Rethinking Removal and "Relates To": International Arbitration Disputes and the N.Y. Convention

Authors

Holly Wilson, University of Richmond School of Law

Abstract

Part I explores the historical roots of the Convention,

discusses the evolution of its removal provisions, and explains how

it functions in the district courts today. Part II addresses the arguments

in favor of reverting to the Ruhrgas standard. This article

demonstrates that the current judicial interpretation of the Convention's

removal provisions under Beiser is too broad and that the

stricter construction under Ruhrgas should be re-adopted. Part II

examines three key reasons why the current Beiser standard is unworkable:

the current standard (1) leads to absurd results, (2) disrespects

notions of federalism and strains comity, and (3) in conjunction

with the implementing legislation, shapes federal courts

into a procedural pass through and degrades the integrity of the

judicial system. Simultaneously, Part II explains why Ruhrgas

cures the ailments imparted by the Beiser standard.

Recommended Citation

Holly Wilson, Rethinking Removal and "Relates To": International Arbitration Disputes and the N.Y. Convention, 52 U. Rich. L. Rev. 451 (2018).
Available at: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol52/iss2/6