Arbitration and due process

Julia Hörnle

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511576102.006

6 - Arbitration and due process

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 November 2009

Julia Hörnle

Show author details

Julia Hörnle: Affiliation:
Queen Mary University of London

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Convenience and justice are often not on speaking terms.

(Lord Atkin in General Medical Council v. Spackman [1943] AC 627 (HL), 638)

Introduction

This book develops a model for the fair resolution of Internet disputes. Since online arbitration has been suggested as the most important method to solve Internet disputes for the model, the fundamental question is whether the use of online arbitration based on the structures and principles of commercial arbitration is fair for these types of disputes and, to the extent that the answer to this question is ‘no’, how arbitration should be adapted for the purposes of this model.

This chapter concentrates on due process, which has been defined as a constituent element of fairness (alongside access and the counterpoise) in Chapter 2. By way of reminder, Chapter 2 posits two elements of due process (equal treatment of the parties before an adjudicator and rationality, in the sense that the adjudicator must not take into account any irrelevant or irrational considerations).

This chapter applies these due process principles to arbitration. It starts by exploring the sources of law for due process in arbitration, and examines the elements of due process, contrasting litigation and arbitration. This chapter discusses the principles of impartiality and independence, fair hearing, the duty to give reasons, transparency and rights to an appeal or judicial review.

Sources of legal due process

Before the discussion can proceed, it is necessary to explain the sources of law for the due process requirements.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Cross-border Internet Dispute Resolution , pp. 91 - 168

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511576102.006 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Carbonneau, T., Cases and Materials on the Law and Practice of Arbitration, 2nd edn (Huntington, NY: Juris Publishing, 2000), 50–1Google Scholar

Flick, G., Natural Justice Principles and Practical Application, 2nd edn (Sydney: Butterworths, 1984), 26–7Google Scholar

Jaksic, A., Arbitration and Human Rights (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2002), 60Google Scholar

Barak, A., ‘Constitutional Human Rights and Private Law’, in Friedmann, D. and Barak-Erez, D., Human Rights in Private Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2001), 13–42Google Scholar

Carbonneau, T., ‘Arbitral Justice: The Demise of Due Process in American Law’ (1996) 70 Tulane Law Review1945–67, 1958–9Google Scholar

Matscher, F., ‘Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit und EMRK’, in Habscheid, N. and Schwab, D., Beiträge zum internationalen Verfahrensrecht und Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (Münster: Festschrift für Heinrich Nagel, 1987), 237Google Scholar

Robinson, W. and Kasolowsky, B., ‘Will the United Kingdom's Human Rights Act Further Protect Parties to Arbitration Proceedings?’ (2002) 18(4) Arbitration International453–66, 460CrossRef Google Scholar

Samuel, A., ‘Arbitration, Alternative Dispute Resolution Generally and the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2004) 21(5) Journal of International Arbitration413–38, 416Google Scholar

Shultz, T., ‘Human Rights: A Speed Bump for Arbitral Procedures?’ (2006) 9(1) International Arbitration Law Review8–23, 15Google Scholar

Liebscher, C., The Healthy Award (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2003), 74Google Scholar

Kurkela, M., Due Process in International Commercial Arbitration (New York, NY: Oceana, 2005), 30–1Google Scholar

,Law Society's Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors, 8th edn (London: Law Society, 1999)Google Scholar

Partasides, C., ‘International Commercial Arbitrations’, in Tackaberry, J. and Marriott, A., Bernstein's Handbook of Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Practice, 4th edn (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2003), 651–706, 687Google Scholar

Thornburg, E., ‘Going Private: Technology, Due Process and Internet Dispute Resolution’ (Fall 2000) 34 UC Davis Law Review151–220, 208Google Scholar

Gibbons, L. J., ‘Private Law, Public “Justice”: Another Look at Privacy, Arbitration and Global E-Commerce’ (2000) 15 Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 769–93, 780Google Scholar

Schultz, T., ‘Does Online Dispute Resolution Need Governmental Intervention?’ (2004) 6 North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology71–106, 92–3Google Scholar

Sternlight, J., ‘Panacea or Corporate Tool?: Debunking the Supreme Court's Preference for Binding Arbitration’ (Fall 1996) 74 Washington University Law Quarterly637–712, 684–5Google Scholar

Qureshi, K., ‘Conflict of Interest’ (2004) 154 New Law Journal1400–1Google Scholar

Tackaberry, J. and Marriott, A., ‘General Principles’, in Tackaberry, J. and Marriott, A., Bernstein's Handbook of Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Practice, 4th edn (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2003), 160–1Google Scholar

Lind, E. A., Erickson, B. E., Friedland, N. and Dickenberger, M., ‘Reactions to Procedural Models for Adjudicative Conflict Resolution: A Cross-National Study’ (1978) 22(2) Journal of Conflict Resolution318–41, 335CrossRef Google Scholar

Hörnle, J., ‘Online Dispute Resolution’, in Tackaberry, J. and Marriott, A., Bernstein's Handbook of Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Practice, 4th edn (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2003), 794Google Scholar

Rutherford, M., ‘Documents-Only Arbitrations in Consumer Disputes’, in Tackaberry, J. and Marriott, A., Bernstein's Handbook of Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Practice, 4th edn (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2003), 646Google Scholar

Wahab, M. S. Abdel, ‘Does Technology Emasculate Trust? Confidentiality and Security Concerns in Online Arbitration’ [September 2004] (Special Supplement: Using Technology to Resolve Business Disputes) ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin43–51, 48Google Scholar

Bamford, R., ‘Shopping Around: Dealing with Cross-Border Complaints’ (2004) 14(4) Consumer Policy Review108–12, 110Google Scholar

Tweedale, A., ‘Confidentiality in Arbitration and the Public Interest Exception’ (2005) 21(1) Arbitration International59–70, 69CrossRef Google Scholar

Bagner, H., ‘Confidentiality – A Fundamental Principle in International Commercial Arbitration?’ (2001) 18(2) Journal of International Arbitration243–9, 244CrossRef Google Scholar

Kouris, S., ‘Confidentiality: Is International Arbitration Losing One of Its Major Benefits?’ (2005) 22(2) Journal of International Arbitration127–40, 131Google Scholar

Fouchard, P., ‘La Porteé Internationale de l'Annulation de la Sentence Arbitrale dans son Pays d'Origine’ (1997) 3 Revue de l'Arbitrage327–52, 349Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.