New Battles and Battlegrounds for Mandatory Arbitration After Epic Systems,New Prime,and Lamps Plus

The Supreme Court's recent decisions interpreting the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in the employment context generally prioritize arbitration over workers’ labor law rights. The majority in Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis upheld mandatory individual employment arbitration agreements despite their conflict with the labor law right to act in concert. The same majority in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela rejected a state law interpretation of a contract provision to find that parties to an employment contract intend individual arbitration absent reference to group arbitration. A unanimous Court in New Prime v. Oliveira interpreted the FAA to include independent contractors under the transportation worker exemption, reinvigorating the battle over what it means to be engaged in interstate commerce to qualify for the exemption. These decisions resolved some disputes about the breadth of the FAA, but other questions remain. In the wake of Epic Systems and Lamps Plus, state courts and legislatures are testing the boundaries of the FAA's saving clause, with limited success. Confidentiality provisions, frequently associated with arbitration agreements, may unlawfully interfere with employees’ federal labor law rights. This article recommends that Congress amend the FAA to address these issues by excluding all workers engaged in interstate commerce, not just transportation workers, because the Court has strayed far from the original intent of the Act—to enforce commercial agreements in which the parties had equal bargaining power. State legislation also should provide guidance on what makes arbitration voluntary and fair, and provide a choice to employees on collective action, forum, and confidentiality.     

我国“或裁或审”条款的反思与突破——兼评《仲裁法司法解释》第7条

由于没有明确的立法规定,“或裁或审”条款的性质与类型在认定上十分模糊,因此各级人民法院经常在该问题上产生混乱。例如,“或裁或审”条款与“一裁终局”条款相混淆,多份协议与单一协议中的“或裁或审”条款相模糊,以及对《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国仲裁法〉若干问题的解释》(以下简称《仲裁法司法解释》)第7条的理解不一致等。虽然最高人民法院发布的司法解释或指导性案例能为各级人民法院在“或裁或审”条款的性质与类型的定性中提供指引,但并不能从根本上解决《仲裁法司法解释》第7条中对于仲裁协议无效的规定。纵观各国对于既约定仲裁又约定诉讼的条款的态度,我国对于仲裁无效的判定过于严厉,这与我国正在推进建立亚太国际仲裁中心的政策考量不入。只有对法律制度的突破与变更才能在实质上修正立法的滞后性。先管辖先受理原则的借鉴,不仅可以为维护当事人意思自治提供出路,而且可以为我国鼓励与支持仲裁的发展消弭弊端。     

Unmasking Jane and John Doe: Online Anonymity and the First Amendment

When individuals turn on the television, listen to the radio, or purchase newspapers, they are not forming contractual relationships. Yet, almost without exception, online readers, viewers and listeners are required to enter into “terms of use” contracts. These ubiquitous agreements are generally unfavorable for the user in areas of intellectual property rights and privacy. In addition, the terms often restrict users’ behavior and their ability to litigate any disputes with a Web site. In analyzing the implications of contracts for Web site users, this article examines whether courts have recognized a distinction between online consumers, interactive users, and “passive media users”—online readers, listeners or viewers who engage in little, if any, of the activity traditionally required to form contracts. Case law reveals a frequent de facto exemption from online agreements for passive media users, but not highly interactive users. This exemption could be formally recognized to benefit all parties to a contract.     

Bilateral Investment Treaties,Credible Commitment,and the Rule of (International) Law: Do BITs Promote Foreign Direct Investment?

A long line of research, beginning with Macaulay's (1963) well‐known study of “Non‐Contractual Relations in Business,” suggests that the formal trappings of domestic law often have effects on private behavior that are, at best, “indirect, subtle, and ambiguous” ( Macaulay 1984 :155). Law and society scholars have spent somewhat less time exploring whether international law's effects on behavior are similarly attenuated. In this article I examine whether foreign investors take the presence of strong formal international legal protections into account when deciding where to invest. I focus on whether the presence of bilateral investment treaties, or BITs, meaningfully influences investment decisions. I present results from a statistical analysis that examines whether the formally strongest BITs—those that guarantee investors access to international arbitration to enforce investors' international legal rights—are associated with greater investment flows. I find no clear link between treaty protections and investment, a finding consistent with past law and society research but in tension with claims common in the BIT literature that the treaties should have dramatic effects on investor behavior.     

