Definition
A method of dispute resolution in which parties submit a controversy to one or more neutral private decision-makers — called arbitrators — whose determination (the award) is binding on the parties. Arbitration operates outside the court system but produces a legally enforceable result. It is the primary alternative to civil litigation for resolving disputes and is governed by contract (the arbitration agreement), statute, and, in federal courts, the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.).
Two forms are recognized across virtually all authority:
1. VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION: The parties mutually agree — either before or after a dispute arises — to submit the matter to arbitration rather than litigation. The agreement may be freestanding (a submission agreement) or embedded in a broader contract as an arbitration clause.
2. COMPULSORY ARBITRATION: Arbitration required by statute or regulation, independent of the parties' consent. Historically controversial — courts at common law resisted compulsory arbitration clauses that purported to oust court jurisdiction entirely.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A process through which two or more parties use an arbitrator or arbiter in order to resolve a dispute; in general, a form of justice where both parties designate a person whose ruling they will accept formally.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): The hearing and determination of a cause between parties in controversy, by a person or persons chosen by the parties.
The common definition is broadly accurate but omits what matters most for legal research: the binding, enforceable character of a modern arbitral award and the statutory framework that governs it. Ordinary usage treats arbitration as roughly synonymous with any informal resolution process, including mediation. Legally, arbitration produces a final award that courts will confirm and enforce — and compel parties to participate in — under federal and state arbitration statutes. The distinction between arbitration (adjudicative, binding) and mediation (facilitative, non-binding) is sharp in law even where blurred in common speech.
---
Common Confusion
ARBITRATION vs. MEDIATION: Arbitration produces a binding decision by the arbitrator. Mediation is a facilitated negotiation in which the mediator has no decision-making authority. Conflating the two is common in non-legal contexts and occasionally in older sources that use "arbitration" loosely to mean any third-party intervention.
ARBITRATION vs. REFERENCE/REFERRAL: In historical sources, "reference" and "arbitration" are sometimes used interchangeably. Technically, a reference (or referral to a referee or master) is a court-ordered process in which a judicial officer retains supervisory authority; arbitration is private and consensual. The distinction matters when reading 19th-century cases and digests.
VOLUNTARY vs. COMPULSORY: The historical sources uniformly distinguish these, and the distinction carries constitutional weight in modern law. A contractual arbitration clause is voluntary arbitration; a statute mandating arbitration of certain disputes (such as some labor grievance procedures) is compulsory. Courts historically viewed compulsory arbitration of insurance disputes with particular suspicion, treating it as an impermissible ouster of jurisdiction — a debate the historical sources reflect directly.
---
Core Elements
Modern arbitration law analyzes disputes along three axes that a researcher must distinguish:
1. ARBITRABILITY (SUBSTANTIVE): Whether the particular dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement. A gateway question ordinarily decided by a court unless the parties have clearly delegated it to the arbitrator.
2. ARBITRABILITY (PROCEDURAL): Whether conditions precedent to arbitration (notice, demand, time limits) have been satisfied. Generally decided by the arbitrator, not the court.
3. DELEGATION: Whether the arbitration agreement itself assigns the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. A delegation clause, if clear and unmistakable, strips the court of the threshold inquiry. This is a significant modern development invisible in all historical dictionaries.
---
Why It Matters in Research
STATUTORY TRANSFORMATION: The Federal Arbitration Act (1925) is the dividing line for American arbitration law. Pre-1925 sources — including all six historical dictionaries in the Law Mind corpus — reflect a common-law world skeptical of arbitration agreements and hostile to any clause that appeared to "oust" court jurisdiction. A court that in 1900 would refuse to enforce a pre-dispute arbitration clause would today be reversed. Researchers reading 19th-century treatises, digests, or cases on arbitration must mentally recalibrate: the enforceability assumptions are the opposite of modern law.
OUSTER DOCTRINE: Bouvier's entry flags the ouster-of-jurisdiction debate directly in the insurance arbitration context. This doctrine — that parties cannot by contract deprive courts of jurisdiction — shaped arbitration law for generations and was effectively displaced by the FAA. It remains relevant when researching pre-FAA state law or when a jurisdiction's constitution or statute limits FAA preemption.
INSURANCE AND LABOR ARBITRATION: The historical sources treat insurance arbitration as a recurring problem. Modern corpus researchers should note that labor arbitration developed its own distinct body of law (the Steelworkers Trilogy) and that consumer and employment arbitration are subjects of ongoing federal regulatory activity not captured in any of the historical dictionaries.
INTERNATIONAL DIMENSIONS: The corpus entry military_57 covers maritime arbitration under the New York Convention and London arbitration conventions — a body of law entirely absent from the historical dictionaries and requiring separate research tools.
TERMINOLOGY DRIFT: "Referees," "arbitrators," and "umpires" are used inconsistently in historical sources. Older sources sometimes use "umpire" for a third arbitrator called in to break a deadlock — a meaning distinct from "umpire" in sporting or modern usage.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The six source dictionaries agree on the core structural definition: arbitration is the submission of a dispute to private persons chosen by the parties, whose decision binds them. This consensus has held across two centuries of legal lexicography.
Black's (both editions) and Rapalje & Lawrence draw the voluntary/compulsory distinction explicitly. Anderson's Law Dictionary emphasizes the historically personal-property focus of arbitration ("personal chattel or personal wrong"), noting that references to real property questions were regarded with suspicion — a doctrinal conservatism that modern law has entirely abandoned.
Bouvier's is the most practically detailed, flagging the insurance arbitration controversy and the split of authority on whether pre-dispute arbitration clauses were void as ouster. This internal inconsistency in historical doctrine is worth noting: the sources do not speak with one voice on enforcement, because courts did not.
What the historical dictionaries uniformly miss: the FAA and its preemption of contrary state law, delegation clauses, unconscionability as a defense to arbitration agreements, class arbitration waivers, and the entire architecture of international commercial arbitration. These absences are not defects in the dictionaries — they are temporal markers. Any research question that touches modern enforceability must look beyond these sources.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The Federal Arbitration Act governs written arbitration agreements in contracts involving interstate commerce — a category courts have interpreted broadly. State arbitration statutes fill gaps and govern purely intrastate disputes, but cannot override FAA-preempted rules. California, New York, and Texas have developed substantial independent arbitration jurisprudence; some states have adopted the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (2000). International arbitration seated in the United States is governed by separate FAA chapters implementing the New York and Panama Conventions.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
civpro_123: Arbitration — Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C.) and Enforceability (The Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia)
civpro_124: Arbitration — Arbitrability, Delegation Clauses, and Unconscionability (The Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia)
military_57: Maritime Arbitration — New York Arbitration, London Arbitration, and International Conventions (The Law Mind Military, Veterans & Admiralty Law Encyclopedia)
---