The Finality Principle in Arbitration: A Theoretical Exploration
Publication: Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
Volume 15, Issue 1
Abstract
Arbitration remains a popular means of resolving construction industry disputes. Among its purported advantages is an emphasis on the notion of finality; in other words, that awards made following arbitration proceedings are final and should bring the dispute to a conclusive and binding settlement. However, in most jurisdictions, such as in South Africa, the finality principle can be impeached by the courts, who are able to vacate awards on the basis of statutory (legislative) or common law provisions (or both). While the finality principle and vacatur are both generally well espoused in arbitration literature, our appreciation of broader theoretical discourse in arbitration is arguably, more limited. With this in mind, framed within the law and society school of thought, we set out in this paper to elucidate upon existing theories that are regularly relied upon to explain how finality may be generated, dispersed, endorsed, and modified through vacatur. In doing so, we clarify and demonstrate (set within the context of South African domestic commercial arbitration) how the finality principle in general and vacatur in particular are regulated by the state through legislation. An analysis of some specific construction arbitration case examples is also undertaken.
Formats available
You can view the full content in the following formats:
Data Availability Statement
No data, models, or codes were generated or used during the study.
References
List of Cases
Bidoli v. Bidoli and Another (2011 (5) SA 247 (SCA)), [2011] ZASCA 82; 436/10 (May 27, 2011).
Cool Ideas 1186 CC v. Hubbard and Another, [2014] ZACC 16 (June 5, 2014).
Hubbard v. Cool Ideas 1186 CC, (580/12) [2013] ZASCA 71 (May 28, 2013).
Lawrence G. Graham and Donald D. Scott v. The LA Cross & Milwaukee R.R Co. and Salah Chamberlain.
Lufuno Mphaphuli & Associates (Pty) Ltd. v. Nigel Athol Andrews and Bopanang Construction, CC CCT 97107 [2009] ZACC 6.
North West Provincial Government & Another v. Tswaing Consulting & Others, 2007 (4) SA 452 (SCA).
Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v. Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others, (1998) 19 ILJ 892 (LC); [1998] 5 BLLR 510 (LC) [at 89].
Simpson v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 494 F.2d 850, 854 (United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit).
Telcordia Technologies Inc. v. Telkom SA Ltd., [2006] ZASCA 112; [2006] 139 SCA (RSA); 2007 (3) SA 266 (SCA); [2007] 2 All SA 243 (SCA); 2007 (5) BCLR 503 (SCA) (November 22, 2006).
The Milwaukee & Minnesota R.R Coo. v. Selah Chamberlain [Supreme Court of the United States, 1866], cases decided in US Supreme Court, 70.
Triulzi Cesare SRL v. XinyiGroup (Glass) Co. Ltd., [2014] SGHC 220.
United States v. Lawson, 736 F.2d 835 (2d Cir.1984).
United States v. Williams, 904 F.2d 7, 8 (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 1990).
List of Statutes
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.
The Arbitration Act 1996 (United Kingdom).
The Arbitration Act 42 of 1965 (South Africa).
The Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 (South Africa).
Works Cited
Ababnch, A. 2017. “The objective factors affecting the selection of the arbitrator’s.” J. Law Policy Globalization 67 (Jan): 8–13.
Abu Sadah, M. 2009. “Philosophical basis of the legal theory underlying international commercial arbitration in the middle east region.” J. Int. Trade Law Policy 8 (2): 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1108/14770020910981470.
Alcolea, L. 2020. “Arbitration as IUS gentium: A scholastic theory of arbitration.” Contemp. Asia Arbitration J. 13 (2): 409–434.
AlRaeesi, E. J. H., and U. Ojiako. 2021. “Examination of the legal perspective of public policy implementation on construction projects arbitration.” J. Legal Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 13 (3): 03721002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000474.
Arfazadeh, H. 2002. “In the shadow of the unruly horse: international arbitration and the public policy exception.” Am. Rev. Int. Arbitr. 13 (3): 43–197.
Badah, S. 2016. “Public policy and non-arbitrability in Kuwait.” Asian Int. Arbitr. J. 12 (2): 137–180.
Becker, J., and J. Kleyn. 1989. “Public policy and arbitration—The unruly horse and the arbitrability of claims in America.” Int. Bus. Lawy. 17 (9): 422–424.
