Originally from Pro-Arbitration Revisited: A Tribute to Professor George Bermann from his Students Over the Years

Preview page

When I first stepped into Professor Bermann’s classroom, I had no idea how towering a figure he is in the international arbitration community (I had not had much exposure to the international arbitration community yet). His stature within the world of arbitration quickly became clear, and I jumped at the opportunity to work with him as a research assistant.  I learned much from him and will always be grateful that my introduction to arbitration came with the guidance of one of its real superstars. 

What impressed me most about Professor Bermann, though, was neither his celebrity nor his vast knowledge of arbitration issues, but his sincere commitment to determining what needed to happen to advance the cause of arbitration. He is always asking the question: what does it mean for a particular policy or practice to be “pro-arbitration”? What goals should the system have?  I will posit a few suggestions that come to mind, all of which seem attractive at first glance: 1) increasing the number of arbitrations happening at any given time; 2) creating a process for the cheapest and shortest arbitrations; and 3) promoting a system with the highest rate of enforcement by the courts.  These aims all sound good at first, but Professor Bermann taught me to look more closely. I will examine each of them in turn, attempting to parse out the issues and explain why, for each, more analysis is necessary.