|
|
|
|
LEADER |
01853nam a2200133Ia 4500 |
001 |
10.1093-ARBINT-AIY025 |
008 |
220706s2018 CNT 000 0 und d |
020 |
|
|
|a 09570411 (ISSN)
|
245 |
1 |
0 |
|a What does it mean to be 'pro-arbitration'?
|
260 |
|
0 |
|b Oxford University Press
|c 2018
|
856 |
|
|
|z View Fulltext in Publisher
|u https://doi.org/10.1093/ARBINT/AIY025
|
520 |
3 |
|
|a International arbitration commentators commonly ask of a proposed policy or practice whether it is 'pro-' or 'anti-arbitration'. Framing the question that way presupposes a shared understanding of what does or does not make a policy or practice arbitrationfriendly. In truth, the ways in which policies or practices may affect international arbitration's well-being are manifold. They may even distinctly serve international arbitration's well-being in some respects while equally distinctly disserving it in others. It behooves those who take international; arbitration's well-being seriously to acknowledge the multiplicity of metrics for identifying what is 'pro-' and what is 'antiarbitration' and to seek the most appropriate trade-offs among them, in consideration of their respective importance in whatever trade-offis entailed. Also, too often a policy's or practice's friendliness to arbitration is examined through too narrow a lens. Society embraces values that are fundamental in ways that surpass-and properly outweigh-international arbitration's interests narrowly conceived. Giving effect to those values and securing the legitimacy that confers may, even when doing so fails to advance a narrowly pro-arbitration agenda, be the most pro-arbitration move one may make. © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the London Court of International Arbitration. All rights reserved.
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Bermann, G.A.
|e author
|
773 |
|
|
|t Arbitration International
|