Bell, F. 2016. “Empirical research in law.” Griffith Law Rev. 25 (2): 262–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2016.1236440.
Bennett, D., and M. Hodgson. 2016. “Confidentiality in arbitration: A principled approach.” McGill J. Dispute Resolut. 3 (Apr): 98–112.
Breger, M. 1996. “Indeterminacy and craft in judicial review of administrative law: A comment on shapiro and levy.” Cath. Univ. Law Rev. 45 (1): 109–130.
Brekoulakis, S. 2019. “The historical treatment of arbitration under English law and the development of the policy favouring arbitration.” Oxford J. Leg. Studied 39 (1): 124–150. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqy035.
Carlston, K. 1952. “Theory of the arbitration process.” Law Contemp. Probl. 17 (4): 631–651. https://doi.org/10.2307/1190383.
Carroll, R. 1991. “Quasi-judicial immunity: The arbitrator’s shield or sword.” J. Dispute Resolut. 1991 (1): 137–150.
Charlesworth, L. 2007. “On historical contextualisation: Some critical socio-legal reflections.” Crimes Misdemeanours 1 (1): 1–40.
Christie, R. 1994. “Arbitration: Party autonomy or curial intervention: The historical background.” South African Law J. 111 (1): 143–151.
Cotterrell, R. 1998. “Why must legal ideas be interpreted sociologically?” J. Law Soc. 25 (2): 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6478.00086.
Cotterrell, R. 2002. “Subverting orthodoxy, making law central: A view of sociolegal studies.” J. Law Soc. 29 (4): 632–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6478.00236.
Cotterrell, R. 2009. “Spectres of transnationalism: Changing terrains of sociology of law.” J. Law Soc. 36 (4): 481–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2009.00480.x.
Cownie, F. 2000. “The importance of theory in law teaching.” Int. J. Legal Prof. 7 (3): 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/096959500750143025.
Czernich, D. 2018. “The theory of separability in Austrian arbitration law: Is it on stable pillars.” Arbitration Int. 34 (3): 463–468. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiy021.
Dayton, B., and S. Takahashi. 2018. “Arbitration developments in the United Arab Emirates.” Asian Dispute Rev. 2018 (1): 30–37.
Delikat, M., and M. Kleiner. 2003. “An empirical study of dispute resolution mechanisms: Where do plaintiffs better vindicate their rights?” Dispute Resolut. J. 58 (4): 56–58.
del Prado, F. 2021. “The fallacy of consent: Should arbitration be creature of contract?” Emory Int. Law Rev. 35 (2): 219–258.
Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. 2009. “Rules regulating the conduct.” In Proc., Several Provincial and Local Divisions of the High Court of South Africa. Cape Town, South Africa: Juta & Company Ltd.
Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. 2010. “Rules regulating the conduct.” In Proc., Magistrates’ Court of South Africa. Cape Town, South Africa: Juta & Company.
Desierto, D. 2015. “Rawlsian fairness and international arbitration.” Univ. Pennsylvania J. of Int. Law 36 (4): 939–993.
DiMaggio, P. 1995. “Comments on ‘What theory is not.’” Administrative Sci. Q. 40 (3): 391–397. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393790.
Donoghue, J. 2009. “Reflections on the sociology of law: A rejection of law as ‘socially marginal’.” Int. J. Law Crime Justice 37 (1–2): 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2009.03.001.
Drummonds, H. 2012. “The public policy exception to arbitration award enforcement: A path through the bramble bush.” Willamette Law Rev. 49 (1): 105–164.
Ehrenberg, K. 2016. Functions of the law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ehrlich, E., and K. Ziegert. 2017. Fundamental principles of the sociology of law. London: Routledge.
Fan, K., and J. Jemielniak. 2016. “Ethnographic methods in the study of hybrid processes in arbitration: The Chinese and Western perspectives.” European Bus. Law Rev. 27 (4): 555.
Feinman, J. 1989. “The significance of contract theory.” Univ. Cincinnati Law Rev. 58 (4): 1283–1318.
Fisch, J. 1991. “Rewriting history: The propriety of eradicating prior decisional law through settlement and vacatur.” Cornell Law Rev. 76 (8): 589–642.
