• 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


Collective Redress Arbitration in the European Union

0
by Beth Graham

Friday, May 31, 2019


Tweet

S.I. Strong, Manley O. Hudson Professor of Law at the University of Missouri School of Law, has written a book chapter titled “Collective Redress Arbitration in the European Union,” in International Arbitration and EU Law (Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., anticipated 2020); University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2019-09.  In her forthcoming chapter, Professor Strong discusses the way large-scale legal disputes are resolved in Europe with a focus towards collective arbitration.

Here is the abstract:

Over the last decade, collective redress has become increasingly important in the European Union (EU), with multiple initiatives stemming from EU bodies and individual Member States. However, most discussions in the EU about large-scale legal relief focus primarily if not exclusively on actions arising in the judicial context, even though courts are not always the best or only place to resolve large-scale legal disputes. However, the European emphasis on judicial mechanisms appears to be based on two fundamental misconceptions.

First, European scholars and policymakers fail to appreciate the factors that drive development of large-scale arbitral mechanisms and the extent to which those features exist in certain EU Member States. Second, the vast majority of European lawyers and lawmakers mistakenly believe that US-style class arbitration – a mechanism that is far too similar to US-style class litigation to attract European interest – is the only type of large-scale arbitration possible, even though a number of large-scale arbitral procedures that do not mirror US-style opt-out representative class mechanisms have already been developed and are either already available in Europe or are amenable for adoption in Europe.

This chapter seeks to clarify these two misperceptions so as to provide scholars and policymakers with the type of information that is vital to the proper development of European law and policy. The discussion includes an analysis of the legal and social pressures that influence the development of large-arbitration, so as to determine whether and to what extent new arbitral mechanisms might develop or flourish in EU Member States, as well as an overview of existing and anticipated forms of collective redress arbitration in Europe. The chapter also provides guidance regarding the development of large-scale arbitration in Europe as well as insights into the use of consensual dispute resolution mechanisms (ie, mediation or conciliation) in the context of large-scale legal disputes in Europe.

You may read Professor Strong‘s forthcoming book chapter and well as her other scholarly works on the Social Science Research Network’s website.

Photo by: Christian Wiediger on Unsplash

Related Posts

  • The European Succession Regulation and the Arbitration of Trust DisputesThe European Succession Regulation and the Arbitration of Trust Disputes
  • Arbitration of Internal Trust Disputes: The Next Frontier for International Commercial Arbitration?Arbitration of Internal Trust Disputes: The Next Frontier for International Commercial Arbitration?
  • Applying the Lessons of International Commercial Arbitration to International Commercial Mediation: A Dispute System Design AnalysisApplying the Lessons of International Commercial Arbitration to International Commercial Mediation: A Dispute System Design Analysis
  • Anti-Suit Injunctions in Judicial and Arbitral Procedures in the United StatesAnti-Suit Injunctions in Judicial and Arbitral Procedures in the United States
  • Realizing Rationality: An Empirical Assessment of International Commercial MediationRealizing Rationality: An Empirical Assessment of International Commercial Mediation
  • Use and Perception of International Commercial Mediation and Conciliation: An Empirical StudyUse and Perception of International Commercial Mediation and Conciliation: An Empirical Study

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