COMMENTS OF PROFESSOR RICHARD SPEIDEL

SPEIDEL'S OPENING THOUGHTS

Speidel: I have constructed [in Chapter 6 and Appendix B] a legal regime for international commercial arbitration that is distanced from the regimes of interstate and intrastate arbitration law in the United States. This was intentional. The objective was to test the extent to which international commercial arbitration in the United States could be de-localized from interstate arbitration and national public policy even though the place of arbitration was in the United State and judicial proceedings were conducted in federal district courts. The conclusion was that, under the Convention, de-localized theory is alive and well in the courts, but its scope and consistent implementation requires a revised Chapter 2 of the FAA. In short, I have drafted a new Convention Act.

The distance is, of course, somewhat artificial. There are commonalities in both the concept of arbitration and the legal issues that arise in any arbitration. One wonders why a basic arbitration statute can't be drafted that covers international, interstate, and intrastate arbitration. Why perpetuate three legal regimes? Apart from the politics of federalism, what can possibly justify the cost and confusion of (at least) three different sets of arbitration law?