review - because they do not entangle the courts in reviewing |
the merits of challenged arbitration awards. Instead, appellate |
arbitral review mechanisms merely add a second level to the |
contractual arbitration procedure that permits parties |
disappointed with the initial arbitral result to secure a degree |
of protection from the occasional "wrong" arbitration decision. |
See Stephen L. Hayford and Ralph Peeples, Commercial Arbitration |
in Evolution: An Assessment and Call for Dialogue, 10 Ohio St. |
J. on Disp. Res. 405-06 (1995). This approach would not present |
the FAA preemption, "creating jurisdiction," and line-drawing |
problems identified with the expanded judicial review through an |
opt-in provision. It is also consistent with the Supreme Court's |
contractual view of commercial arbitration in that it preserves |
the parties' agreement to resolve the merits of the controversy |
between them through arbitration, without resort to the courts. |
When parties agree that the decision of an arbitrator will be |
"final and binding," it is implicit that it is the arbitrator's |
interpretation of the contract and the law that they seek, and |
not the legal opinion of a court. In addition, an internal, |
arbitral appeal mechanism is more likely to keep arbitration |
decisions out of the courts and maintain the overall goals of |
speed, lower cost, and greater efficiency. |