{"title":"1996 年《仲裁法》改革:错失巩固多样性的机会?","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":"{\"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}","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}
Reform of the Arbitration Act 1996: a missed opportunity to entrench diversity?
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.
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.