The Limits of Arbitration Law in Addressing Cultural Diversity: The Example of Ismaili Arbitration in the United Kingdom
This article studies religious arbitration from the perspective of global legal pluralism, which embraces both normative plurality and cultural diversity. In this context, the article considers that UK arbitration law regulates both commercial and religious arbitration while relying on a monist conc...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-06-01
|
| Series: | Laws |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/10/2/47 |
| _version_ | 1797531129589268480 |
|---|---|
| author | Sandrine Brachotte |
| author_facet | Sandrine Brachotte |
| author_sort | Sandrine Brachotte |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This article studies religious arbitration from the perspective of global legal pluralism, which embraces both normative plurality and cultural diversity. In this context, the article considers that UK arbitration law regulates both commercial and religious arbitration while relying on a monist conception of arbitration. It further identifies two intertwined issues regarding cultural diversity, which find their source in this monist conception. Firstly, through the study of <i>Jivraj v. Hashwani</i> ([2011] UKSC 40), this article shows that the governance of religious arbitration may generate a conflict between arbitration law and equality law, the avoidance of which can require sacrificing the objectives of one or the other branch of law. The Jivraj case concerned an Ismaili arbitration clause, requiring that all arbitrators be Ismaili—a clause valid under arbitration law but potentially not under employment-equality law. To avoid such conflict, the Supreme Court reduced the scope of employment-equality law, thereby excluding self-employed persons. Secondly, based on cultural studies of law, this article shows that the conception of arbitration underlying UK arbitration law is ill-suited to make sense of Ismaili arbitration. In view of these two issues, this article argues that UK arbitration law acknowledges normative multiplicity but fails to embrace the cultural diversity entangled therewith. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T10:38:35Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-f3c89853a3d0413bb1d85bbba3f82e20 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2075-471X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T10:38:35Z |
| publishDate | 2021-06-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Laws |
| spelling | doaj.art-f3c89853a3d0413bb1d85bbba3f82e202023-11-21T23:07:54ZengMDPI AGLaws2075-471X2021-06-011024710.3390/laws10020047The Limits of Arbitration Law in Addressing Cultural Diversity: The Example of Ismaili Arbitration in the United KingdomSandrine Brachotte0Law School, Sciences Po, 75007 Paris, FranceThis article studies religious arbitration from the perspective of global legal pluralism, which embraces both normative plurality and cultural diversity. In this context, the article considers that UK arbitration law regulates both commercial and religious arbitration while relying on a monist conception of arbitration. It further identifies two intertwined issues regarding cultural diversity, which find their source in this monist conception. Firstly, through the study of <i>Jivraj v. Hashwani</i> ([2011] UKSC 40), this article shows that the governance of religious arbitration may generate a conflict between arbitration law and equality law, the avoidance of which can require sacrificing the objectives of one or the other branch of law. The Jivraj case concerned an Ismaili arbitration clause, requiring that all arbitrators be Ismaili—a clause valid under arbitration law but potentially not under employment-equality law. To avoid such conflict, the Supreme Court reduced the scope of employment-equality law, thereby excluding self-employed persons. Secondly, based on cultural studies of law, this article shows that the conception of arbitration underlying UK arbitration law is ill-suited to make sense of Ismaili arbitration. In view of these two issues, this article argues that UK arbitration law acknowledges normative multiplicity but fails to embrace the cultural diversity entangled therewith.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/10/2/47global legal pluralismcultural studies of lawreligious arbitrationmulticulturalismequality rights |
| spellingShingle | Sandrine Brachotte The Limits of Arbitration Law in Addressing Cultural Diversity: The Example of Ismaili Arbitration in the United Kingdom Laws global legal pluralism cultural studies of law religious arbitration multiculturalism equality rights |
| title | The Limits of Arbitration Law in Addressing Cultural Diversity: The Example of Ismaili Arbitration in the United Kingdom |
| title_full | The Limits of Arbitration Law in Addressing Cultural Diversity: The Example of Ismaili Arbitration in the United Kingdom |
| title_fullStr | The Limits of Arbitration Law in Addressing Cultural Diversity: The Example of Ismaili Arbitration in the United Kingdom |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Limits of Arbitration Law in Addressing Cultural Diversity: The Example of Ismaili Arbitration in the United Kingdom |
| title_short | The Limits of Arbitration Law in Addressing Cultural Diversity: The Example of Ismaili Arbitration in the United Kingdom |
| title_sort | limits of arbitration law in addressing cultural diversity the example of ismaili arbitration in the united kingdom |
| topic | global legal pluralism cultural studies of law religious arbitration multiculturalism equality rights |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/10/2/47 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sandrinebrachotte thelimitsofarbitrationlawinaddressingculturaldiversitytheexampleofismailiarbitrationintheunitedkingdom AT sandrinebrachotte limitsofarbitrationlawinaddressingculturaldiversitytheexampleofismailiarbitrationintheunitedkingdom |