A Comparison of Conventional, Final-Offer, and “Combined” Arbitration for Dispute Resolution
A Comparison of Conventional, Final-Offer, and “Combined” Arbitration for Dispute Resolution
复制标题
争议解决的传统仲裁、最终要约仲裁和“组合”仲裁的比较
DOI：
10.1177/001979390405700207
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Dickinson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Dickinson
两种广泛使用的仲裁形式是传统仲裁，其中仲裁员做出不受限制的和解选择，以及最终要约仲裁，其中仲裁员必须在争议双方的最终要约之间进行选择。在一种称为“联合仲裁”的创新但尚未使用的方法下，如果仲裁员关于公平解决的概念存在于争议双方的最终要约之间，则使用最终要约仲裁规则；否则，使用常规仲裁规则。理论上，通过结合两种标准仲裁形式给不自愿和解的争议方带来的风险，联合仲裁应产生趋同的最终要约。然而，这项受控实验室研究的结果表明，联合仲裁中的争议率最高，而传统仲裁中的争议率最低。这些结果对合并仲裁的理论预测以及最终要约仲裁与传统仲裁相比应减少争议的主张提出了挑战。然而，结果与有争议的乐观主义的简单理论是一致的。
Two widely used forms of arbitration are conventional arbitration, in which the arbitrator makes an unconstrained settlement choice, and final-offer arbitration, in which the arbitrator must choose between disputants' final offers. Under an innovative, as yet unused approach called “combined arbitration,” if the arbitrator's notion of a fair settlement lies between the disputants' final offers, final-offer arbitration rules are used; otherwise, conventional arbitration rules are used. Theoretically, by combining the risks that the two standard forms of arbitration pose for disputants who do not voluntarily settle, combined arbitration should generate convergent final offers. The results of this controlled laboratory study show, however, that dispute rates are highest in combined arbitration and lowest in conventional arbitration. These results challenge the theoretical predictions for combined arbitration as well as claims that final-offer arbitration should reduce disputes compared to conventional arbitration. The results are, however, consistent with a simple theory of disputant optimism.