Arbitration
law implicates a delicate equilibrium between respect for the bargain to
arbitrate and protection of basic procedural fairness. The role of law thus remains
intimately linked to the rule of law, in the sense of an impartial tribunal,
the right to be heard, and respect for the arbitrator’s mission. The legitimacy
of the process depends on how arbitrators balance the often competing goals of
due process and efficiency, and whether the authorities that review awards can
monitor procedural integrity without infringing an arbitrator’s prerogatives on
a dispute’s substantive merits. Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions on class
arbitration serve as prisms through which to refract several themes in
arbitration law. In Stolt-Nielsen the Court vacated an award in an
international maritime dispute, overturning the tribunal’s contract
interpretation permitting class proceedings. By contrast, AT&T Mobility
implicated a waiver of class arbitration in a consumer case, where the Court
reversed a lower court decision that had invalidated the waiver. The soundness
of both decisions remains open to question.