| 单词 | arbitration | ||||||
| 释义 | arbitrationar·bi·tra·tionA0399400 (är′bĭ-trā′shən)arbitration(ˌɑːbɪˈtreɪʃən)ar•bi•tra•tion(ˌɑr bɪˈtreɪ ʃən)n. arbitration
arbitrationarbitrate(ˈaːbitreit) verbarbitration→ 仲裁zhCNarbitrationarbitration, industrial,method of settling disputes between two parties by seeking and accepting the decision of a third party. Arbritration differs from mediationmediation,in law, type of intervention in which the disputing parties accept the offer of a third party to recommend a solution for their controversy. Mediation has long been a part of international law, frequently involving the use of an international commission, in a process ..... Click the link for more information. in that the arbritrator does not attempt to find a compromise acceptable to the two parties, but decides in favor of one party or the other and awards any damages if appropriate. Arbitration may be voluntarily agreed to by the parties, but it is increasingly mandatory in commercial consumer contracts and employment contracts, for example, as the method for settling disputes, and the decision is often binding on the parties, with limited recourse to appeal or for review of the decision. Arbitration clauses in consumer contracts may specify that the arbitrator base the decision on standard business practice or principles or other guidelines instead of the law, and often require the purchaser of a product or service to waive the right to sue or participate in a class actionclass action, in law, a device that permits one or more persons to sue or be sued as representative of a large group of people interested in the matter at issue. The court in whose jurisdiction a suit is brought typically has wide discretion in determining that a class will be ..... Click the link for more information. . In voluntary arbitration a formal agreement is usually made to abide by the decision. The members of organizations such as the American Arbitration Association, founded in 1926, help settle such disputes and the use of such an organization's members may be specified by a contract, but some such groups have been accused of favoring businesses (who typically pay the arbitrator's fees) over consumers. Arbitration also has been used in employer-employee disputes, particularly those involving labor unions. Such arbitration may be compelled by the government, as in New Zealand (since 1894), Australia (since 1904), Canada (since 1907), Italy (since 1926), and Great Britain (since World War II). In other cases, it may be by voluntary agreement, as is often the case in the United States, where the government occasionally intervenes in the case of a strike affecting the public welfare (see Taft-Hartley Labor ActTaft-Hartley Labor Act, BibliographySee F. Elkouri, How Arbitration Works (1985); M. Bognanno, Labor Arbitration in America (1992). In international arbitration, international disputes, usually between nations, are settled peacefully through a judicial process, generally through the use of a tribunal acting as a court of law. Such a tribunal may consist of an individual (e.g., an impartial head of state, the pope, the secretary-general of the United Nations), a neutral country, or an organization such as the Hague Tribunal. The parties to the dispute pick the arbitrating body themselves and are obligated to accept the terms of settlement. If the parties do not agree in advance to follow the decision reached by a third party, but merely agree to consider it, the process is termed conciliation (see mediationmediation, Arbitration was practiced by the Greek city-states, and in the Middle Ages high ecclesiastical authorities were called upon to settle controversies. With the development of the modern system of nation-states, however, arbitration was less frequently used until the 19th cent. when the settlement by arbitration of the famous Alabama claimsAlabama claims, BibliographySee J. H. Ralston, International Arbitration from Athens to Locarno (1929); C. M. Bishop, International Arbitral Procedure (1930); K. S. Carlston, The Process of International Arbitration (1946); H. W. Briggs, The Law of Nations (2d ed. 1952); J. L. Brierly, The Law of Nations (6th ed. 1963); A. Cox, Prospects for Peacekeeping (1967); R. Fisher, Improving Compliance with International Law (1981). Arbitrationarbitration
Arbitration(1) A means of resolving disputes in which the disputants appeal not to judicial bodies but to individuals who are called arbiters or to a court of arbitration. The arbiters are selected by the disputants themselves or are appointed according to the procedure determined in their agreement or established by law. Arbitration is used primarily to resolve disputes over property which arise during the course of commercial operations, in making commercial shipments, in the delivery of goods, and so forth. (2) A special organ—arbitration tribunal—for resolving disputes over property and related disputes not involving property. Two types are usually distinguished: the incidental (or isolated ) arbitration tribunal and the constantly functioning, or permanent, tribunal. The incidental, or isolated, tribunal, or court of arbitration, is only for resolving a particular case. Its composition is determined by agreement between the disputants or by a procedure established by them. This was the first