Sociology of Arbitration: New Tools for the New Times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arbitration as a method of addressing cross-border commercial disputes has enjoyed a remarkable, global success. The ‘phenomenal boom’ of commercial arbitration has led to a far-reaching replacement of domestic litigation by this mechanism, and to privatization of resolution of international commercial cases. This highly successful example of legal globalization, achieved – atypically – primarily by private means, is also a dynamically evolving phenomenon. The article identifies three key areas of tensions, which generate new developments in commercial arbitration. First, the tension between procedural formality and flexibility can be observed, as reflected in the well-established judicialization trend, confronted with a recent renewed interest in mediation and 'soft' hybrid procedures. Second, concurrence of global and local influences (as seen in the American and Asian ‘waves’ in arbitration) affects, inter alia, professional culture of arbitration practitioners. Finally, the tension between public and private interests and values, which influences procedural preferences and solutions, though certainly not as prominent as in investment arbitration, can be identified. As a consequence, methodological tools, used for empirical research on international commercial arbitration are revisited, so as to allow for capturing new developments in this field in a most accurate, possible manner. A highly innovative, multi-method, sequential model of research is introduced, which addresses both the static and dynamic components of the field, and is based on a triangular structure of formal institutions, social practices and cultural values. A systematic, paced combination of quantitative and qualitative methods is proposed, with an introduction of tools not used on a larger scale in the study of arbitration so far, such as ethnographic research and focus group interviews.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".