• Home
  • RSS Feeds
  • Blog Archives
Subscribe to Disputing
Book an ADR Service
Call Karl Bayer
Karl Bayer's Disputing Blog - Mediator, Arbitrator, Court Master & Technical Advisor
About Karl  |  Book an ADR Service  |  Contact Karl   (214) 891-4505

Menu 
  • home
  • Mediation
  • Arbitration
  • Court Neutrals
  • Online Dispute Resolution
  • Technology
    • Intellectual Property
    • Privacy and Cybersecurity
    • E-discovery
  • Court Decisions
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • Fifth Circuit
    • Third Court of Appeals
    • U.S. Supreme Court
  • More
    • Legislation
      • Texas
      • United States
    • Healthcare
    • Guest Posts
      • John DeGroote
      • John C. Fleming
      • Rick Freeman
      • Professor Peter Friedman
      • Honorable W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
      • James M. Gaitis
      • Laura A. Kaster
      • Professor John Lande
      • Philip J. Loree, Jr.
      • Michael McIlwrath
      • F. Peter Phillips
      • Professor Alan Scott Rau
      • Professor Thomas J. Stipanowich
      • Professor S.I. Strong
      • Richard Webb
      • Glen M. Wilkerson
    • International arbitration
    • Regulation
    • Sports and Entertainment


Arbitrating Antitrust Claims: From Suspicion to Trust

0
by Beth Graham

Thursday, Sep 10, 2015


Tweet

Vera Korzun, Adjunct Professor at the Fordham University School of Law, has authored “Arbitrating Antitrust Claims: From Suspicion to Trust,” New York University Journal of International Law and Politics (JILP), Vol. 48, 2016, Forthcoming. In her scholarly article, Professor Korzun discusses the adjudication and enforcement of domestic antitrust laws by international arbitral tribunals.

Here is the abstract:

This Article examines the evolving role of international commercial arbitration in the enforcement of domestic antitrust laws. It first explores how antitrust claims and issues can arise in international arbitrations. It then describes three phases in the evolution of domestic courts’ attitude to the adjudication of antitrust claims by international arbitral tribunals. Initially, national courts, like courts of the United States prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s pathmarking 1985 decision in Mitsubishi v. Soler, were suspicious of private adjudication of antitrust claims, cognizant of the public values implicated by antitrust law. A remarkable but unnoticed transformation has ensued. Now, the national courts of most developed economies accept — and even mandate — adjudication of antitrust claims by private international arbitral tribunals. The transformation may be predictive of future acceptance of international arbitral tribunals as acceptable forums for dispute resolution in other “public” subject matters. The Article concludes by suggesting how international arbitrators should discharge this new role and how domestic courts might police it.

This and other research papers written by Professor Korzun may be downloaded free of charge from the Social Science Research Network.

Photo credit: The U.S. National Archives / Foter / No known copyright restrictions

Related Posts

  • An Empirical Survey of International Commercial Arbitration Cases in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1970-2014An Empirical Survey of International Commercial Arbitration Cases in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1970-2014
  • Legislative Approaches to Trust Arbitration in the United StatesLegislative Approaches to Trust Arbitration in the United States
  • Reasoned Awards in International Commercial Arbitration: Embracing and Exceeding the Common Law-Civil Law DichotomyReasoned Awards in International Commercial Arbitration: Embracing and Exceeding the Common Law-Civil Law Dichotomy
  • Limits of Procedural Choice of LawLimits of Procedural Choice of Law
  • International Arbitration and Discovery Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1782International Arbitration and Discovery Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1782
  • Article | What Constitutes an ‘Agreement in Writing’ in International Commercial Arbitration?  Conflicts Between the New York Convention and the Federal Arbitration ActArticle | What Constitutes an ‘Agreement in Writing’ in International Commercial Arbitration? Conflicts Between the New York Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act

Like this article? Share it!


  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
    LinkedIn

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
    X

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
    Facebook

  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
    Pinterest

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
    Email
About Beth Graham

Beth Graham earned a Master of Arts in Information Science and Learning Technologies from the University of Missouri-Columbia, and a Juris Doctor from the University of Nebraska College of Law, where she was an Eastman Memorial Law Scholar. Beth is licensed to practice law in Texas and the District of Columbia. She is also a member of the Texas Bar College and holds CIPP/US, CIPP/E, and CIPM certifications from the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

Legal Research

Legal Research

Connect with Disputing

Visit Us On LinkedinCheck Our Feed

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

Recent Posts

We're Back!!!!
Feb 24, 2025
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
May 28, 2024
Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements: The Twenty-First Century Arbitration Battleground and Implications for the EU Countries
Nov 27, 2023

Featured Posts

Tips on Taking Good Remote Depositions From a Veteran Court Reporter

Online Mediation May Allow Restorative Justice to Continue During COVID-19

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Witness Examination

Search

Legal Research

Legal Research


© 2025, Karl Bayer. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy