6+

Dispute Resolution Services Online: selected cases

Send me via email

Authors


graduate student of social anthropology Novosibirsk State Technical University, director of Siberian Center for Conflict Resolution
Russia, NGO Siberian Center for Conflict Resolution
marat@emediator.ru

Abstract

The role of the OPC information management is often carried out not only by the arbitrators and mediators, but also computers, software. Participation of ICT in a settlement received the name "fourth party" because OPC is regarded as an independent entry point to conflict management [8]. In addition to the two disputing parties and a neutral mediator Third Party, the designation of "technology" as the fourth party is a metaphor that emphasizes how technology can have a powerful transforming effect on the already familiar traditional tripartite model konfliktorazresheniya. The fourth side offers a range of possibilities arguing by analogy as a third party in the conflict. While in the dispute settlement procedures fourth party may from time to time take the place of a neutral mediator by implementing the automation of negotiations, it will often play the role of a neutral third party to assist in finding the option agreement.

Keywords

mediation, online dispute resolution, court, arbitration, electronic commerce, system automation, algorithmization, conflict management.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Categories of article:

Read also

Suggested citation

Avdyev Marat Aleksandrovich
Dispute Resolution Services Online: selected cases// Modern Management Technology. ISSN 2226-9339. – #8 (56). Art. # 5601. Date issued: . Available at: https://sovman.ru/en/article/5601/

Full article text is available only in Russian.
Please select from the menu Russian language and continue reading.


