbitration","authors":"S. Ware","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.140738","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article considers the extent to which the creation of law has been privatized through arbitration. It suggests that, under Supreme Court cases and other current legal doctrine, vast areas of law are privatizable and that this degree of privatization is possible only through arbitration. The implications of this point are separated along the familiar line between mandatory rules of law and default rules. The first implication is that arbitration jeopardizes mandatory rules of law. To preserve the mandatory effect of these rules, the Supreme Court must make a choice. The Court must either reverse its decisions that claims arising under otherwise mandatory rules are arbitrable, or require de novo judicial review of arbitrators' legal rulings on such claims. The second implication is that claims arising under default rules should be arbitrable and completely free from judicial review for errors of law. The arbitration of claims arising under default rules presents an opportunity to privatize the creation of vast areas of law. It is an opportunity to create private legal systems of unwritten norms, written rules, and the precedents of private courts.","PeriodicalId":35903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"34","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.140738","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34

Abstract

This Article considers the extent to which the creation of law has been privatized through arbitration. It suggests that, under Supreme Court cases and other current legal doctrine, vast areas of law are privatizable and that this degree of privatization is possible only through arbitration. The implications of this point are separated along the familiar line between mandatory rules of law and default rules. The first implication is that arbitration jeopardizes mandatory rules of law. To preserve the mandatory effect of these rules, the Supreme Court must make a choice. The Court must either reverse its decisions that claims arising under otherwise mandatory rules are arbitrable, or require de novo judicial review of arbitrators' legal rulings on such claims. The second implication is that claims arising under default rules should be arbitrable and completely free from judicial review for errors of law. The arbitration of claims arising under default rules presents an opportunity to privatize the creation of vast areas of law. It is an opportunity to create private legal systems of unwritten norms, written rules, and the precedents of private courts.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
强制性规则中的默认规则:通过仲裁实现法律私有化
本文考察了通过仲裁使法律的创造私有化的程度。它表明,根据最高法院的案件和其他现行法律原则,法律的广大领域是可以私有化的,而这种程度的私有化只有通过仲裁才能实现。这一点的含义沿着强制性法律规则和默认规则之间熟悉的界限分开。第一个含义是,仲裁损害了强制性法律规则。为了保持这些规则的强制效力,最高法院必须做出选择。法院要么撤销其关于根据其他强制性规则产生的索赔可仲裁的决定,要么要求对仲裁员对此类索赔的法律裁决重新进行司法审查。第二个含义是,在默认规则下产生的索赔应该是可仲裁的,并且完全不受法律错误的司法审查。对违约规则下产生的索赔进行仲裁,提供了将大量法律领域的创造私有化的机会。这是一个创造不成文规范、成文规则和私人法院先例的私人法律体系的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation (JELL) has provided a national, unbiased forum for the discussion and presentation of new ideas and theories in environmental and natural resources law since 1985. JELL educates students for careers in environmental law, disseminates important information to the environmental community, and plays an integral role at the University of Oregon Law School"s nationally and internationally recognized environmental law program.
期刊最新文献
Judging Heuristics The False Promise of the 'New' Nondelegation Doctrine Is Silence Golden? Confidentiality and Correlated Culpability A Note on Presumptions with Sequential Litigation Young Children's Competency to Take the Oath
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1