We’ve had a great response from our readers on our very first poll. But, perpetual strivers that we are, we’d like to receive even more responses!
If you haven’t already, please take our poll question, which is at the end of this post (and also conveniently located on the right sidebar of the website). Please encourage your colleagues to take the poll, which will take less than a minute to complete. A link to our original post about the poll is available here.
We will compile our results and analysis in a special post next week.
[SURVEYS 2]
________________________
To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Arbitration Blog, please subscribe here. To submit a proposal for a blog post, please consult our Editorial Guidelines.
“Party appointment system”. Arbitration can only be a party appointment system. That’s what it is. OED: “Arbitration, The settlement of a dispute or question at issue by one to whom the conflicting parties agree to refer their claims in order to obtain an equitable decision.” Only the Parties can agree to do that.
Only the Parties, or someone acting as their agent can give authority to the Arbitrators. Take away the right of the Parties to select and appoint the Arbitrators and it isn’t Arbitration.
It may be some simulacrum of a court without state authority but if won’t be arbitration.
If there’s a problem – and arguably not every institution will be an exact match of the demographic profile – it is that lawyers do not realise that they can look more widely than “les Hauts Arbitres”. Once lawyers want women, we’ll have women.