Arbitration’s praised finality is only a benefit to winners, not losers

Evidence

The final nature of an arbitration award, with its highly restricted appeal, is frequently cited as a great advantage of the arbitration process. … Not having an expensive aftermath, of course, is nice for the winning party. But how about the losing party? Particularly a losing party who thinks the award is contrary to law? Should appeals within the judicial system be much more highly restricted than they are? Or is it a good thing for a legal system to provide alternative avenues of settlement: one short and quick, and the other in which you can play out your hand to the bitter end? — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 4872

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to ch48 on discretion and officials’ duties, and to the broader polyad thread on which institutional actors should decide which questions. — connects to: Future-dispute arbitration waivers differ morally from submitting an existing dispute — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 4900; Victories serve purposes beyond deciding battles. — Garrett Mattingly, The Defeat of the Spanish Armada, 389
• SEED: Article angle: ‘arbitration finality’ as celebratory rhetoric that silently presupposes a winning party — who wants irreversible decisions, and who suffers from them.

Broader Connections

• Victories serve purposes beyond deciding battles. #expands (0.75) — Garrett Mattingly, The Defeat of the Spanish Armada, 389