来自维也纳的信件:在美国最高法院对At&T移动诉康塞普西翁案的判决之后,关于仲裁是否适合解决大规模索赔的咖啡馆辩论的反思

Cornel Marian
{"title":"来自维也纳的信件:在美国最高法院对At&T移动诉康塞普西翁案的判决之后,关于仲裁是否适合解决大规模索赔的咖啡馆辩论的反思","authors":"Cornel Marian","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2077379","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Just ten days before the US Supreme Court rendered its decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, a panel of distinguished arbitration practitioners met in Vienna on 17 April 2011 to debate hypothetically whether 'arbitration is appropriate for the resolution of mass claims.' The ICDR and SCC jointly-sponsored event successfully tackled 'the proliferation of mass claims systems' and subsequent efforts by legislators and arbitration institutions 'to provide models for the resolution of mass claims.' This paper annotates the debate and provides a commentary on the expected developments after the seminal decision rendered by the US Supreme Court.","PeriodicalId":246136,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Enforcement of Consumer Laws (Topic)","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Letters from Vienna: Reflections on the Coffee House Debate on Whether Arbitration is Appropriate for the Resolution of Mass Claims in the Aftermath of the US Supreme Court Decision in At&T Mobility V. Concepcion\",\"authors\":\"Cornel Marian\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2077379\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Just ten days before the US Supreme Court rendered its decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, a panel of distinguished arbitration practitioners met in Vienna on 17 April 2011 to debate hypothetically whether 'arbitration is appropriate for the resolution of mass claims.' The ICDR and SCC jointly-sponsored event successfully tackled 'the proliferation of mass claims systems' and subsequent efforts by legislators and arbitration institutions 'to provide models for the resolution of mass claims.' This paper annotates the debate and provides a commentary on the expected developments after the seminal decision rendered by the US Supreme Court.\",\"PeriodicalId\":246136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Enforcement of Consumer Laws (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Enforcement of Consumer Laws (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2077379\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Enforcement of Consumer Laws (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2077379","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2011年4月17日,就在美国最高法院对AT&T移动诉康塞普西翁案做出裁决的十天前,一个由杰出仲裁从业者组成的小组在维也纳会面,就“仲裁是否适合解决大规模索赔”进行了假设辩论。ICDR和SCC共同主办的这次活动成功地解决了“大规模索赔制度的扩散”以及立法者和仲裁机构随后“为解决大规模索赔提供模式”的努力。本文对辩论进行了注解,并对美国最高法院作出开创性决定后的预期发展提供了评论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Letters from Vienna: Reflections on the Coffee House Debate on Whether Arbitration is Appropriate for the Resolution of Mass Claims in the Aftermath of the US Supreme Court Decision in At&T Mobility V. Concepcion
Just ten days before the US Supreme Court rendered its decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, a panel of distinguished arbitration practitioners met in Vienna on 17 April 2011 to debate hypothetically whether 'arbitration is appropriate for the resolution of mass claims.' The ICDR and SCC jointly-sponsored event successfully tackled 'the proliferation of mass claims systems' and subsequent efforts by legislators and arbitration institutions 'to provide models for the resolution of mass claims.' This paper annotates the debate and provides a commentary on the expected developments after the seminal decision rendered by the US Supreme Court.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信