type of arbitration tribunal to appear in history, originating in the Middle Ages. However, in the 19th and 20th centuries the permanent tribunal has taken precedence; this reviews all disputes brought before it for consideration which involve questions that come under its jurisdiction. A permanent arbitration tribunal is set up by chambers of commerce, government bodies, various associations, and so forth and is chosen from among persons who are included, either for a certain length of time or indefinitely, on a list of arbitrators. This list is drawn up by the governing body of the organization to which the arbitration tribunal is attached. If a permanent arbitration tribunal is appointed to resolve disputes between any parties who wish to bring their cases to it, it is classified as an open arbitration tribunal. However, if the tribunal can resolve disputes only between members of the corresponding organization (or association or system of organizations), it is considered a closed arbitration tribunal. One type of arbitration tribunal is the so-called international one, in which the disputant parties are as a rule juridical or physical persons from different countries, but sometimes are governments directly represented in the form of one or another governmental body. For example, in the USSR there are two international arbitration tribunals in operation: the Maritime Arbitration Commission (MAK) and the Foreign Trade Arbitration Commission (VTAK), which are attached to the All-Union Chamber of Commerce and Industry. In the USSR two types of national arbitration tribunals function (that is, tribunals which resolve disputes between parties within the country): government and institutional. Soviet arbitration tribunals were established after the end of the Civil War, when the economic activity of state enterprises began to be arranged on the basis of economic accounting in connection with the transition to the New Economic Policy. In 1922 state and departmental arbitration commissions were established, but these were later abolished. On the basis of a decree by the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR of Mar. 20, 1931, entitled “On Changes in the System of Credit, the Strengthening of Work in the Area of Credit, and the Ensuring of Economic Accounting in All Economic Bodies” (SZ SSSR, 1931, no. 18, p. 166), organs of state arbitration were reestablished. These have functioned until the present time. The present system of state arbitration tribunals includes the State Arbitration Tribunal of the USSR under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, and state arbitration tribunals attached to the councils of ministers of the Union republics, to the councils of ministers of the autonomous republics, and to the executive committees of soviets of working people’s deputies on the oblast and krai levels and on the city levels in Moscow and Leningrad. Each of these types of arbitration tribunal is subordinate only to that government administrative body to which it is attached and under whose direct supervision it functions. The procedures for the functioning of state arbitration tribunals are determined by special statutes adopted by the appropriate councils of ministers and by regulations published by the State Arbitration Tribunal which is attached to the Council of Ministers of the USSR. Cases put before state arbitration tribunals are decided by an arbitrator, with the participation of responsible representatives of the disputants. Decisions go into effect immediately; as a rule, they are put into effect by the disputants themselves within a period of time set by the arbitration tribunal. The activity of the state arbitration tribunals acquired special significance in light of the economic reforms introduced in the USSR beginning in 1965 in connection with the transition of the national economy to a new system of planning and economic incentives. Under the new system the basic indicators for the work of an enterprise or organization became the volume of marketed output, profit, economically efficient fulfillment of assignments for the most important types of output, and the meeting of demands regarding the quality of output. In reviewing disputes which arise between parties in concluding contracts and meeting contractual obligations, the state arbitration tribunals take measures to ensure the interests of the state and the economic accounting interests of the parties, and they apply pressure on the enterprises and economic organizations to encourage the timely and proper fulfillment of the tasks before them. The tribunals also help to eliminate shortcomings in the functioning of the enterprises and economic organizations which are revealed in the course of investigation into disputes and report on these shortcomings to those bodies to which the disputants are subordinate and, in appropriate cases, to the organs of the attorney’s office. The work of institutional arbitration tribunals proceeds from the same principles as those of state arbitration tribunals. Institutional tribunals are established at ministries and agencies (central institutions and cooperative centers) for resolving economic disputes between enterprises, organizations, and institutions subordinate to the given bodies. The institutional arbitration tribunal is