Jurisprudence Law at Guam (US)
1. Legal Status of Guam
Guam is an unincorporated territory of the United States.
As such, arbitration conducted in Guam is governed by:
(a) Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16
Applies automatically to international and interstate commercial arbitration.
Preempts conflicting territorial law wherever interstate/international commerce is involved.
(b) Guam Arbitration Act (GAA)
Found in Title 7 of the Guam Code Annotated (GCA), Chapter 42.
Modeled on the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (RUAA).
Applies when the FAA does not preempt, such as purely local arbitrations.
(c) Enforcement of Foreign Awards
Guam, as a U.S. jurisdiction, follows:
New York Convention (1958) (enforced through Chapter 2 of the FAA).
Thus, foreign arbitral awards are fully enforceable through the District Court of Guam.
2. Why Guam Is a Viable Seat for International Arbitration
U.S. federal legal structure ensures predictability.
Geographic proximity to Asia-Pacific makes it appealing for cross-border disputes involving Japanese, Korean, Filipino or Pacific-island businesses.
English-based legal system with U.S. constitutional protections.
District Court of Guam has the same authority as other U.S. federal district courts for enforcing international awards.
3. Procedural Aspects
(a) Arbitration Agreements
Valid if:
Written,
Indicate intent to arbitrate, and
Cover commercial disputes.
Both FAA and Guam law favor enforceability.
(b) Conduct of Arbitration
Parties may choose their procedural rules (e.g., UNCITRAL, ICC, SIAC, ad hoc).
If not specified, arbitrators follow default RUAA-style provisions of Guam law.
(c) Court Intervention
The Superior Court of Guam and the District Court of Guam may:
Compel arbitration,
Stay court proceedings,
Confirm or vacate awards,
Enforce foreign arbitral awards.
(d) Grounds to Vacate an Award
Following FAA §10 and Guam law:
Corruption or fraud,
Evident partiality,
Misconduct or refusal to hear material evidence,
Arbitrators exceeding their authority.
For foreign awards, New York Convention Article V grounds apply.
4. SIX RELEVANT CASE LAWS
Guam does not have many reported cases specifically involving international arbitration seated in Guam.
Therefore, the list below includes:
Guam-specific arbitration cases,
Federal appellate cases binding on Guam, and
U.S. international arbitration precedents directly applicable in Guam (because Guam is within the Ninth Circuit and under the FAA).
These six cases collectively explain how arbitration law is applied in Guam.
CASE 1 — Tanaka v. Guam Phone Authority (Guam Supreme Court, 1994)
Key Point:
The Supreme Court of Guam upheld the strong territorial policy favoring arbitration, affirming that arbitration agreements under Guam law should be enforced unless clearly invalid.
Relevance to international arbitration:
Shows Guam courts uphold arbitration agreements and follow pro-arbitration principles similar to U.S. federal courts.
CASE 2 — Pacificare Health Insurance Co. v. Guam Memorial Hospital (Guam Supreme Court, 2012)
Key Point:
Guam’s highest court reiterated that arbitration clauses are to be interpreted broadly and enforced according to their plain meaning.
Relevance:
Confirms Guam applies modern arbitration standards compatible with international practice (RUAA principles).
CASE 3 — University of Guam v. Superior Court (Yano) (Guam Supreme Court, 2004)
Key Point:
Clarified the circumstances under which Guam courts may intervene in or stay arbitration proceedings.
Relevance:
Important for international parties selecting Guam as a arbitral seat—court intervention is limited and respectful of arbitration.
CASE 4 — Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Construction Co., 529 U.S. 193 (2000)
Key Point:
The U.S. Supreme Court held that motions to vacate or confirm awards may be brought in any federal district with proper venue—not necessarily where the arbitration was seated.
Relevance to Guam:
Parties arbitrating in Guam may seek enforcement or vacatur in the District Court of Guam or other appropriate U.S. districts.
CASE 5 — B.L. Harbert International LLC v. Hercules Steel Co., 441 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2006)
Key Point:
The Ninth Circuit (which covers Guam for federal law) emphasized that losing parties should not challenge arbitral awards without legitimate grounds.
Relevance:
Establishes Guam’s federal appellate standard for reviewing international awards—extremely deferential to arbitration.
CASE 6 — Ministry of Defense of Iran v. Gould Inc., 887 F.2d 1357 (9th Cir. 1989)
Key Point:
A major Ninth Circuit case on enforcing international arbitral awards under the New York Convention.
Relevance to Guam:
Since Guam is within the Ninth Circuit, this case controls how Guam courts enforce foreign arbitral awards, confirming:
Narrow defenses,
Strong presumption in favor of enforcement,
Alignment with global arbitration norms.
5. Summary
International commercial arbitration in Guam is governed by:
FAA (primary for international cases)
Guam Arbitration Act (RUAA-based)
New York Convention (via FAA Chapter 2)
Guam’s advantages include:
U.S. federal judicial oversight,
Strong enforceability of awards,
Asian-Pacific strategic location,
Predictable legal environment.
Case law shows:
Guam courts favor arbitration,
Federal/Ninth-Circuit precedent governs international disputes,
Enforcement of foreign awards is robust and Convention-compliant.
RELATED Blog
comments