Affirmed: A Study of Criminal Appeals and Decision-Making Norms in a California Court of Appeal

The work of state intermediate appellate courts is often described as “correcting legal errors” and “supervising” trial courts. But what do these labels mean in practice? This article explores the intermediate appellate process through a study of criminal appeals in a California Court of Appeal. Part I describes the characteristics and dispositions of criminal appeals. Contrary to popular impression, a conviction was reversed in only about 5 percent of these appeals. To explain the low reversal rate, part II draws upon interviews with justices of the Court of Appeal to examine the institutional norms and perspectives guiding the court's decisions. The basic decision norms described by the justices are norms of affirmance: for example, the harmless error rule and the substantial evidence rule incline the court to affirm despite certain legal errors or factual questions. Moreover, the particularistic approach the court typically takes in its decision making apparently sensitizes it to the substantive characteristics prevailing in criminal appeals: the crimes are serious and there is little doubt about factual guilt. The low reversal rate and the analysis of the court's norms suggest that intermediate appellate review of criminal convictions is narrower and more constrained than the “error correction” and “supervision” labels imply. Part III explores the implications of the case study for appellate policy.     

Everything Is Relative,Including the “Absoluteness” of the Current,Restrictive Pollution Exclusion

Although insurers like to call the most recent versions of the pollution exclusion “absolute,” insureds should not necessarily agree—just as many courts have not agreed—that the exclusion is “absolute.” Instead, insureds should examine the precise language of the exclusions at issue, which may on their face provide a basis to argue that a potential for coverage exists. Further, whether the release at issue is made up of “pollutants” or constitutes “pollution” can only be judged by the circumstances of each case. Ultimately, an insured stands to gain if it can demonstrate that some aspect of the underlying claim, no matter how small, remains potentially covered under at least one policy. To avoid a duty to defend, an insurer must conclusively establish that all potential for coverage is excluded. Even a sliver of potential coverage is enough to trigger an insured's right to call upon an insurer to defend the entire underlying action, a right that itself could be worth millions of dollars in attorney's fees and investigation costs.     

Creating the Reasonable Child: Risk,Responsibility, and the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine

In common law, trespassers could not sue for injuries. In the early 1870s, however, courts exempted child trespassers injured by industrial machinery from this rule. The development of the hotly contested “attractive nuisance” doctrine illustrates turn‐of‐the‐twentieth‐century debates about how to allocate the risk of injury from industrial accidents, which linked responsibility to the capacity to understand danger and to exert self‐control. Although at first courts in attractive nuisance cases perceived children as innocent, irrational “butterflies,” they gradually reconceived child plaintiffs to be rational, risk‐bearing individuals, a change reflected and accelerated by the Safety First campaign launched by railroad corporations. This reframing of children's ability to bear risk created the standard of the “reasonable child,” which transferred responsibility for industrial accidents to children themselves. Although by the 1930s the attractive nuisance doctrine had been widely accepted, in practice the “reasonable child” standard posed a difficult hurdle for child plaintiffs to overcome.     

Why Should Justice Be Seen to Be Done?

A well-known maxim instructs that justice should be seen to be done. When “seen” is understood in the sense of “observed”, the maxim is easily defended: open court proceedings protect against arbitrary and partial decisions. However, when “seen” is understood in the sense of “seem,” the maxim is more puzzling, since it is not obvious why courts should concern themselves with people's perceptions that justice has been done. This article addresses this issue, with a particular focus on the social and other benefits that result when judges observe procedures that are widely regarded as fair, especially in criminal trials. The article draws on empirical studies in social psychology that show that when legal authorities treat people in ways that accord with “lay” procedural expectations, they are more likely to view the authorities as legitimate, to cooperate with them, and to obey the law out of an internalized sense of obligation. The article explores the moral significance of these empirical findings, arguing that it would be superficial to see them as a recipe for social stability. The deeper truth conveyed by the empirical research is that relating to people in ways that are widely perceived to be fair is a way for authorities to engage people's moral sentiments and to enliven their virtuous capacity to put aside considerations of self-interest so as to do what is right. This dynamic provides a sound moral foundation for courts to concern themselves with perceptions of justice.     

