Abstract
“I felt so sorry for you, such a lovely tool, and then you have no users!” This was one of the comments after my presentation of the eKantonrechter at ODR2016, organized by HIIL in the Hague in May 2016. ODR, online dispute resolution, was presented as a tool to solve all problems in the 4th Trend Report by HIIL after the conference. A weblog, however, commented that ODR had raised hopes in its early promoters, but had not really taken off. ODR is a tool to help parties in de dispute resolve their problem. There are various examples of ODR tool: supporting double blind bidding to determine a sum of money, working out divorce settlements, negotiating a solution and taking a case to court. Interesting research questions abound in the area of ODR and its users: What paths do people take when trying to resolve a problem? How can people have ownership of their court procedure? How can solutions, ODR and court procedures, best be tailored to the type of problem? The article describes the development of the e-Kantonrechter, a digital small claims procedure, as an example. ODR and its users is a field in which law and society researchers can effectively contribute to improving digital problem solving and dispute resolution procedures in court.
Highlights
The conference, in May 2016, was a platform for people involved with all kinds of online dispute resolution (ODR)
ODR: A Panacea or a Tool in Search of a User? ODR: a panacea against all court weaknesses? A reader of the 4th Trend report by Hague Institute for internationalization of Law (HIIL) on ODR2 can hardly believe her eyes: ODR will end all administrative frustrations of courts as well as the disappointment of their citizens
It can help to standardize, simplify and humanize judicial procedures and it can help people who need access to courts to negotiate, settle and put unresolved matters before the court. It can reduce the cost of dispute resolution
Summary
The eKantonrechter In courts, opportunities to digitally resolve a dispute emerge. The legal procedure is based on an existing provision, article 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, giving court access to parties who together want to put a dispute before a judge. Whether or how digital access to court is an improvement that will enhance access to justice is one of the major themes in the access to justice debate It remained to be seen if the eKanton procedure will be used by citizens. We held a small evaluation interviewing the legal aid insurers and applicants whose initiative for the procedure was not taken up by the defending party From this evaluation, we found that a number of conditions make the eKantonrechter unattractive, such as high court fees, no investigation as to the facts (witness hearings, for instance) and no possibility for appeal. That is only possible if the users needs get enough attention
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