usually organized as a part of the apparatus of the above-stated bodies. V. N. ERSHOV arbitration[‚ar·bə′trā·shən]arbitrationarbitrationarbitrationA set of rules for allocating machine resources, such as memory or peripheral devices, to more than one user or program.arbitrationar·bi·tra·tion(ahrbi-trāshŭn)arbitration(ar-bi-trā′shŏn) [L. arbitratio, decision]arbitrationArbitrationThe submission of a dispute to an unbiased third person designated by the parties to the controversy, who agree in advance to comply with the award—a decision to be issued after a hearing at which both parties have an opportunity to be heard. Arbitration is a well-established and widely used means to end disputes. It is one of several kinds of Alternative Dispute Resolution, which provide parties to a controversy with a choice other than litigation. Unlike litigation, arbitration takes place out of court: the two sides select an impartial third party, known as an arbitrator; agree in advance to comply with the arbitrator's award; and then participate in a hearing at which both sides can present evidence and testimony. The arbitrator's decision is usually final, and courts rarely reexamine it. Traditionally, labor and commerce were the two largest areas of arbitration. However, since the mid-1970s, the technique has seen great expansion. Some states have mandated arbitration for certain disputes such as auto insurance claims, and court decisions have broadened into areas such as Securities, antitrust, and even employment discrimination. International business issues are also frequently resolved using arbitration. Arbitration in the United States dates to the eighteenth century. Courts frowned on it, though, until attitudes started to change in 1920 with the passage of the first state arbitration law, in New York. This statute served as a model for other state and federal laws, including, in 1925, the U.S. Arbitration Act, later known as the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) (9 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.). The FAA was intended to give arbitration equal status with litigation, and, in effect, created a body of federal law. After World War II, arbitration grew increasingly important to labor-management relations. Congress helped this growth with passage of the Taft-Hartley Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq.) in 1947, and over the next decade, the U.S. Supreme Court firmly cemented arbitration as the favored means for resolving labor issues, by limiting the judiciary's role. In the 1970s, arbitration began expanding into a wide range of issues that eventually included prisoners' rights, medical malpractice, and consumer rights. In 2003, all 50 states had modern arbitration statutes. Arbitration can be voluntary or required. The traditional model is voluntary, and closely linked to contract law: parties often stipulate in contracts that they will arbitrate, rather than litigate, when disputes arise. For example, unions and employers almost always put an arbitration clause in their formal negotiations, known as collective bargaining agreements. By doing so, they agree to arbitrate any future employee grievances over wages, hours, working conditions, or job security—in essence, they agree not to sue if disagreements occur. Similarly, a purchaser and a provider of services who disagree over the result of a business deal may submit the problem to an arbitrator instead of a court. Mandatory arbitration is a more recent phenomenon. States such as Minnesota, New York, and New Jersey have enacted statutes that force disputes over automobile insurance claims into this forum. In addition, courts sometimes order disputants into arbitration. In theory, arbitration has many advantages over litigation. Efficiency is perhaps the greatest. Proponents say arbitration is easier, cheaper, and faster. Proponents also point to the greater flexibility with which parties in arbitration can fashion the terms and rules of the process. Furthermore, although arbitrators can be lawyers, they do not need to be. They are often selected for their expertise in a particular area of business, and may be drawn from private practice or from organizations such as the American Arbitration Association (AAA), a national non-profit group founded in 1926. Significantly, arbitrators are freer than judges to make decisions, because they do not have to abide by the principle of stare decisis (the policy of courts to follow principles established by legal precedent) and do not have to give reasons to support their awards (although they are expected to adhere to the Code of Ethics for Arbitrators in Commercial Disputes, established in 1977 by the AAA and the American Bar Association). These theoretical advantages do not always hold up in practice. Even when efficiency is achieved, some critics argue, the price is a lower quality of justice, and it can be made worse by the difficulty of appealing an award. The charge is frequently made that arbitration only results in "splitting the baby"—dividing awards evenly among the parties. The AAA roundly rejects this claim. Yet even arbitrators agree that as arbitration has become increasingly formal, it sometimes resembles litigation in its complexity. This may not be an inherent problem with the process as much as a result of