Friedman, L. 1996. “Borders: On the emerging sociology of transnational law.” Stanford J. Int. Law 32 (1): 65–90.
Gaillard, E. 2015. “Sociology of international arbitration.” Arbitration Int. 31 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiv021.
Gentry, T. 2018. “The essence test: Picking up supreme court fumble.” Cath. Univ. Rev. 64 (7): 737–760.
Ghodoosi, F. 2016. “Arbitrating public policy: Why the buck should not stop at national courts.” Lewis & Clark Law Rev. 20 (5): 237–280.
Grant, K. 2016. “ICSID’s reinforcement: UNASUR and the rise of a hybrid regime for international investment arbitration.” Osgoode Hall Law J. 52 (3): 1115–1150.
Gurian, N. 2016. “Rethinking judicial review of arbitration.” Columbia J. Law Soc. Probl. 50 (4): 507–550.
Hamilton, J., and S. Slutsky. 2017. “Judicial review and the power of the executive and legislative branches.” Res. Econ. 71 (1): 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rie.2016.11.001.
Hayford, S. 1996. “Law in disarray: Judicial standards for vacatur of commercial arbitration awards.” Cath. Univ. Law Rev. 30 (3): 731–842.
Hayford, S. 1998a. “Reining in the manifest disregard of the law standard: The key to restoring order to the law of vacatur.” J. Dispute Resolut. 1998 (2): 117–140.
Hayford, S. 1998b. “New paradigm for commercial arbitration: Rethinking the relationship between reasoned awards and the judicial standards for vacatur.” George Wash Law Rev. 63 (3): 443–507.
Hebaishi, H. 2014. “Should arbitrator immunity be preserved under English law.” North East Law Rev. 2 (2): 45–74.
Hensler, D. 1990. “Court-ordered arbitration: An alternative view.” Univ. Chicago Legal Forum 1990 (1): 399–420.
Herget, J. 1984. “The scientific study of law: A critique.” Jurimetrics 24 (2): 99–126.
Horn, P. 2014. “A matter of appearances: Arbitrator independence and impartiality in ICSID arbitration.” New York Univ. J. Law Bus. 11 (2): 349–396.
Jacob, G. 1729. ‘Arbitrator’ new law dictionary: A new law-dictionary: Containing, the interpretation and definition of words and terms used in the law, and also the whole law, and the practice thereof. London: Wenthworth Press.
Jemielniak, J., and M. Kaczmarczyk. 2016. Sociology of arbitration: New tools for the New times. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish National Research Foundation.
Jenks, E. 1923. “The function of law in society.” J. Comparative Legis. Int. Law 5 (4): 169–177.
Kaczmarek, C. 2000. “Public law deserves public justice: Why public law arbitrators should be required to issue written, publishable opinions. Employee rights and employment policy.” Journal 4 (2): 285–340.
Kaufmann-Kohler, G. 2007. “Arbitral precedent: Dream, necessity or excuse—The 2006 Freshfields lecture.” Arbitration Int. 23 (3): 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbitration/23.3.357.
Kelsen, H. 1991. General theory of norms. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Khan, L. 2013. “Arbitral autonomy.” Louisiana Law Rev. 74 (1): 1–58.
Kimel, D. 2001. “Neutrality, autonomy, and freedom of contract.” Oxford J. Leg. Studies 21 (3): 473–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/21.3.473.
Krygier, M. 1982. “The concept of law and social theory.” Oxford J. Leg. Studies 2 (2): 155–180. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/2.2.155.
Lacey, N. 2015. “Jurisprudence, history, and the institutional quality of law.” Virginia Law Rev. 101 (4): 919–945.
Levit, N. 1989. “Listening to tribal legends: An essay on law and the scientific method.” Fordham Law Rev. 58 (3): 263–307.
Lew, J. 2006. “Achieving the dream: Autonomous arbitration.” Arbit. Int. 22 (2): 179–204. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbitration/22.2.179.
Luttrell, S. 2009. “Arbitration in Dubai, international trade.” Bus. Law Rev. 12 (Jan): 140–184.
Mance, J. 2016. “Arbitration: A law unto itself?” Arbit. Int. 32 (2): 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiv072.