Venta y donación de órganos en la ley de ablación e implantes argentina: algunos problemas bioéticos

First, I do general observations about the influence of medicine on Ethics. Second, I analyze two arguments that have been given regarding the ban on the marketing of organ —ie., “the Kantian argument” and “the argument from exploitation” —. Then, I examine two standards of Argentina's Legislation on organ ablation and implantation. This paper propose to consider the reasons that should befound to support the sales ban organ; the called corruption objection (Sandel) and that the donation is justified provided that no control of this decision on other people (Seleme). Accepted this position, then it is argued that Argentina's standards limiting qualified individuals to donate organs, are not justified.     

Trade Secrecy Injunctions,Disclosure Risks,and eBay's Influence

Historically, intellectual property (IP) owners could rely on injunctive remedies to prevent continued infringement. The Supreme Court's eBay v. MercExchange decision changed this, however. After eBay, patent courts no longer apply presumptions that push the deliberative scales in favor of injunctions (or “property rule” protection). Instead, patent injunctions require a careful four‐factor analysis, where plaintiffs must demonstrate irreparable injury (i.e., that money damages cannot compensate). Without question, eBay has made it harder for patent plaintiffs to secure injunctions, and has led many district courts to consider innovation policy concerns (e.g., the strategic behavior of patent “troll” plaintiffs) in the injunction calculus. By and large, courts’ more deliberative approach to patent injunctions post‐eBay has been viewed as beneficial for the patent system. Over the past decade, eBay’s influence has migrated to other areas of IP. This article offers the first account of eBay’s impact on federal trade secrecy injunctions. Important differences between trade secret law and other areas of IP—for example, the hard‐to‐quantify risk that disclosure poses to trade secret owners—has lessened eBay’s influence on trade secrecy injunctions. This article argues that disclosure risks justify a bifurcated approach to trade secrecy injunctions. That is, in cases involving the dissemination of trade secrets, courts should presume irreparable injury in the injunction calculus. However, in cases involving the unauthorized use of a trade secret—that is, where a defendant builds upon a plaintiff's trade secret but does not disseminate it—courts should not presume irreparable harm and, instead, should apply the eBay framework. As part of this assessment, courts should consider policy concerns related to cumulative innovation and employee mobility.     

Clicking Away Your Speech Rights: The Enforceability of Gagwrap Licenses

Abstract

Software companies would like to be able to control what their customers and reviewers can say about them and their software. To this end, many include in their license agreements “DeWitt” or “gagwrap” clauses which purport to prevent written reviews or disclosure of benchmark test results involving the software without the manufacturer's consent. While the courts have recognized the enforceability of software licenses to protect manufacturers, they have so far not addressed the enforceability of gagwrap clauses. This article examines gagwrap clauses and examines them in a public policy framework arising from contract and First Amendment jurisprudence. It proposes a test for the enforceability of the clauses that leaves in place many agreements not to speak but renders gagwrap clauses suspect on public policy grounds.     

Sharia Courts and Muslim Personal Law in India: Intersecting Legal Regimes

In July 2005, a Delhi lawyer filed suit with the Supreme Court of India seeking to ban “sharia courts” (dar ul qazas) and Islamic legal opinions, arguing that they constitute a “parallel judicial system” that undermines the state's legal institutions. The Supreme Court decided in 2014 that dar ul qazas are not parallel but appropriate alternative forums. In this article, I analyze several divorce cases in Delhi and Patna dar ul qazas to show that, rather than being alternative or parallel, dar ul qazas intersect with state courts. Attending to this intersection, I argue, has implications for how we understand legal pluralism, secularism, and the relation between them. Specifically, I argue that because of how cases travel between dar ul qazas and state courts, dar ul qazas help to consolidate the oppositions between religious and secular law, kin relations, and rights upon which secularism relies.     

Arbitration in financial dispute resolution: the final step to reconstructing the default(s) and exception(s)?

In this article, I argue for caution in embracing family arbitration as a new form of private ordering for resolving parties' financial disputes. I explain that family arbitration may be more successful than other forms of private ordering and final court hearings in enabling certain types of parties to resolve certain types of disputes. I consider why family arbitration may not become numerically significant despite its potential benefits, but may be much more important in normative terms. Lawyer-led negotiations remain the most common form of out-of-court resolution and constitute the de facto default form of bargaining in the shadow of the normative regime framed by ss 23–25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Together with the transformation in approach to nuptial agreements, family arbitration may mark a normative shift towards autonomy and private ordering. I question whether this is a desirable step for family law, at least before we have resolved the underlying policy debate.     

