To compare answers to important questions related to arbitration agreements in jurisdictions around the world, please consult our international comparison tool. The issue of arbitration opens a window into a bitter philosophical quarrel among American progressives. Some, led by Taft, saw legal conciliation as the best alternative to war. Taft was a defender of constitutional rights, who later became head of justice; he had a deep understanding of legal issues.  Taft`s political base was the conservative economy, which largely supported peace policy movements before 1914. However, his mistake in this case was that he failed to mobilize that base. Businessmen believed that economic rivalries were the cause of war and that extensive trade led to an interdependent world that would make war a very costly and unnecessary anachronism. By far, the most important international instrument for arbitration is the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards, commonly referred to simply as the „New York Convention.“ Almost all major trading countries are signatories and only a handful of countries are not parties to the New York Convention. One-shot players in consumer contract disputes are often at a numerical disadvantage in arbitration proceedings, as they may lack the experience and resources to mount a strong argument. If you are in dispute with your mobile phone company about a late payment, for example, you could also be the underdog in any arbitration that followed. The agreement may also indicate how the arbitration is carried out. It can establish certain arbitration rules, such as the American Arbitration Association (AAA), and it can say whether there will be an arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators.
The agreement can also determine how the arbitrator is chosen. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) of 1925 establishes a public order in favor of arbitration. In the first six decades of its existence, the courts did not allow conciliation for „federal claims“ through a clear doctrine of „nonarbitrability,“ but in the 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down and began using the law to require arbitration when included in the treaty for federal claims.  Although some legal experts believe that it should originally apply only to federal courts, courts now routinely require arbitration under the FAA, regardless of state laws or unacceptable findings of public order by state courts.  In consumer law, standard form contracts often contain mandatory pre-regulation clauses requiring consumer conciliation.