University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review Volume 15 Issue 2 Volume 15 Issue 2 Article 5 10-1-2007 Doctrinal Development In United States Arbitration: A Metamorphosis Of Paradigms Beyond Gregor Samsa's Imagination Pedro J. Martinez-Fraga Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umiclr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Pedro J. Martinez-Fraga, Doctrinal Development In United States Arbitration: A Metamorphosis Of Paradigms Beyond Gregor Samsa's Imagination, 15 U. Miami Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 255 (2007) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umiclr/vol15/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT IN UNITED STATES ARBITRATION: A METAMORPHOSIS OF PARADIGMS BEYOND GREGOR SAMSA'S IMAGINATION By Pedro J. Martinez-Fraga* I. Introduction ............................................................................ 256 II. The Formation and Transformation of the Status of International and Domestic Arbitration in the United States- Introduction ............................................................. 260 A. The Historically Conventional View of Arbitration in the U nited States ........................................................................ 260 III. Shift Paradigm: Wilko v. Swan, Scherk v. Alberto- Culver, and Mitsubishi v. Soler ............................................ 280 A . W ilko v. Sw an ..................................................................... 280 B. Scherk v. Alberto-Culver: A Non-Reversal Reversal ......... 289 Mitsubishi v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.: The Final D ecisive Paradigm ............................................................... 294 IV. Unresolved Doctrinal Precepts ........................................... 298 A. Conceptual Bilateralism: The Public Nature of Judicial Proceedings Versus the Private Character of Arbitration.... 299 B. Two Points of View: The Mirror Image .............................. 299 A. The Applicable Procedural Law to an International Arbitration and the Issue of "Discovery" Versus "The Taking of Evidence............................................................ 300 V . Conclusion .............................................................................. 301 Pedro J. Martinez-Fraga received his B.A. from St. John's College, Annapolis (Highest Honors) in 1984, and a J.D. from Columbia University School of Law (Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar) in 1987. He Chairs the Florida and Latin America International Dispute Resolution Practice Group for Latin America and Florida, and Co-chairs the IDR Practice Group firm-wide, to include Europe and Asia of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P. He is an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law, Visiting Professor of the University of Navarra School of Law in Pamplona, Spain, and President of the Global Dispute Resolution Center of the Maiestas Foundation. U. MIAMI INT'L & COMP. L. REv. [Vol. 15:2 I. INTRODUCTION In the Museo del Prado there hangs a masterful work by Francisco De Goya entitled "Duelo a Garrotazos," meaning "A Duel With Clubs."' This canvas is arresting and foreboding. Set in the context of a stark sunset two men face one another, both buried knee high so as to preclude any hope of escape, armed with clubs that are being swung in each other's direction. Their inability to dodge blows or otherwise flee from the deadly contest is underscored by the sense of rigidity arising from being "planted." The menacing intuition in the spectator of lethal harm is eloquently spawned by the outstretched clubs that inevitably shall find their immovable, fixed targets. Pursuant to this methodology doubtless the underlying dispute shall somehow be settled and the particular conflict resolved by agreement of the parties, without state intervention or furtherance of national social policies incident to other- wise dispositive judicial recourse. Domestic and international institutional arbitration in the United States, much like Goya's "alternative dispute resolution" depiction in the form of a Duel Using Clubs, was perceived by commentators, the judiciary, practitioners, and captains of industry as a blunt and, therefore, imprecise methodology for dispute resolution. 2 In addition to finding 1 Francisco de Goya, Duelo a Garrotazos, circa. 1820 1823, mural transposed to linen, 123 x 266 cm.: donation of Emile d' Erlanger. 2 See, e.g., Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427, 438 (1953) ("[I]t has enacted the Securities Act to protect the rights of investors and has forbidden a waiver of any of those rights. Recognizing the advantages that prior agreements for arbi- tration may provide for the solution of commercial controversies, we decide that the intention of Congress concerning the sale of securities is better carried out by holding invalid such an agreement for arbitration of issues arising under the Act."); American Safety Equipment Corp. v. J.P. Maguire & Co., 391 F.2d 821, 828 (2d Cir. 1968) ("[I]n some situations Congress has allowed parties to obtain the advantages of arbitration if they 'are willing to accept less certainty of legally correct adjustment' but we do not think that this is one of them. In short, we conclude that antitrust claims raised here are inappropriate for arbitration."); Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, Inc., 350 U.S. 198, 203 (1956) ("[F]or the remedy by arbitration, whatever its merits or shortcomings, substantially affects the cause of action created by the State. The nature of the tribunal where suits are tried is an important part of the parcel of rights behind a cause of action. The change from a court of law to an arbitration panel may make a radical difference in ultimate result. Arbitration carries no right to trial by jury 2007] DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT IN U.S. ARBITRATION arbitral proceedings as bereft of the expertise and procedural safeguards endemic to judicial processes, arbitrators also were viewed as wanting in authority to award liquidated damages, costs, punitive damages, or attor- neys' fees under most statutorily crafted causes of action, if not under all claims irrespective of normative foundation. In the United States, however, the pendulum now has swung to maximum apogee in the opposite direction. Four specific factors have contributed to the recognition of arbitration in pari materia with judicial proceedings. First, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted "international contract" as a normative basis for according special deference to arbitral proceedings in 4 an international context. that is guaranteed both by the Seventh Amendment and by Ch. 1, Art. 12, of the Vermont Constitution. Arbitrators do not have the benefit of judicial instruction on the law; they need not give their reasons for their results; the record of their proceedings is not as complete as it is in a court trial; and judicial review of an award is more limited than judicial review of a trial."); Barrentine v. Arkansas- Best Freight System, Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 744 (1981) ('[B]ecause the arbitrator is required to effectuate the intent of the parties, rather than to enforce the statute, he may issue a ruling that is inimical to the public policies underlying the FLSA [Fair Labor Standard Act], thus depriving an employee of protected statutory rights."); McDonald v. City of West Branch, Michigan, 466 U.S. 284, 291 292 (1984) ("[F]inally, arbitral fact finding is generally not equivalent to judicial fact finding. As we explained in Gardner-Denver, '[t]he record of the arbitration proceedings is not as complete; the usual rules of evidence do not apply; and rights and procedures common to civil trials, such as discovery, compulsory process, cross-examination, and testimony under oath are often severely limited or unavailable (citing Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 57-58 (1974)). It is apparent, therefore, that in a § 1983 action, an arbitration pro- ceeding cannot provide an adequate substitute for a judicial trial. Consequently, accordingly preclusive effect to arbitration awards in § 1983 actions would severely undermine the protection of federal rights that the statute is designed to provide."); and Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 56 57 (1974) ("[A]rbitral procedures, while well suited to the resolution of contractual disputes, make arbitration a comparatively inappropriate form for the final resolution of rights created by Title VII."). 3 See, e.g., United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597 (1960). 4 M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972). U. MIAMI INT'L & COMP. L. REv. [Vol. 15:2 Second, in poignant contrast with the orthodox view of arbitration as a blunt and imprecise instrument inimical to the equitable administration of justice in specific complex judicial disciplines, a perceived need for specialization akin to the creation of "unique subject matter tribunals" has spawned a plethora of uniquely tailored institu- 5 tional arbitral proceedings in the realm of domestic arbitration. Third, the beginning of the new millennium highlights and emphasizes a unique phenomenon in the history of private procedural international