References

  1. C. Rule, Online Dispute Resolution for Businesses: B2B, E-Commerce, Consumer, Employment, Insurance, and Other Commercial Conflicts [San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002], p.37.
  2. J.A. García Alvaro, “Online Dispute Resolution: Uncharted Territory” [2003] 7 Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration 175, 180.
  3. E. Katsh and J. Rifkin, Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace [San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001], p.9.
  4. O. Rabinovich-Einy and E. Katsh, “Reshaping Boundaries in an Online Dispute Resolution Environment” [2014] 1[1] International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution 5
  5. H.W. Micklitz, “The Future of Consumer Law — Plea for a Movable System” [2013] 2[1] Journal of European Consumer and Market Law 5; and C. Hodges, I. Benohr and N. Creutzfeldt-Banda, Consumer ADR in Europe [Civil Justice Systems] [Beck/Hart, 2012], pp.367–453.
  6. N. Rogers, R. Bordone, F. Sander and C. McEwen, Designing Systems and Processes for Managing Disputes [Kluwer, 2013], pp.24–25; S. Smith and J. Martinez, “An Analytical Framework for Dispute System Design” [2009] 14[4] Harvard Negotiation Law Review 1401; L. del Duca, C. Rule and Z. Loebl, “Facilitating Expansion of Cross-Border E-Commerce-Developing a Global Online Dispute Resolution System” [2012] 1[1] Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs 59.
  7. A. Lodder, “The Third Party and Beyond: An Analysis of the Different Parties, in Particular the Fifth, Involved in Online Dispute Resolution” [2006] 15[2] Information and Communications Technology Law 143, 144; and G. Kaufmann-Kohler and T. Schultz, Online Dispute Resolution: Challenges for Contemporary Justice [Kluwer,2004], p.5.
  8. Katsh and Rifkin, Online Dispute Resolution [2001], pp.93–117.
  9. Katsh and Wing, “Ten Years of Online Dispute Resolution [ODR]: Looking at the Past and Constructing the Future” [2006] 38 University of Toledo Law Review 19, 31; A. Gaitenby, “The Fourth Party Rises: Evolving Environments of Online Dispute Resolution” [2006] 38 University of Toledo Law Review 372. More recently, it has also introduced the fifth party [the provider of the technology], which also plays a unique role in ODR. cf. Lodder, “The Third Party and Beyond” [2006] 15[2] Information and Communications Technology Law 143, 144 .
  10. Katsh and Rifkin, Online Dispute Resolution [2001], p.129
  11. Katsh and Wing, “Ten Years of Online Dispute Resolution [ODR]: Looking at the Past and Constructing the Future” [2006] 38 University of Toledo Law Review 19, 27.
  12. See http://www.cybersettle.com/about-us [Accessed July 9, 2014].
  13. See http://www.cybersettle.com/pub/home/about.aspx [Accessed April 2, 2014].
  14. J. Krause, “Settling it on the Web. New Technology, Lower Costs Enable Growth of Online Dispute Resolution”, American Bar Association Journal [October 2007].
  15. See http://cybersettle.com/paymd/the-challenge [Accessed July 9, 2014].
  16. See http://cybersettle.com/about-us [Accessed July 9, 2014].
  17. R. Weiss, “Some Economic Musings on Cybersettle” [2006] 38 University of Toledo Law Review 89.
  18. B. Deffains and Y. Gabuthy, “Efficiency of Online Dispute Resolution: A Case of Study” [2005] 60 Communications and Strategies 205.
  19. See http://www.smartsettle.com/products/smartsettle-one [Accessed July 9, 2014].
  20. P. Jacobs, “Mediation Now and Then” in Michael P. Barbee, Newsletter, Mediation, International Bar Association Legal Practice Division, July 2007, p.14.
  21. P. Motion, “Article 17 ECD: Encouragement of Alternative Dispute Resolution: On-line Dispute Resolution: A View from Scotland” in Lilian Edwards (ed.), The New Legal Framework for E-Commerce in Europe (Oregon and Portland: Hart Publishing, 2005), p.145.
  22. SquareTrade, “ODR Is No Longer Offered by SquareTrade”, http://www.squaretrade.com/pages/odr-discontinued [Accessed April 2, 2014]; O. Rabinovich-Einy, “Technology’s Impact: The Quest for a New Paradigm for Accountability in Mediation” (2006) 11 Harvard Negotiation Law Review 253, 284. By contrast, SquareTrade’s automatic negotiation software matched problems to solutions. During its existence SquareTrade resolved millions of disputes across 120 nations in five different languages. SquareTrade resolved small value disputes using a process in which a mediator assists disputants through asynchronous email and web communications with the parties. SquareTrade employed around 200 mediators from over 15 different countries. There are no more detailed statistics on the negotiation and mediation schemes, but Conley Tyler reported in 2006 that over a million eBay disputes had been settled via SquareTrade. See Summer Raines and Conley Tyler, “From e-Bay to Eternity: Advances in Online Dispute Resolution”, University of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No.200 (April 5, 2006).
  23. See https://www.netneutrals.com/About-Us.aspx [Accessed July 9, 2014].
  24. C. Rule and C. Nagarajan, “Leveraging the Wisdom of Crowds: The eBay Community Court and the Future of Online Dispute Resolution” (Winter 2010) AC Resolution 4.
  25. Rule, Online Dispute Resolution for Businesses (2002), p.103.
  26. Rabinovich-Einy, “Technology’s Impact” (2006) 11 Harvard Negotiation Law Review 253, 258.
  27. E. Dyson, “Do You See a Pattern?” (August 28, 2006), http://www.squaretrade.com/pages/about-us-news?vhostid =daffy&stmp=squaretrade&cntid=3ja18a4y81 [Accessed April 2, 2104].
  28. See http://resolutioncentre.ebay.co.uk/ [Accessed July 9, 2014].
  29. See eBay Motors Vehicle Purchase Protection, http://pages.motors.ebay.com/buy/purchase-protection/ and eBay Business Equipment Protection, http://pages.ebay.com /help/buy/business-protection.html [Both accessed July 9, 2014
