FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2894762467> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2894762467 abstract "The Supreme Court’s arbitration jurisprudence from the last five years represents the culmination of a three-decade-long expansion of the use of private arbitration as an alternative to court adjudication in the resolution of disputes of virtually every type of justiciable claim. Because privatizing disputes that would otherwise be public may well erode public confidence in public institutions and the judicial process, many observers have linked this decades-long privatization of dispute resolution to an erosion of the public realm. Here, I argue that the Court’s recent arbitration jurisprudence undermines the substantive law itself.While this shift from dispute resolution in courts — the public realm — to dispute resolution in arbitration — the private realm — initially undermined values and mechanisms of adjudication, the shift from public lawsuits to private arbitration now also threatens values and mechanisms of lawmaking. This new threat to the lawmaking function stems from a fundamental theoretical shift in the Court’s arbitration jurisprudence, cemented in its 2013 decision in American Express v. Italian Colors. As this piece explains, in Italian Colors, the Supreme Court subtly, but definitively, abandoned its descriptive and normative premise that freedom of contract was justified in the arbitration context because it would result in more cost-effective procedures for resolving disputes, and, accordingly, enforcement of federal statutory regimes. In its place, the Court adopted a reductionist vision of arbitration as any set of private dispute resolution procedures chosen by the parties, no matter how onerous or inefficient, and it held that the Federal Arbitration Act required courts to enforce whatever terms the parties chose. Particularly given a pronounced reliance in the United States upon private litigants to enforce statutory directives, the Court’s recent arbitration jurisprudence now threatens the substantive law itself. Through private arbitration contracts, private parties can effectively rewrite substantive law by rendering a host of legal claims mere nullities. What’s more, private parties can exercise this quasi-lawmaking power almost entirely outside of public view, through rarely read and little-understood provisions in contracts of adhesion subject to scant public scrutiny or regulatory oversight. The largely unchecked power of private entities to recalibrate their legal obligations, now recognized by the Court, leaves little to stop an erosion of substantive law." @default.
• W2894762467 created "2018-10-12" @default.
• W2894762467 creator A5084446443 @default.
• W2894762467 date "2015-01-01" @default.
• W2894762467 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2894762467 title "Disappearing Claims and the Erosion of Substantive Law" @default.
• W2894762467 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2894762467 type Work @default.
• W2894762467 sameAs 2894762467 @default.
• W2894762467 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2894762467 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W2894762467 hasAuthorship W2894762467A5084446443 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConcept C131676636 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConcept C160151201 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConcept C160786031 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConcept C204434341 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConcept C2777366047 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConcept C2778680907 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConcept C71043370 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConceptScore W2894762467C131676636 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConceptScore W2894762467C144024400 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConceptScore W2894762467C160151201 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConceptScore W2894762467C160786031 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConceptScore W2894762467C17744445 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConceptScore W2894762467C190253527 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConceptScore W2894762467C199539241 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConceptScore W2894762467C204434341 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConceptScore W2894762467C2777366047 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConceptScore W2894762467C2778272461 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConceptScore W2894762467C2778680907 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConceptScore W2894762467C71043370 @default.
• W2894762467 hasConceptScore W2894762467C83009810 @default.
• W2894762467 hasLocation W28947624671 @default.
• W2894762467 hasOpenAccess W2894762467 @default.
• W2894762467 hasPrimaryLocation W28947624671 @default.
• W2894762467 hasRelatedWork W1498284276 @default.
• W2894762467 hasRelatedWork W1506478614 @default.
• W2894762467 hasRelatedWork W1509385473 @default.
• W2894762467 hasRelatedWork W1863387650 @default.
• W2894762467 hasRelatedWork W1961512691 @default.
• W2894762467 hasRelatedWork W2049702041 @default.
• W2894762467 hasRelatedWork W2580610841 @default.
• W2894762467 hasRelatedWork W2610957787 @default.
• W2894762467 hasRelatedWork W2767808600 @default.
• W2894762467 hasRelatedWork W2810700232 @default.
• W2894762467 hasRelatedWork W3121752673 @default.
• W2894762467 hasRelatedWork W3122482222 @default.
• W2894762467 hasRelatedWork W3124720049 @default.
• W2894762467 hasRelatedWork W3124759596 @default.
• W2894762467 hasRelatedWork W3124973856 @default.
• W2894762467 hasRelatedWork W412221109 @default.
• W2894762467 hasRelatedWork W53940892 @default.
• W2894762467 hasRelatedWork W1806962368 @default.
• W2894762467 hasRelatedWork W213170778 @default.
• W2894762467 hasRelatedWork W2940836893 @default.
• W2894762467 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2894762467 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2894762467 magId "2894762467" @default.
• W2894762467 workType "article" @default.