Headscratchers / Star Trek: The Next Generation S3E2 "The Ensigns of Command"

• Picard unilaterally names the Grizzelas to be arbitrators in the dispute with the Sheliaks, and then uses Loophole Abuse to force the Sheliaks to give him three weeks to evacuate the colonists. But isn't the whole point of arbitration that both parties agree to an arbitrator? Why does Picard have the right to decide who they should be without the Sheliaks' input?
  • He's allowed to do it because it's written that way into the contract. Whoever makes the objection gets to name the arbitrator. The contract was written as a joint effort between the Federation and the Sheliak, and we know that the Sheliak think and communicate very differently than humans, so it's likely that the odd stipulation was a result of their alien rationale. Perhaps the Sheliak don't believe in the concept of an impartial arbitrator and wanted to ensure that they get an arbitrator biased in their favor whenever they made an objection about something important to them. There could be a number of potential justifications. Maybe the Sheliak wanted some even more bizarre method and got talked down to the current version by the Federation.
    • It's also possible that the contract does allow for the Sheliak to protest Picard's selection of an arbitrator but that them doing so will result in an even longer delay (perhaps it requires that the Grizzelas be present for that discussion anyway).
    Picard: We need 3 weeks.
    Sheliak: You have 2 days.
    Picard: I demand third-party arbitration, as per our treaty.
    Sheliak: *sigh* Fine. Who's your pick?
    Picard: The Grizzelas. They'll wake up in 6 months.
    Sheliak: What?! NO. Pick someone else.
    Picard: Well, since you've officially rejected my primary choice, then I guess we'll just have to begin formal negotiations for the selection of an arbitrator. That should only take another month or two, but I'm betting I can easily stretch that out even longer.
    Sheliak: ...You can have the 3 weeks.
    • Picard names the Grizzelas pursuant to a specific subsection, and the Sheliaks objection is to the delay involved, not protesting the choice of the Grizzelas. Perhaps the subsection defines how the arbitrator is chosen (pre-approved list or methodology). Some contracts have clauses that define which court (or state law) will be used if there is a dispute, so this could be a similar approach.