After quickly summarizing the landscape of mandatory arbitration both within and without the United States, this article will consider why mandatory arbitration is treated so disparately, whether it is problematic that approaches to mandatory arbitration are so varied among countries, and what the differing jurisdictions can and should learn from one another. The article concludes that the United States Congress should be very concerned with the fact that we are treating mandatory arbitration more permissively than other countries. I, along with many others, have previously presented many arguments for why mandatory arbitration is problematic. Our outlier status on this issue provides one more good reason why Congress ought to revise the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to prohibit mandatory arbitration in the consumer and employment areas.
56 U. Miami L. Rev. 831 (2002).
Sternlight, Jean R., "Is the U.S. Out on a Limb? Comparing the U.S. Approach to Mandatory Consumer and Employment Arbitration to that of the Rest of the World" (2002). Scholarly Works. Paper 273.