Well, I have never written a blog before so please forgive me if I'm not doing this "correctly," as I have no idea what I'm doing exactly.
As I was reading for our class on Wednesday I was noticing many things about arbitration that I didn't know about before the class. It could be that I do not have any experience in the area of arbitration, or simply the fact that I have never had a class that has discussed arbitration as even a sub-topic, but there are a few facts that have really stood out to me.
First of all, and maybe most impressively to me, I was not aware that the international arbitration process required so many different sets of rules to be determined for the arbitration. The Redfern & Hunter reading says that 4 different rules of law can all be involved in one international arbitration case, which I think is crazy, and maybe a little excessive (not to mention confusing for those involved, I'm sure).
Another very important thing that I was not aware of was the fact that there is no appellate review for the international arbitration process. I can imagine that this would make some parties reluctant to agree to an arbitration clause, simply because of the uncertainty of some cases and the fear of losing the disagreement.
Lastly, I was not aware of the fact that there was so much flexibility in the arbitration process. The fact that the parties have the opportunity to make such important decisions, such as who the arbitrator(s) is/are going to be and what rules will be applied, makes it clear to see why arbitration is such an attractive alternative to legal courts (despite the limitations).
Once again, I do not know if I did this correctly, so forgive me if I did not, but I hope you enjoyed reading my first blog entry :)