flawed use of it. Parties may undermine arbitration by acting as lawyers do in a lawsuit: excessively demanding discovery (evidence from the other side), calling witnesses, and filing motions. Ultimately, the decision to use arbitration cannot be made lightly. Most arbitration is considered binding: parties who agree to arbitration are bound to that agreement and also bound to satisfy any award determined by the arbitrator. Courts in most jurisdictions enforce awards. Moreover, they allow little or no option for appeal, expecting parties who arbitrate to assume the risks of the process. In addition, arbitration is subject to the legal doctrines of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel, which together strictly curtail the option of bringing suits based on issues that were or could have been raised initially. Res judicata means that a final judgment on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies, and, as to them, operates as an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand, or Cause of Action. Collateral estoppel means that when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid judgment, that issue cannot be relitigated between the same parties in future litigation. Thus, often the end is truly in sight at the conclusion of an arbitration hearing and the granting of an award. The FAA gives only four grounds on which a court may vacate, or overturn, an award: (1) where the award is the result of corruption, Fraud, or undue means; (2) where the arbitrators were evidently partial or corrupt; (3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing or hear pertinent evidence, or where their misbehavior prejudiced the rights of any party; and (4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers or imperfectly executed them so that a mutual, final, and definite award was not made. In the 1953 case Wilkov. Swan, 346 U.S. 427, 74 S. Ct. 182, 98 L. Ed. 168, the U.S. Supreme Court suggested, in passing, that an award may be set aside if it is in "mani-fest disregard of the law," and federal courts have sometimes followed this principle. Public policy can also be grounds for vacating, but this recourse is severely limited to well-defined policy based on legal precedent, a rule emphasized by the Supreme Court in the 1987 case United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, 484U.S. 29, 108 S. Ct. 364, 98 L. Ed. 2d 286. The growth of arbitration is taken as a healthy sign by many legal commentators. It eases the load on a constantly overworked judicial system, while providing disputants with a relatively informal, inexpensive means to solve their problems. One major boost to arbitration came from the U.S. Supreme Court, which held in 1991 that Age Discrimination claims in employment are arbitrable (Gilmer v. Inter-state/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 111 S. Ct. 1647, 114 L. Ed. 2d 26). Writing for the majority, Justice byron r. white concluded that arbitration is as effective as a trial for resolving employment disputes. Gilmer led several major employers to treat all employment claims through binding arbitration, sometimes as a condition of employment. Arbitration clauses have become a standard feature of many employment contracts. This has led to conflicts concerning the applicability of these clauses when an employee seeks to sue an employer for a Civil Rights violation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the civil rights act of 1991. A provision of this law addressed, for the first time, the arbitration of Title VII claims. Section 118 of the act states that the parties could, "where appropriate and to the extent authorized by law," choose to pursue alternative dispute resolution, including arbitration, to resolve their Title VII disputes. Since its enactment, the federal courts have been required to determine what this clause means in practice. For example, in the securities industry disputes arose over whether employers could require their employees to waive their right to bring a Title VII claim in court. The circuit courts of appeal have uniformly ruled that Congress did not mean to preclude compulsory arbitration of Title VII claims. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has contended that employment arbitration clauses do not prohibit the EEOC from filing an action against an employer for a civil rights violation. The Supreme Court agreed in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 122 S.Ct. 754, 151 L.Ed.2d 755 (2002), holding that the EEOC could seek damages on behalf of an employee. The commission could also seek injunctive relief to change a company's discriminatory methods. In so ruling, the Court resolved an issue that had divided the circuit courts of appeal. The employee in question was fired from his job at the Waffle House after he suffered a seizure. He filed a claim with the EEOC, arguing that his rights under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) had been violated. Under this act, the EEOC has the authority to bring its own enforcement actions against employers and to seek reinstatement, backpay, and compensatory and Punitive Damages on behalf of an employee. Moreover, the ADA makes no exception for arbitration agreements, nor does it even mention arbitration. Therefore, the EEOC, which had not signed an