Arbitrability of Anti-Trust Claims: In Light of the Mitsubishi Motors Case

Arbitration as an alternative dispute resolving mechanism has developed through constant restraints of judicial interventions and courtroom scepticism. The resistance to honor arbitration as an authentic procedure is prominently visible from the contrasting opinions laid down in judgements in deciding the arbitrability of any subject matter of the dispute. The law is vague on this point and the precedents have majorly added obscurity to the issue flowing from the strikingly contrasting rationale used by the Courts of law. In the landmark judgement of U.S. Supreme Court in the matter of Mitsubishi Motors Corp v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc. (“Mitsubishi-Motors Case”), the powers and benefits of arbitration were heavily emphasized while discussing the arbitrability of anti-trust claims in International Commercial Agreements and Trade. This decision of 1985 has profound impact and consequences attached to it as it widened the scope of arbitration while analyzing the long continuing parochial lens used by judiciary which has led to the frustration of objects and purpose of arbitration mechanism. This paper aims to navigate around the change brought in the position of arbitrability of anti-trust claims before and after the Supreme Court decision in the case mentioned. The paper also makes a comparison of the outlook followed in other jurisdictions such as UK, India and Singapore. And ultimately, it attempts to analyze the significance and impact of mandatory laws and its consequences on international commercial arbitration.