It does if one of the 'little guys' has a culturally enforced power and authority over the other 'little guy'.


I completely agree.

Not if it truly is little guy vs little guy (or big guy vs big guy). I've heard of court-appointed arbitrators, to ease the court's schedule, which I think wou'd generally be pretty fair. But even if they're set up so that the fact that they do justice for profit is mitigated by the way they are paid for, the reason they are cheaper than court is that they don't have all of the legal safeguards and transparency of the court.

[edit] - and, like DanaC said, it's not truly little guy vis little guy in this particular situation, and similar effects may pertain to many other situations that may look at first glance like a little guy vs little guy situation.

I had to kind of laugh at this. Britain has always had two separate systems (a civil and a religious: court/chancery, and we inherited this system through our common law. That's why lawsuits ask for relief either in law or in equity. Kind of an archaic concept, and I'm not suggesting it has a great deal of relevance to the point of the thread, but just pointing out--this is not unprecedented.

This really is not the big deal it looks on the face of things, it's only legitimising what has been going on for nearly two hundred years.

In family court, arbitration usually equates to very expensive marital counseling that does not actually manage to reach an agreement on any terms. The whole reason for going to court over family matters is because you can't agree on things, so it's better (and cheaper) to just have a judge rule quick and dirty on the contested issues rather than trying to make everyone feel happy about the situation. Maybe it's different in other civil matters, but my experience with arbitration was that it was a hugely expensive waste of time.

I think one of the big problems with the arbitration system in the Uk is that so much of it is faith-based. They are generally fundamentally weighted to solutions that retain family (and in particular marital) unity at all costs.

Wut Clod said. Total waste of time AND money.

I find it slightly worrying that 'international law' and sharia law are being equated here.

It's a shame that they didn't include the ten commandments

At first, I thought the same thing, Dana. Then I thought it was just the way I was reading it. Perhaps they aren't relating the two other than they cannot be considered...

Is it because of the UNCRC maybe?

I think we should allow Sharia Law to be implemented in the US so we can let all the fun loving liberals assimilate the practice and tell us how wonderful it is to embrace other cultures.

Would countries with a "Sharia" law system allow that kind of thing?

I don't think so...

In my opinion, it is the first step for them to evolve towards a completely separate law system.

:borg: