Reform of the Arbitration Act 1996: a missed opportunity to entrench diversity?

Q3 Social Sciences
Ella Davies, Sylvia Noury
{"title":"Reform of the Arbitration Act 1996: a missed opportunity to entrench diversity?","authors":"Ella Davies, Sylvia Noury","doi":"10.1093/arbint/aiad052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article discusses the recent consultation by the Law Commission of England and Wales (‘Law Commission’) on reform to the Arbitration Act 1996 (‘AA 1996’) which grappled with the issue of discrimination in agreements to appoint arbitrators. Recent efforts by the arbitration community to promote greater arbitrator diversity have started to result in the codification of equality and diversity considerations directly into some arbitral rules. However, guidelines developed to date by arbitral institutions have tended to focus on promoting greater diversity in institutional appointments rather than prohibiting discrimination in party appointments. In its September 2022 Consultation Paper, the Law Commission initially proposed new statutory provisions which would have made agreements relating to arbitrators’ ‘protected characteristics’ unenforceable, subject to certain exceptions. This article discusses some areas of uncertainty with these proposals which ultimately led to their abandonment, as well as the Law Commission’s conclusion against reforming the AA 1996 to prohibit discrimination in arbitration generally. The article examines some of the alternative ways in which discrimination could have been addressed through statutory reform and whether it is desirable for the onus to fall back to the arbitral institutions to adopt more robust guidance prohibiting discrimination in party appointments.","PeriodicalId":37425,"journal":{"name":"Arbitration International","volume":"10 40","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arbitration International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiad052","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article discusses the recent consultation by the Law Commission of England and Wales (‘Law Commission’) on reform to the Arbitration Act 1996 (‘AA 1996’) which grappled with the issue of discrimination in agreements to appoint arbitrators. Recent efforts by the arbitration community to promote greater arbitrator diversity have started to result in the codification of equality and diversity considerations directly into some arbitral rules. However, guidelines developed to date by arbitral institutions have tended to focus on promoting greater diversity in institutional appointments rather than prohibiting discrimination in party appointments. In its September 2022 Consultation Paper, the Law Commission initially proposed new statutory provisions which would have made agreements relating to arbitrators’ ‘protected characteristics’ unenforceable, subject to certain exceptions. This article discusses some areas of uncertainty with these proposals which ultimately led to their abandonment, as well as the Law Commission’s conclusion against reforming the AA 1996 to prohibit discrimination in arbitration generally. The article examines some of the alternative ways in which discrimination could have been addressed through statutory reform and whether it is desirable for the onus to fall back to the arbitral institutions to adopt more robust guidance prohibiting discrimination in party appointments.
1996 年《仲裁法》改革:错失巩固多样性的机会?
本文讨论英格兰和威尔士法律委员会("法律委员会")最近就改革《1996 年仲裁法案》("AA 1996")进行的咨询,该咨询涉及指定仲裁员协议中的歧视问题。最近,仲裁界为促进仲裁员的多样性所做的努力已开始将平等和多样性因素直接编入某些仲裁规则中。然而,迄今为止,仲裁机构制定的指导方针往往侧重于促进机构任命中的更大多样性,而不是禁止当事人任命中的歧视。在 2022 年 9 月的咨询文件中,法律委员会最初提出了新的法定条款,规定与仲裁员的 "受保护特征 "有关的协议不可执行,但某些例外情况除外。本文讨论了这些建议的一些不确定性,这些不确定性最终导致了这些建议的放弃,同时也讨论了法律委员会的结论,即反对改革《1996 年仲裁法令》以全面禁止仲裁中的歧视。文章探讨了通过法定改革解决歧视问题的一些替代方法,以及由仲裁机构承担责任,通过更有力的指导禁止当事人任命中的歧视是否可取。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Arbitration International
Arbitration International Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Launched in 1985, Arbitration International provides quarterly coverage for national and international developments in the world of arbitration. The journal aims to maintain balance between academic debate and practical contributions to the field, providing both topical material on current developments and analytic scholarship of permanent interest. Arbitrators, counsel, judges, scholars and government officials will find the journal enhances their understanding of a broad range of topics in commercial and investment arbitration. Features include (i) articles covering all major arbitration rules and national jurisdictions written by respected international practitioners and scholars, (ii) cutting edge (case) notes covering recent developments and ongoing debates in the field, (iii) book reviews of the latest publications in the world of arbitration, (iv) Letters to the Editor and (v) agora grouping articles related to a common theme. Arbitration International maintains a balance between controversial subjects for debate and topics geared toward practical use by arbitrators, lawyers, academics, judges, corporate advisors and government officials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信