Document Type
Article
Publication Date
3-2026
Abstract
As far as I can tell, John Fellas and I think alike on most things, both as practicing international arbitrators and as professors of international arbitration law. As arbitrators in practice, all of the awards we have rendered together — whether John chaired, I chaired or we both served as party-appointed arbitrators — were unanimous awards. As professors in academics, we both independently submitted essays — on the occasion of a festschrift in honor of Professor George Bermann — addressing related issues concerning the federal policy in favor of arbitration in the United States. John’s festschrift essay is entitled “Legitimacy and Efficacy in Arbitration” and explores how the ideals of “legitimacy” (i.e., consent to arbitration) and “efficacy” (i.e., viability and efficacy of the arbitral process) — terms coined by Professor Bermann — are balanced in U.S. arbitration law through operation of the equal footing principle that arbitration agreements are to be enforced in the same manner as any other contracts and the federal policy in favor of arbitration. My festschrift essay is entitled “Why Pro-Arbitration?” and explores why we are “pro-arbitration” — another term coined by Professor Bermann — by examining the rationales for our federal policy favoring arbitration.
Disciplines
Dispute Resolution and Arbitration | International Law | Law
Recommended Citation
Robert H. Smit,
The Mysterious Federal Policy in Favor of Arbitration: Festschrifts Squared,
36
Am. Rev. Int'l Arb.
155
(2026).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/4769