Many believe arbitration is a quick way to resolve disputes and avoid protracted, expensive legal battles. That's because arbitration hearings often involve limited discovery (e.g., no depositions), are heard quickly and produce results that are difficult to challenge. But some are critical of arbitration, hewing to the perception that arbitrators do what they believe to be just, even if that means they are not following the letter of the law. That's exactly what happened in Hall Street Associates LLC v. Mattel Inc., a U.S. Supreme Court case decided in March. Because arbitration-the resolution of a dispute without a trial, using an independent arbitrator or judge-is a creature of contract, all parties to a case must agree to arbitration provisions. Years ago, American courts would not enforce arbitration agreements and arbitration awards were subject to broad judicial review. To remedy this problem, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which made arbitration agreements enforceable. The FAA also limited grounds to challenging arbitration awards. To resolve a split in the federal appellate courts, the Supreme Court in Hall Street held that even if parties voluntarily agree to broad judicial review of an arbitration award, it is not enforceable, as the grounds for review under the FAA are exclusive.
展开▼
机译：许多人认为，仲裁是解决争端，避免旷日持久，昂贵的法律纠纷的快速方法。这是因为仲裁听证会通常涉及有限的发现（例如，无证词），且听证会很快，并且会产生难以质疑的结果。但是有些批评者对仲裁持批评态度，因为他们认为仲裁员会做他们认为公正的事情，即使这意味着他们没有遵守法律规定。这就是三月份在美国最高法院判决的Hall Street Associates LLC诉Mattel Inc.案中发生的情况。由于仲裁（即不经审判就解决争议，使用独立的仲裁员或法官进行解决）是合同的产物，因此，案件的所有当事方必须同意仲裁规定。几年前，美国法院不执行仲裁协议，并且对仲裁裁决进行广泛的司法审查。为了解决此问题，国会颁布了《联邦仲裁法》（FAA），该法令可实施仲裁协议。 FAA还限制了挑战仲裁裁决的理由。为了解决联邦上诉法院的分歧，位于霍尔街的最高法院裁定，即使当事方自愿同意对仲裁裁决进行广泛的司法审查，该裁决也无法强制执行，因为根据美国联邦航空局的审查理由是排他性的。
展开▼
