Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Alan Rau (1)
- Arbitration and award (1)
- Burden of proof (1)
- Competence-competence (1)
- Dispute Resolution (1)
-
- Evidence (1)
- First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan (1)
- Hall Street Associates v. Mattel (1)
- Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds (1)
- Inc. (1)
- International arbitration (1)
- International commercial arbitration (1)
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. (1)
- Prima facie case (1)
- Separability (1)
- UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1)
- World Trade Organization. Appellate Body (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Burden Of Proof, Prima Facie Case And Presumption In Wto Dispute Settlement, John J. Barceló Iii
Burden Of Proof, Prima Facie Case And Presumption In Wto Dispute Settlement, John J. Barceló Iii
John J. Barceló III
The essay maintains that the WTO Appellate Body's concepts and terminology concerning a claimant's burden of proof-the concepts of prima facie case, presumption, and burden shifting-are disturbingly ambiguous and potentially misleading. This is so whether one thinks of these terms from either a common law or a civil law perspective. In the face of the current ambiguity, a future panel might understand the AB's prima facie case concept to require an overwhelming level of proof from the claimant. On the other hand, a different panel might allow a rather weak level of claimant's proof to meet the prima facie requirement, …
Who Decides The Arbitrators' Jurisdiction? Separability And Competence-Competence In Transnational Perspective, John J. Barceló Iii
Who Decides The Arbitrators' Jurisdiction? Separability And Competence-Competence In Transnational Perspective, John J. Barceló Iii
John J. Barceló III
No abstract provided.
Expanded Judicial Review Of Awards After Hall Street And In Comparative Perspective, John J. Barceló Iii
Expanded Judicial Review Of Awards After Hall Street And In Comparative Perspective, John J. Barceló Iii
John J. Barceló III
The essay addresses whether party preference for more intrusive court review of the facts and law of an aribitral award will (or should) be respected in national arbitration law. The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hall Street rules that expanded review clauses are not enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. The essay argues, however, that expanded review of an international arbitral award should still be possible in the U.S. if the parties draft the arbitration clause carefully. For that purpose the parties should include an expanded review clause and should place the arbitral seat in a State that allows …