Abstract
In the lead piece of this symposium, Hensler and Khatam bring into relief two paradoxes in contemporary arbitration policy and practice.1 First, arbitration is beset by hyperspecialization into segmented domains, yet is plagued by reforms that transcend those boundaries. Second, arbitration seeks all the virtue of formal adjudication without the process, yet process is the principal virtue of formal adjudication.
Hensler and Khatam invite readers to think broadly about contemporary arbitration policy and practice. Accepting that invitation, I briefly explore four areas of inquiry that can be reduced to the interrogatives Why?, What?, When?, and Who?, respectively. All four questions locate arbitration within the larger dispute resolution architecture.
Recommended Citation
Thomas O. Main,
Arbitration, What Is It Good For?,
18
Nev. L.J.
45
(2018).
Available at:
https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/nlj/vol18/iss2/6