Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS:
Title: A critical appraisal of the Federal Arbitration Act 1925 and of the suitability of the Model Law as its replacement for international commercial disputes
Author: Coe, Jack J.
Awarding Body: London School of Economics and Political Science (University of London)
Current Institution: London School of Economics and Political Science (University of London)
Date of Award: 2000
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Please try the link below.
Access from Institution:
International commercial disputes are distinctive and often exceedingly intricate. The classic influences which make private international law and international business planning multifaceted render international business disputes challenging to dissect and resolve. Conflicts of regulation and putative mandatory laws coincide with multiple languages, cultures, currencies, and interests to generate disputes that pose special problems and implicate tremendous resources. Given these realities, arbitration has emerged as an important fixture in international business planning. States have an interest in being able to offer suitable mechanisms to promote the arbitral process. The FAA Is Outmoded and Discourages Selection of the United States as A Neutral Situs: The main body of the work argues that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 should be replaced by the UNCITRAL Model Law for disputes characterized as "international." The present statutory regime is fragmentary and complex; there are many arcane intersections between federal and state law and no centralizing, unifying framework. Anecdotal accounts suggest that these negative attributes discourage selection of the United States as a neutral venue for international arbitration. The UNCITRAL Model Law is the Apt Replacement for the FAA as to International Disputes: The Model Law was drafted by experts, is balanced in its accommodation of the common law and civil law traditions, is becoming increasingly well tested, provides a framework which is familiar to non-Americans and not greatly at odds with existing U.S. doctrine. The arguments against it are, on balance, not compelling, especially given that the basic Model can be augmented to account for certain matters dictated by the U.S. Constitution and by recent developments.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID:  DOI: Not available