外国船员工资索赔:诉讼和仲裁之间的选择——评美国联邦第九巡回法庭the“Rogers v.Royal Caribbean Cruise Line”案

简要介绍美国联邦上诉法院第九巡回法庭the"Rogers v.Royal Caribbean Cruise Line"案的案情,回顾美国国会对船员在法院诉讼追偿工资的法定保护和支持执行《纽约公约》下仲裁的两个政策的历史背景以及法庭判案所遵循的先例,按照对案件争议点的审理思路,逐一分析法庭对船员雇佣合同中仲裁协议是否被美国《联邦仲裁法》排除条款排除、《公约法案》和《联邦仲裁法》发生冲突时的优先适用、仲裁协议是否合理以及仲裁条款是否符合公共利益的推理过程,论证法院判决的合理性,提出与判决相反的可能性解释,从而得出结论:出于权衡国会相互冲突的政策的目的,法院判决强制执行仲裁。最后,提出该案例对中国船员立法的借鉴意义。     

Competition and Cooperation in International Commercial Arbitration: The Birth of a Transnational Legal Profession

This paper revisits the sociology of international commercial arbitration on the basis of unexploited archives and data. This material casts new light on the competition between “grand old men” and “young technocrats” in the 1980s and 1990s, a theme that has structured the analysis of international commercial arbitration since the pioneering work of Yves Dezalay and Bryant G. Garth (Dealing in Virtue). In contrast, the data show that the crucial transformative period actually took place between the 1950s and 1970s, when a relatively well‐defined group of individuals emerged as the leading arbitrators at the International Chamber of Commerce. These individuals— the “secant marginals”—succeeded in constructing a cooperative interface (rather than competition) between otherwise separate legal systems and professions. In doing so, they created the conditions necessary for the emergence of a new transnational legal profession. At a more general level, the article proposes an alternative narrative of globalization, wherein actors operating at the intersection of various systems, create new arenas of governance on the basis of inter‐system cooperation.     

Dissent,Legitimacy, and Public Support for Court Decisions: Evidence from a Survey‐Based Experiment

Scholars often argue that whereas unanimous rulings should boost public support for court decisions, dissents should fuel public opposition. Previous studies on public responses to U.S. Supreme Court decisions suggest that unanimity does in fact bolster support. However, a recent study has also found that dissents may increase support among opponents of a court decision by suggesting evidence of procedural justice. By examining how individuals react to dissents from the Supreme Court of Norway, this article is the first study outside the U.S. context of the public's reaction to unanimity and dissent. Breaking with the common notion of the negative effects of dissent on public support, the article shows that when the Supreme Court handles cases of higher political salience, the formulation of dissenting opinions can be a meaningful way of securing greater support for its policy outputs by suggesting evidence of procedural justice. Contrary to recent studies, however, this positive influence of dissent is irrespective of individuals' ex ante policy views.     

The concept of harm reconceived: A different look at wrongful life

In wrongful life litigation a congenitally impaired child brings suit against those, usually physicians, whose negligence caused him to be born into his suffering existence. A key conceptual question is whether we can predicate “harm” in such cases. While a few courts have permitted it, many courts deny that we can, and thus have refused these children standing to sue. In this article the author examines the wrongful life cases and literature enroute to a broader consideration of harm. This literature, and philosophical discussions of harm generally, rely on a definition which ascribes harm by comparing an individual's current condition with that in which he would otherwise have been, but for the allegedly harmful event. The author shows this definition to be conceptually and morally flawed. A superior general definition is offered which, when then applied to wrongful life cases, shows that we can easily ascribe harm in these cases and can find clear potential for tort liability.     

The Effect of Gender and Relational Distance on Plaintiff Decision Making in the Litigation Process

Individuals’ choices about whether to resolve disputes via litigation can be affected by their relationship with the potential defendant. I explore whether gender also plays a role, with women being less aggressive in legal tactics than men as their connection to the potential defendant becomes closer. The study uses a survey design with vignettes to explore decisions across the legal process, including the willingness to sue, responses to settlement offers, and whether or not to appeal. The survey varies the extent of the relationship between the potential plaintiff and defendant and includes two types of injuries—a “slip and fall” and pay discrimination. The findings reveal that once litigation has begun, women have a greater preference than men for mediation in both types of cases, but they are more resistant than men to settlement in discrimination disputes. Neither men nor women's legal strategies seem to be affected by relational distance.