애스크로AIPublic Preview
← 학술논문 검색
학술논문비교사법2008.12 발행KCI 피인용 5

미국 중재절차에서 집단분쟁의 해결

Classwide Arbitration in the U.S.A

김상균(청주대학교)

15권 4호, 605~647쪽

초록

The U.S. classwide arbitration or an arbitral class action where any dispute is required to be resolved through an arbitration by an agreement between the parties is a hybrid procedure of class action and mandatory binding arbitration. The Federal Arbitration Act or the Uniform Arbitration Act don’t provide for this classwide arbitration at all. In order to avoid class action proceedings, many companies of the U.S. have drafted standard agreements in which any dispute between the consumers and themselves should be submitted to arbitration, hoping that by this device, only individual procedures could be initiate. In Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, the U.S. Supreme Court determined whether the agreement clause allows or prohibits class arbitration is for the arbitrator and not for the court to decide. Where an arbitration clause prohibits explicitly the consumers not to litigate their claims against the company on the class basis, several courts have applied the unconscionability principle to void the clause. But arbitration rules in the securities industry provide that class actions are not arbitrable, a great number of courts have interpreted the rules to mean that plaintiffs may litigate class action claims and need only arbitrate individual claims. For the proceedings of class arbitration, the court’s assistance will be necessary to determine the class issues for class certification, notice, adequacy of class representation, settlement due to the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It would be difficult for korean judical system to accept the classwide arbitration which is an unique dispute resolution device in the U.S.A.

Abstract

The U.S. classwide arbitration or an arbitral class action where any dispute is required to be resolved through an arbitration by an agreement between the parties is a hybrid procedure of class action and mandatory binding arbitration. The Federal Arbitration Act or the Uniform Arbitration Act don’t provide for this classwide arbitration at all. In order to avoid class action proceedings, many companies of the U.S. have drafted standard agreements in which any dispute between the consumers and themselves should be submitted to arbitration, hoping that by this device, only individual procedures could be initiate. In Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, the U.S. Supreme Court determined whether the agreement clause allows or prohibits class arbitration is for the arbitrator and not for the court to decide. Where an arbitration clause prohibits explicitly the consumers not to litigate their claims against the company on the class basis, several courts have applied the unconscionability principle to void the clause. But arbitration rules in the securities industry provide that class actions are not arbitrable, a great number of courts have interpreted the rules to mean that plaintiffs may litigate class action claims and need only arbitrate individual claims. For the proceedings of class arbitration, the court’s assistance will be necessary to determine the class issues for class certification, notice, adequacy of class representation, settlement due to the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It would be difficult for korean judical system to accept the classwide arbitration which is an unique dispute resolution device in the U.S.A.

발행기관:
한국사법학회
DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.22922/jcpl.15.4.200812.605
분류:
법학

AI 법률 상담

이 논문의 주제에 대해 더 알고 싶으신가요?

460만+ 법률 자료에서 관련 판례·법령·해석례를 찾아 답변합니다

AI 상담 시작
미국 중재절차에서 집단분쟁의 해결 | 비교사법 2008 | AskLaw | 애스크로 AI