Opinion ID: 3053947
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contrary to Public Policy

Text: [15] Rogers and Kar further argue that the arbitration provision is invalid because it is contrary to public policy and 15248 ROGERS v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE therefore null and void. See New York Convention art. II(3). They argue that because seafarers are “wards of admiralty,” Arguelles, 400 U.S. at 355, public policy requires that the courts remain open to seafarers for the enforcement of their wage claims. This argument is insufficient to warrant rendering the arbitration provisions void. Congress has expressly directed courts to ensure that arbitration agreements are enforced. 9 U.S.C. §§ 3, 206. The Supreme Court has recognized “the emphatic federal policy in favor of arbitral dispute resolution,” a policy which “applies with special force in the field of international commerce.” Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 631 (1985). We have recognized “the strong public policy favoring arbitration,” including international arbitration. Lozano v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718, 726 (9th Cir. 2007); Ministry of Def. of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Gould, Inc., 969 F.2d 764, 770 (9th Cir. 1992). Rogers and Kar have not shown that any public policy favoring seafarers is sufficient to overcome the public policy favoring international arbitration, particularly in the absence of any evidence that international arbitration would nullify any of the statutory rights Congress has conferred on seafarers.