Religious Arbitration and the New Multiculturalism: Negotiating Conflicting Legal Orders
Michael A. Helfand
Pepperdine University School of Law
November 15, 2011
New York University Law Review, Vol. 86, 2011
Pepperdine University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011/10
This Article considers a trend towards what I have termed the “new multiculturalism,” where conflicts between law and religion are less about recognition and symbolism and more about conflicting legal orders. Nothing typifies this trend more than the increased visibility of religious arbitration, whereby religious groups use current arbitration doctrine to have their disputes adjudicated not in U.S. courts and under U.S. law, but before religious courts and under religious law. This dynamic has pushed the following question to the forefront of the multicultural agenda: under what circumstances should U.S. courts enforce arbitration awards issued by religious courts in accordance with religious law. Indeed, with growing skepticism regarding the oppressive potential of religious majorities, critics have questioned whether religious arbitration has any place in a regime dedicated to individual liberties. By contrast, this Article contends that current arbitration doctrine can meet the challenges of the new multiculturalism. To do so, this Article makes two concrete policy recommendations: (1) courts should redefine the scope of enforceability of religious arbitration awards by limiting the application of the public policy exception to vacate religious arbitration awards and (2) courts should expand the application of unconscionability to void religious arbitration agreements.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 75
Keywords: Multiculturalism, Religion, Dispute Resolution, Arbitration, Sharia Law, Jewish Law
JEL Classification: K10, K40Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: March 6, 2011 ; Last revised: November 15, 2011
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.562 seconds