Professor Stephen J. Ware, University of Kansas School of Law, has written an interesting paper entitled, “The Centrist Case Against Current (Conservative) Arbitration Law,” Florida Law Review, Vol. 68, No. 5, 2016. In his journal article, Professor Ware argues against what he terms current conservative arbitration laws from a centrist perspective.
Here is the abstract:
In The Politics of Arbitration Law and Centrist Proposals for Reform, I explained how issues surrounding consumer and other adhesive arbitration agreements became divisive along predictable political lines (progressives vs. conservatives) and proposed an intermediate (or centrist) position to resolve those issues. However, The Politics of Arbitration Law did not argue the case for my proposals. It left those arguments for this Article, which makes the case against current (conservative) arbitration law, and a third article, which will make the case against progressive proposals to reform arbitration law. In other words, this Article stands out from the many other articles critiquing current arbitration law because this Article’s critique comes from a centrist, rather than progressive, perspective. For that reason, this Article’s critique may be more likely than progressive critiques to gain traction with lawmakers.