지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이 논문의 연구 히스토리 (2)
- 이 논문의 후속연구가 궁금하신가요?
- 연관 학술논문 또는 학술발표를 통해 보다 발전된 연구결과를 확인하실 수 있습니다.
- 이 논문의 연구 히스토리 확인하기
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
During the past decade, parties to arbitration agreements have attempted to broaden the scope of judicial review of arbitral awards by contract, beyond the boundaries established in international and domestic arbitration statutes. This article focuses on the history and evolution of the US court's attitudes towards contractual expansion of judicial review of arbitral awards, but also considers the practical approach of national courts to theses clauses. In light of the fact that the arbitral efficiency is properly a concern for the contracting parties alone, who presumably know what works best for them, it would be extraordinarily officious to insist on imposing the putative benefits of finality and economy on parties who, in their contract, have done everything they possibly could to wriggle out from under them. While the issue is one that has caused a split in the U.S. federal courts of appeals, with seemingly compelling arguments on both sides, it currently remains an open question whether there is a limit to the standard of review parties can impose upon the courts. As arbitration is a creature of contract, the arbitrability of an issue derives fundamentally from the parties' agreement to arbitrate, it is suggested that the contractual expansion of judicial review of arbitral awards can be seen as the party's self-help to secure the arbitral credibility through the court's minimum intervention. Accordingly, it is hoped that the Supreme Court's ultimate ruling shed light on whether private parties have the power to prescribe the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards, and if so, whether there are any limits to contractual authority in this area.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0