Alex R. wrote:
From: "Jimmy Wales" jwales@joey.bomis.com
With arbitration, where actual votes on judicial outcomes will be likely, is strikes me that 'en banc' hearings are going to be best at first, with '3 judge panels' being appointed later on if the caseload actually demands it.
My only concern is that if one party to arbitation has taken away the right to chose an arbitrator this is seen as undue influence or duress. If they have a choice amongst qualified arbitrators and the arbitrators are of differing points of view (some more sympathetic than others as can be culled from their prior posts of Wikipedia) then there is some amount of fairness or due process. Remember that the basis of arbitration is contract law, not any kind of state sovereignity. We are working on it though ;-).
I suspect that anything bigger than a 3-judge panel could soon become unworkable. The RK problem ended up on this mailing list where it produced interminable chatter without very much being accomplished through it. Fairness requires that the members of the panel take time to objectively review the evidence, and produce a reasonably quick decision. There will also be a need to eliminate from the panel, anyone who was previously a mediator in the matter, or who is himself involved in the dispute.
The reality is that reasonable people do disagree and it is not bad that they do come to different decisions. In such cases their decisions can be reviewed and confirmed or overturned.
The idea of the panel's decisions being overthrown by an outside court is unrealistic. Such litigation is bound to be expensive, with little chance of recovering costs. Add to this the difficulties involving jurisdiction or bringing witnesses from around the world, and you have an effective deterrent against starting any such suit.
Ray