  30. L. del Duca, C. Rule and K. Rimpfel, “eBay de Facto Low Value High Volume Resolution Process: Lessons and Best Practices for ODR System Designers” (2014, forthcoming), pp.3–4.
  31. C. Rule, “Quantifying the Economic Benefits of Effective Redress: Large E-Commerce Data Sets and the Cost-Benefit Case for Investing in Dispute Resolution” (2012) 34 University of Arkansas Little Rock Law Review 767.
  32. Rule, “Quantifying the Economic Benefits of Effective Redress” (2012) 34 University of Arkansas Little Rock Law Review 767, 772.
  33. Rule, “Quantifying the Economic Benefits of Effective Redress” (2012) 34 University of Arkansas Little Rock Law Review 767, 773.
  34. Rule, “Quantifying the Economic Benefits of Effective Redress” (2012) 34 University of Arkansas Little Rock Law Review 767, 776.
  35. Rule, “Quantifying the Economic Benefits of Effective Redress” (2012) 34 University of Arkansas Little Rock Law Review 767, 776.
  36. See http://www.modria.com/ [Accessed July 9, 2014]. See also B.H. Barton, “The Lawyer’s Monopoly — What Goes and What Stays” (2014) 82 Fordham Law Review 3067, 3075–3076.
  37. See “Our Modular Dispute Resolution System”, Modria, http://www.modria.com/resolution-center [Accessed July 9, 2014].
  38. Modria and LawMediaLabs have also created http://www.DivorceMediationResources.com [Accessed July 9, 2014].
  39. See http://www.modria.com/assessment/ [Accessed July 9, 2014].
  40. C. Rule, ODR News (April 2014), “AAA Chooses ODR for Its Largest Volume Case Load” (2014) 1(1) International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution 97.
  41. See http://rtapiclaimsprocess.org.uk [Accessed July 9, 2014].
  42. See http://www.claimsportal.org.uk/en/using-the-portal [Accessed July 9, 2014].
  43. B. Trent and C. Rule, “Moving Arbitration Online: The Next Frontier”, New York Law Journal (April 1, 2013). These technologies can also be useful in adjudicative processes. For instance, “the eBay and PayPal context, where tens of millions of arbitration decisions were made on cases averaging only $75 in value”.
  44. Trent and Rule, “Moving Arbitration Online”, New York Law Journal (April 1, 2013).
  45. BIS, “Alternative Dispute Resolution in Large or Complex Cases: pilot evaluation summary” (September 2013), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/alternative -dispute-resolution-in-large-or-complex-cases-pilot-evaluation-summary [Accessed July 9, 2014].
  46. See BIS, “Mediation Information and Assessment Meetings (MIAMs) and mediation in private family law disputes: Qualitative research findings” (April 3, 2014), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mediation-information-and-assessment-meetings-miams-and-mediation-in-private-family-law-disputes-qualitative-research-findings [Accessed July 9, 2014].
  47. BIS, “Resolving Workplace Disputes: The Government Response to the Consultation” (November 2011), https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32181/11-1365-resolving-workplace-disputes-government-response.pdf [Accessed July 9, 2014].
  48. Dunnett v Railtrack Plc [2002] 1 W.L.R. 2434 CA (Civ Div); Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576, [2004] 1 W.L.R. 3002; Burchell v Bullard [2005] EWCA Civ 358, [2005] C.P. Rep. 36; Egan v Motor Services (Bath) [2007] EWCA Civ 1002, [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1589; Faidi v Elliot Corp [2012] EWCA Civ 287, [2012] H.L.R. 27; Oliver v Symons [2012] EWCA Civ 267, [2012] 2 P. & C.R. 2; Ghaith v Indesit Co UK Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 642, [2012] I.C.R. D34.
  49. CEDR, “The 21st Century ADR Corporate Pledge” (August 2013), http://www.cedr.com/foundation/corporate-adr-pledge/ [Accessed July 9, 2014].
  50. DRS Procedure r.7, http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/when-use-drs/policy-and-procedure/drs-procedure [Accessed July 9, 2014].
  51. See https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome [Accessed July 9, 2014].
  52. EU Consumer Agenda of 2012, COM(2012) 225 final.
  53. EU Justice Agenda for 2020, COM(2014) 144 final.
  54. Directive 2013/11 on Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes [2013] OJ L165/63 (ADR Directive); and Regulation 524/2013 on Online Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes [2013] OJ L165/1 (ODR Regulation).
  55. ADR Directive arts 6–11.
  56. P. Cortés, “A New Regulatory Framework for Extra-Judicial Consumer Redress: Where We Are And How To Move Forward” (2014) 34(3) Legal Studies, forthcoming; P. Cortés and A. Lodder, “Consumer Dispute Resolution Goes Online: Reflections on the Evolution of European Law for Out-of-Court Redress” (2014) 21(1) Maastricht Journal 14.
  57. The draft rules propose a tiered procedure that commences with negotiation, moves on to facilitated settlement, and the remaining unresolved disputes are decided through an online arbitration stage (or through a non-binding adjudication procedure when parties choose this alternative track). See UNCITRAL Working Group III (Online Dispute Resolution), Online Dispute Resolution for Cross-border Electronic Commerce Transactions: Draft Procedural Rules (March 24–28, 2014), http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/commission/working_groups/3Online_Dispute_Resolution.html [Accessed July 9, 2014].
  58. cf. P. Cortés and F. Esteban de la Rosa, “Building a Global Redress System for Low-Value Cross-Border Disputes” (2013) 62(2) International Comparative Law Quarterly 407
  59. R. Susskind, Tomorrow’s Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future (Oxford University Press, 2012) p.102.