Marchisio, G. 2014. “Jurisdictional matters in international arbitration: Why arbitrators stand on equal footing with state courts.” J. Int. Arbit. 31 (4): 455–474. https://doi.org/10.54648/JOIA2014020.
Michaels, R. 2013. “Dreaming law without a state: Scholarship on autonomous international arbitration as utopian literature.” London Rev. Int. Law. 1 (1): 35–62.
Nonet, P., P. Selznick, and R. Kagan. 2017. Law and society in transition: Toward responsive law. 1st ed. New York: Routledge.
Ojiako, U. 2019. “Public policy as a ground for challenging and vacating domestic arbitral awards in the United Arab Emirates” M.Phil. thesis, Dept. of Law and Criminology, Aberystwyth Univ.
Ojiako, U., M. Chipulu, A. Marshall, and H. Bashir. 2021. “Public policy and projects: The impact of intranational jurisdictional concurrency on construction disputes.” J. Legal Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 13 (2): 04521005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000456.
Orenstein, M. 1999. “Mandatory arbitration: Alive and well or withering on the vine?” Dispute Resolut. J. 54 (3): 57–59.
Paulsson, J. 2011. “Arbitration in three dimensions.” Int. Comparat. Law Q. 60 (2): 291–323. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589311000054.
Platt, R. 2013. “Appeal of appeal mechanisms in international arbitration: Fairness over finality.” J. Int. Arbitration 30 (5): 531–560. https://doi.org/10.54648/JOIA2013034.
Polkinghorne, M., and S. M. Volkmer. 2017. “The legality requirement in investment arbitration.” J. Int. Arbitr. 34 (2): 149–168.
Pound, R. 1911. “The scope and purpose of sociological jurisprudence. I. Schools of jurists and methods of jurisprudence.” Harvard Law Rev. 24 (8): 591–619. https://doi.org/10.2307/1324094.
Purcell, D. 1997. “The public right to precedent: Theory and rejection of vacatur.” Calif. Law Rev. 85 (4): 867–918. https://doi.org/10.2307/3481127.
Sayed, A. 2008. “Towards a reflexive sociology of the arbitration field in the Arab world.” J. Int. Arbit. 25 (2): 289–294. https://doi.org/10.54648/JOIA2008020.
Silverman, D. 2005. Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. 2nd ed. London: SAGE.
Stalker, T., D. Rosenberg, and R. Nolan. 2016. “Vacating arbitration awards due to evident partiality under the federal arbitration act.” Def. Counsel J. 83 (2): 207–211.
Stipanowich, T. 1987. “Rethinking American arbitration.” Indiana Law J. 63 (3): 425–487.
Stipanowich, T. 2010. “Arbitration: The new litigation.” Univ. Illinois Law Rev. 2010 (1): 1–60.
Stone, J. 1946. The province and function of law: Law as logic, justice, and social control, A study in jurisprudence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sturges, W. 1960. “Arbitration—What is it.” New York Univ. Law Rev. 35 (Aug): 1031–1047.
Suchman, M., and L. Edelman. 1996. “Legal rational myths: The new institutionalism and the law and society tradition.” Law Soc. Inquiry 21 (4): 903–941. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.1996.tb00100.x.
Sunstein, C. 1996. “On the expressive function of law.” Univ. Pennsylvania Law Rev. 144 (5): 2021–2053. https://doi.org/10.2307/3312647.
Sutton, R., and B. Staw. 1995. “What theory is not.” Administrative Sci. Q. 40 (3): 371–384. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393788.
Tamanaha, B. 2001. A general jurisprudence of law and society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Teitelbaum, L. 1985. “Overview of law and social research.” J. Legal Educ. 35 (4): 465–477.
Theofrastous, T. 1999. “International commercial arbitration in Europe: Subsidiary and supremacy in light of the de-localization debate.” Case Western Res. J. Int. Law 31 (2–3): 455–494.
Tobing, G., A. Sulistiyono, and H. Purwadi. 2016. “Political perspective of law on empowerment of arbitration as institution for settlement of industrial relation disputes.” J. Law Policy Globalization 45 (9): 67–84.