arbitration agreement with the employer, was free to pursue its claims in court. The Court also concluded that the general policies surrounding the ADA, and the EEOC's enforcement arm, justified the pursuit by the EEOC of victim-specific relief. It stated that punitive damages "may often have a greater impact on the behavior of other employers than the threat of an injunction." The Supreme Court also has validated the enforceability of arbitration awards relating to Collective Bargaining agreements. In Eastern Associated Coal Corporation v. United Mine Workers of American, District 17, 531 U.S. 57, 121S.Ct. 462, 148 L.Ed.2d 354 (2000), the issue involved a labor arbitrator who ordered an employer to reinstate an employee who had twice tested positive for marijuana use. The employer filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to have the arbitrator's decision vacated, arguing that the award went against a public policy against the operation of dangerous machinery by workers who test positive for drugs. The Court unanimously agreed that the employee should be reinstated. The Court made it clear that the question was not whether the employee's drug use itself violated public policy, but whether the agreement to reinstate him did so. However, the Court also pointed out that the public policy exception is a narrow one. Based on these principles, the Court ruled that the reinstatement did not violate public policy, as the award did not condone drug use or its impact on public safety. In addition, the arbitrator placed conditions on the employee's reinstatement, which included suspension of work for three months without pay, participation in a substance abuse program, and continued random drug testing. The fact that the employee was a recidivist did not tip the balance in favor of discharge. Further readingsCrowley, Thomas. 1994. "The Art of Arbitration Advocacy." Hawaii Bar Journal (September). Culiner, Helen. 1994. "Practical Guidelines for Lawyers Representing Clients in Arbitration Proceedings Today." Dispute Resolution Journal (September). Deye, James, and Lesly Britton. 1994. "Arbitration by the American Arbitration Association." North Dakota Law Review (spring). Nolan-Haley, Jacqueline M. 2001. Alternative Dispute Resolution in a Nutshell. 2d ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Wadsworth. Ware, Stephen J. 2001. Alternative Dispute Resolution. St. Paul, Minn.: West Wadsworth. Cross-referencesAlternative Dispute Resolution. arbitrationn. a mini-trial, which may be for a lawsuit ready to go to trial, held in an attempt to avoid a court trial and conducted by a person or a panel of people who are not judges. The arbitration may be agreed to by the parties, may be required by a provision in a contract for settling disputes, or may be provided for under statute. To avoid clogged court calendars the parties often agree to have the matter determined by a panel such as one provided by the American Arbitration Association (which has a specific set of rules), a retired judge, some other respected lawyer, or some organization that provides these services. Usually contract-required arbitration may be converted into a legal judgment on petition to the court, unless some party has protested that there has been a gross injustice, collusion or fraud. Many states provide for mandatory arbitration of cases on a non-binding basis in the hope that these "mini-trials" by experienced attorneys will give the parties a clearer picture of the probable result and lead to acceptance of the arbitrator's decision. (See: arbitrator) arbitrationa form of alternative dispute resolution by which the determination of a dispute is entrusted to one or more independent third parties rather than the court. While an arbitrator is bound to apply the law accurately, he may adopt a form of procedure that appears to him to be appropriate and is not bound by exclusionary rules of evidence. In Scotland, the arbitrator is known as an arbiter. Small claims in England are run as arbitration proceedings.ARBITRATION, practice. A reference and submission of a matter in disputeconcerning property, or of a personal wrong, to the decision of one or morepersons as arbitrators. arbitrationArbitrationarbitrationArbitration.Arbitration is a way to resolve conflicts between parties or individuals, and may be considered a middle ground between the more cooperative, informal nature of mediation and the more expensive, involved, and lengthy process of litigation. Usually, when you open a brokerage account, you sign an agreement to use arbitration to resolve possible conflicts with the firm and waive the right to sue for damages in court. Arbitration is binding, which means you can't appeal the decision or try for a different result by going to court. Most investment-related arbitration claims are handled by either NASD, the main self-regulatory body that supervises brokers, or the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). In arbitration, a trained impartial arbitrator or panel of arbitrators reviews the evidence, decides on the outcome, and sets any award. While arbitration is usually less expensive than litigation, arbitration and attorney fees make it a more expensive option than mediation. arbitrationa procedure for settling INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES