Penn State Arbitration Law Review

The Penn State Arbitration Law Review is a student-edited publication done in a law review format. The Penn State Arbitration Law Review is a unique publication among those which cover dispute resolution, in that it is currently the only scholarly legal journal dedicated to covering both U.S. domestic and international developments in arbitration and other dispute resolution procedures. The Review publishes scholarly articles resulting from an annual symposium, as well as student pieces on recent case law, legislative enactments, arbitral decisions, and reviews of current dispute resolution literature.

The U.S. Supreme Court continues to show substantial interest in the law of arbitration and to favor this form of adjudication. State and federal courts generally embrace alternative means of resolving disputes. Arbitration, mediation, and negotiation are now a genuine part of the U.S. legal system and law practice. Additionally, arbitration has become critical to global commerce, and mediation is used in many countries to avoid litigation. The Review fulfills the need for the professional discussion of developments in these areas.

Current Issue

Volume 17, Issue 1 (2026)View issue

Featured Content

Current Articles

Most Popular Articles

  • Journal Article
    1 January 2014

    Third-Party Mediation of Interstate Conflicts: Actors, Strategies, Selection, and Bias

    Scott Gartner
    While arbitration remains more common than mediation as an alternative to litigation in domestic legal disputes, the opposite occurs in resolving violent interstate conflicts, where third-party mediation represents the most frequently employed method of conflict resolution. In order to understand the similarities and differences between international and domestic mediation, this article identifies key attributes of international conflict management generally and third-party mediation of violent disputes specifically, and four critical patterns commonly found in third-party mediation of international conflicts. These patterns, each of which is illustrated with a vignette involving US foreign policy, include: 1) the complex role of mediator bias in interstate conflict mediation, 2) the multiple actors and actions frequently associated with interstate conflict resolution, 3) mediator strategy and outcomes and 4) the importance of selection effects for understanding the deceptive appearance of interstate conflict mediation’s effectiveness. Understanding these processes and recognizing these patterns helps to develop a better understanding of the strengths and weakness involved in the third-party mediation of interstate disputes.
    Read More
  • Journal Article
    1 January 2014

    Vacating Legally-Erroneous Arbitration Awards

    Stephen Ware
    In the United States, arbitrators’ decisions are legally binding. Courts generally confirm and enforce, rather than vacate, arbitration awards. Suppose, however, that the arbitration award is very different from the judgment a court would have rendered had the dispute been litigated, rather than arbitrated. And suppose this is because the arbitrator did not correctly apply the law. If the party that lost in arbitration (the party that would have done better with a correct application of law) asks a court to vacate the award because it is legally erroneous, will the court vacate or confirm the award? And does the answer depend on: * Whether the parties formed their agreement to arbitrate before or after the dispute arose? * Whether the agreement’s terms ask courts to vacate or confirm legally erroneous arbitration awards? * Whether the arbitrator did not try to apply the law or tried to apply it but did so incorrectly? * Whether the law the arbitrator did not correctly apply is well-established or in doubt? Simple or complex? * Whether the law the arbitrator did not correctly apply is mandatory law (binding on the parties despite a contract term to the contrary) or default law the parties may contract around? These questions are the subject of this article. I suggest that arbitration law in the United States has answered these questions differently over time and that these changes in legal doctrine roughly divide into four eras. Unfortunately, recent Supreme Court cases have left much uncertainty on the fundamental question whether arbitration awards must apply the law correctly to avoid vacatur.
    Read More

Readership Activity