Alex R. wrote:
From: "Jimmy Wales"
<jwales(a)joey.bomis.com
With arbitration, where actual votes on judicial
outcomes will be
likely, is strikes me that 'en banc' hearings are going to be best at
first, with '3 judge panels' being appointed later on if the caseload
actually demands it.
My only concern is that if one party to arbitation has taken away
the right to chose an arbitrator this is seen as undue influence or
duress. If they have a choice amongst qualified arbitrators and
the arbitrators are of differing points of view (some more sympathetic
than others as can be culled from their prior posts of Wikipedia)
then there is some amount of fairness or due process. Remember
that the basis of arbitration is contract law, not any kind of
state sovereignity. We are working on it though ;-).
I suspect that anything bigger than a 3-judge panel could soon become
unworkable. The RK problem ended up on this mailing list where it
produced interminable chatter without very much being accomplished
through it. Fairness requires that the members of the panel take time
to objectively review the evidence, and produce a reasonably quick
decision. There will also be a need to eliminate from the panel, anyone
who was previously a mediator in the matter, or who is himself involved
in the dispute.
The reality is that reasonable people do disagree and
it is
not bad that they do come to different decisions. In such
cases their decisions can be reviewed and confirmed or
overturned.
The idea of the panel's decisions being overthrown by an outside court
is unrealistic. Such litigation is bound to be expensive, with little
chance of recovering costs. Add to this the difficulties involving
jurisdiction or bringing witnesses from around the world, and you have
an effective deterrent against starting any such suit.
Ray