in which a neutral third party (arbitrator) makes an award which is usually binding on all parties to the dispute. Arbitration is usually used as a last resort when it has been impossible to reach agreement under normal procedures. Some PROCEDURAL AGREEMENTS, especially those forming part of a NO STRIKE AGREEMENT, include an automatic reference to arbitration if agreement cannot be reached during COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. The benefit of arbitration is that it facilitates a compromise solution to a dispute in a way which allows both parties to save face. The arbitrator in effect finds a middle way.A relatively novel form of arbitration in Britain is pendulum arbitration (also known as ‘flip-flop’ or ‘last-offer’ arbitration), in which the arbitrator has to decide for one case in its entirety rather than ‘splitting the difference’. The benefits of this are said to be that it encourages more reasonable bargaining behaviour and that it precludes potentially unworkable compromises. Some of the Japanese companies which have recently opened factories in the UK have included this form of arbitration in their NO STRIKE AGREEMENTS/SINGLE UNION DEALS. See also JAPANIZATION, ADVISORY, CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION SERVICE, CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE. arbitrationa procedure for settling disputes, most notably INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES, in which a neutral third party or arbitrator, after hearing presentations from all sides in dispute, issues an award binding upon each side. Arbitration is mostly used only as a last resort when normal negotiating proceedings have failed to bring about an agreed settlement. In the UK, the ADVISORY CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION SERVICE (ACAS) acts in this capacity. See MEDIATION, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.arbitrationA method of nonjudicial or alternative dispute resolution (ADR) which long existed at common law but has recently gained renewed vigor because of the Federal Arbitration Act and the U.S. Supreme Court's pronouncements that the Act applies to all disputes involving matters in interstate commerce. Virtually every construction contract, architectural agreement, and mortgage loan document today contains an arbitration clause and is deemed to involve interstate commerce because of the nationwide impact of those industries.The American Arbitration Association maintains a Web site at www.adr.org. The process relies upon aggrieved parties agreeing to one or more disinterested persons hearing their complaints and defenses and then coming to a conclusion establishing the rights and responsibilities of the parties and their damages, if any. In theory, at least, the arbitrators are skilled and knowledgeable in the particular field of the dispute and allowed to factor into their decisions their own knowledge and experiences. This is in contrast to the modern jury system, in which the law seeks to obtain a jury absolutely ignorant of any details of the industry or dispute, and willing to come to a conclusion based solely on the evidence presented by the lawyers. • Pros. The process is usually much more informal than a traditional trial, allowing a leveling of the playing field when consumers attempt to represent themselves against lawyers representing the other side. In some markets, for some types of disputes, you can reach a hearing and resolution faster and more cheaply than in the court system. For others, a shortage of trained arbitrators for complex cases means the dispute might actually take longer. There are no formal rules of evidence, and the arbitrator simply factors in issues such as hearsay when deciding how much weight to give evidence, rather than excluding it entirely. Discovery is usually very limited in consumer cases so that extensive time and money is not spent searching for documents to produce, attending depositions, and other such matters. The final judgment is confidential and not publicly reported anywhere unless • Cons. As a practical matter the arbitration award cannot be appealed or overturned, even if the arbitrator made obvious mistakes of law that directly resulted in a wrong decision. There are exceptions, but they are exceedingly technical, generally disfavored by appellate courts, and usually require a level of sophistication at the hearing level not enjoyed by most consumers. That is because, for most of the few allowable grounds of appeal, you must know those grounds and all their technicalities in advance and make tactical decisions at the hearing level that will preserve your rights to appeal. This lack of appellate rights was considered a trade-off for the ability to have an arbitrator knowledgeable about your field and supposedly able to reach a more fair decision than a jury. In reality, this rarely works out. arbitration
Synonyms for arbitration
|
||||||
| 随便看 |
|
英语词典包含2567994条英英释义在线翻译词条，基本涵盖了全部常用单词的英英翻译及用法，是英语学习的有利工具。
arbitration - (law) the hearing and determination of a dispute by an impartial referee agreed to by both parties (often used to settle disputes between labor and management)
arbitration - the act of deciding as an arbiter; giving authoritative judgment; "they submitted their disagreement to arbitration"