Tompkins, J. 2018. “Manifest disregard of the law: The continuing evolution of an historically ambiguous vacatur standard.” Dispute Resolut. Int. 12 (2): 145–164.
Trubek, D. 1972. “Toward a social theory of law: An essay on the study of law and development.” Yale Law J. 82 (1): 1–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/795251.
Truli, E. 2006. “Liability v. quasi-judicial immunity of the arbitrator: The case against absolute arbitral immunity.” Am. Rev. Int. Arbitration 17 (Jan): 383–384.
Tsuruda, S. 2017. “Contract, power, and the value of donative promises.” South Carolina Law Rev. 69 (2): 479–532.
Tuck, A. 2008. “The finality question: Appellate rights and review of arbitral awards in the americas.” Law Bus. Rev. Am. 14 (3): 569–590.
Twining, W. 1979. “Academic law and legal philosophy: The significance of Herbert Hart.” Law Q. Rev. 95 (6): 574–576.
Twining, W. 2005. “Have concepts, will travel: Analytical jurisprudence in a global context.” Int. J. Law Context 1 (1): 5–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552305001023.
Vago, S., and E. Barkan. 2017. Law and society. 11th ed. London: Routledge.
Van Ginkel, E. 2002. “Reframing the dilemma of contractually expanded judicial review: Arbitral appeal vs. Vacatur.” Pepperdine Dispute Resolut. Law J. 3 (2): 157–220.
Wacker, J. 1998. “A definition of theory: Research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management.” J. Oper. Manage. 16 (4): 361–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00019-9.
Wacker, J. 2004. “A theory of formal conceptual definitions: Developing theory-building measurement instruments.” J. Oper. Manage. 22 (6): 629–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2004.08.002.
Walker, H., D. Chicksand, Z. Radnor, and G. Watson. 2015. “Theoretical perspectives in operations management: An analysis of the literature.” Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 35 (8): 1182–1206. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-02-2014-0089.
Webster, T. 2014. “Agreements to arbitrate and the place of arbitration: Divergences in approach.” Disp. Resol. Int'l. 8: 5.
Weick, K. 1995. “What theory is not, theorizing.” Administrative Sci. Q. 40 (3): 385–390. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393789.
Weidemaier, W. 2010. “Toward a theory of precedent in arbitration.” William Mary Law Rev. 51 (5): 1895–1958.
Weidenmaier, W. 2011. “Judging-lite: How arbitrators use and create precedent.” North Carolina Law Rev. 90 (4): 1091–1146.
Yates, C. 2018. “Manifest disregard in international commercial arbitration: Whether manifest disregard holds, however good, bad or ugly.” Univ. Massachusetts Law Rev. 13 (2): 366.
Yu, H. 2004. “Explore the void—An evaluation of arbitration theories: Part 1.” Int. Arbitration Law Rev. 7 (6): 180–190.
Yu, H. 2005. “Explore the void—An evaluation of arbitration theories: Part 2.” Int. Arbitration Law Rev. 8 (1): 14–22.
Yu, H. 2008. “A theoretical overview of the foundations of international commercial arbitration.” Contemp. Asia Arbitration J. 1 (2): 255–286.
Zemach, E., and O. Ben-Zvi. 2017. “Contract theory and the limits of reason.” Tulsa Law Rev. 52 (2): 167–212.
Ziegler, P. 1988. “A general theory of law as a paradigm for legal research.” Mod. Law Rev. 51 (5): 569–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1988.tb01773.x.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
Volume 15 • Issue 1 • February 2023
Copyright
© 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Apr 8, 2022
Accepted: Jul 25, 2022
Published online: Oct 20, 2022
Published in print: Feb 1, 2023
Discussion open until: Mar 20, 2023
ASCE Technical Topics:
- Arbitration
- Awards and prizes
- Business management
- Construction engineering
- Construction industry
- Construction management
- Developing countries
- Dispute resolution
- Engineering profession
- Government
- Jurisdiction
- Laws and regulations
- Legal affairs
- Legislation
- Organizations
- Practice and Profession
- Professional development
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Cited by
- Udechukwu Ojiako, The Finality Principle in Arbitration: A Historical Exploration, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 10.1061/JLADAH.LADR-968, 15, 4, (2023).