English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

For almost a century, attorneys have debated the role federal law should play in the enforcement of private arbitration agreements. Proponents of a nationalized arbitration law argue that states are too reluctant to enforce private arbitration agreements. They argue that the benefits of arbitration—speed, efficiency, and privacy—will not be realized without a strong national policy in favor of arbitration. Critics of a nationalized arbitration law, on the other hand, argue that nationalization leaves too little room for state lawmaking. They argue that a national arbitration policy prevents states from enacting important laws for the protection of contracting parties.

Tripping on the Threshold: Federal Courts' Failure to Observe Controlling State Law under the Federal Arbitration Act