That's the issue lurking in In re Aramco Servs. 
Co.<http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11521915190435651264>, now on 
appeal to the Texas Supreme Court. DynCorp and Aramco Services (both of which 
were at the time Delaware corporations headquartered in Houston, though Aramco 
Services is a subsidiary of Saudi 
Aramco<https://www.aramcoservices.com/about/>, the Saudi government's oil 
company) signed an agreement under which DynCorp was to create a computer 
system (in the U.S.) and install it at Aramco's Saudi facilities. The contract 
provided that it was to be interpreted under Saudi law, and arbitrated under 
Saudi arbitration rules and regulations. Those rules and regulations apparently 
call for the arbitrators to be Muslim Saudi citizens. The trial court, however, 
appointed a three-arbitrator panel consisting of a Muslim (apparently a Saudi) 
and two non-Muslim non-Saudis. Aramco appealed, arguing that (1) under the 
contract the arbitrators were not supposed to be appointed by a court, and, (2) 
in the alternative, that the court erred in appointing non-Muslim non-Saudis.

The Texas Court of Appeals agreed with Aramco on item 1, and therefore didn't 
reach item 2. But there is an interesting constitutional issue lurking in the 
background: If a contract does call for a court to appoint arbitrators, and 
provides that the arbitrators must be Muslims (or Jews or Catholics or what 
have you), may a court implement that provision, or does the First Amendment or 
the Equal Protection Clause bar the court - a government entity - from 
discriminating based on religion this way, even pursuant to a party agreement?  
Any thoughts on this?

Eugene

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Reply via email to