Field Of Online Dispute Resolution Research Articles

Necessity of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) in Family Matters and Legal Implementation of Online Court System

Technology is transforming Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Defying long-held assumptions that developing empathy, broadening understanding, and coming up with solutions are only possible in person, effective approaches for assisting in the resolution of the growing number of arguments that have developed online have emerged. Technology has become the "fourth party" in settling disputes, thanks to the developing field of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), which includes the use of technology and computer-mediated communication (CMC) in negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and other dispute resolution processes. ODR is being used by courts in numerous countries for family-related matters. The expectations and duties that are placed on the ODR community and its practitioners are examined in this research, which uses a qualitative technique. In particular, the study emphasizes the importance of ODR in resolving family disputes, critical moral standards for the technology used in ODR, and critical moral standards for the technology used in ODR, and makes suggestions for how Pakistan's judiciary can enhance its current online court model to facilitate greater access to justice and speed up the entire adjudication process. The paper also offers ideas on how the judicial system might continue to disseminate information with integrity, quality, and promptness.

The Past, Present, and Future of Online Dispute Resolution

Abstract This article chronicles the evolution of the field of online dispute resolution from its inception in the mid-1990s to its current application in and outside the court system. While originally ODR played a modest role in the limited domain of e-commerce, over the years its application has expanded significantly, as have its form and function: from processes that have sought to replicate online equivalents to ones that reimagine the design of procedures to better fit party needs and to address the justice system’s longstanding problems. The article predicts that the future of ODR lies in increased automation, which includes artificial intelligence and various forms of structured negotiation, and, consequently, a reduced role for human third parties. This will require a rethinking of the ways in which access to justice, procedural justice and substantive justice can be realized. The key for realizing the values and goals of the justice system lies in the careful design and ongoing evaluation of online systems, activities that have themselves been transformed by technology and the availability of big data.

Beneficial and Ethical ODR for Family Issues†

Technology is revolutionizing the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) field. Despite the long‐held assumptions that increasing understanding, building empathy, and crafting resolution are only possible in‐person, effective ways have emerged for assisting the resolution of the exploding number of disputes that have burgeoned online. Technology has become the “fourth party” in dispute resolution through the growing field of online dispute resolution (ODR), which includes use of technology and computer‐mediated‐communication (CMC) in negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and other dispute resolution processes. ODR is infiltrating family law, and even courts are starting to employ ODR in family cases. Expediated divorces and tracking parenting plans with little court involvement garner appeal amidst growing expectations that everything should be available with a few “clicks” or “swipes” on our technological devices. These expectations and opportunities place new responsibilities on the field and its practitioners. How can we best integrate technology into ADR—both online and off? How can we prevent the rush to digitization from ignoring due process and transparency in the name of efficiency? Accordingly, this Article will discuss the value of ODR for family disputes and highlight key concepts and ODR standards to consider for ethical design and employment of technology in family dispute resolution.

The Human Touch in ODR: Trust, Empathy and Social Intuition in Online Negotiation and Mediation

As the field of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) has grown and evolved, it has often met resistance from practitioners and theorists alike. One core theme has always been that the interpersonal processes of negotiation and mediation are fundamentally dependent on an elusive quality or aspect dubbed 'the human touch'. The cold impersonal environment of the internet, the arguments went, is inherently bereft of the human touch.ODR had been growing rapidly even before the COVID-19 pandemic drove all forms of professional practice, including negotiation and mediation, online. The time has come, therefore, to reframe these objections into appreciative exploration:Just what is this 'human touch' and in what sense is it absent in online communication? How can practitioners regain the human touch, and bring it to bear in online interactions? Might there be ways in which we can imbue online negotiation and mediation processes with the human touch even beyond the levels encountered in-person interactions?To transform an ineffable notion into applicable theory and practice, the chapter outlines three key human-touch areas: trust, empathy, and social intuition. The chapter explains each area through a human-touch perspective. It then maps out the challenges to each in the online environment, and recommends helpful practices for enhancing each of these human-touch areas in online negotiation and mediation processes.

Designing Ethical Online Dispute Resolution Systems: The Rise of the Fourth Party

AbstractAs the pandemic forces public and private institutions to move online, many court and business leaders are looking to the field of online dispute resolution (ODR) for best practices and lessons learned. Developed over the last twenty years, largely in response to the growth of e‐commerce, the ODR field has generated a deep well of theory and practice while also identifying potential ethical dilemmas and risks. The application of technology, the “fourth party,” plays an increasingly integral role in how we negotiate resolutions to our disputes, with or without a third party. A brief overview of the history of ODR’s development will set the context for the exploration of the range of tools and techniques encompassed by online dispute resolution. Consideration of the ethical challenges raised by ODR practice will illuminate key questions and choices that need to be made in designing ODR systems and in governing their use.

Power and Persuasion in Online Dispute Resolution

The area of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is growing worldwide, as it provides parties with an opportunity to avoid the costs, delays and complications often associated with traditional court proceedings. Some forms of ADR involving smaller disputes are now increasingly being carried out on online platforms. In this emergent field of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), it has been noted that although the theory is essentially the same, in practice the interaction is also influenced by the presence of a theoretical ‘fourth party’, the software tools that structure the ODR process, which bring about small changes in the way the dispute resolution proceedings are conducted, and possibly lead to alterations in the power balance between participants. This paper provides a detailed case study of the way power and persuasion are exercised in one ODR platform, namely the Virtual Mediation Lab. We examine the discursive relationships that are constructed between the mediator and participants, and how this may be influenced by the use of an ODR platform. My conclusions provide a reflection on the issue of power in ODR, discussing ways in which the mediator subtly exercises persuasive influence: the structure of the online platform places greater power in the hands of the mediator, ultimately exerting stronger coercive effects on the participants in ODR processes.

Universal standards for the concept of trust in online dispute resolution systems in e-commerce disputes

Abstract The need for an appropriate jurisdiction for electronic commerce disputes has led to the well-established mechanism for solving disputes through the internet known as the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR). Currently, there is no universal agreement about the concept of trust in ODR systems, although this issue has been widely discussed in the field of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The current study aimed to develop a set of standards to enhance trust and confidence in using ODR systems. In this study, we have adopted a new approach in the ODR field, and no similar research has been conducted. This study used a quantitative (online survey) and mainly qualitative approach (interview) for gathering data. After analysing data, this research identified three elements as standards to measure trust in ODR systems including knowledge, expectations of fairness and code of ethics. Finally, our findings provide several practical and methodological implications.

Consumer Dispute Resolution in Cyberspace - Trends and Developments

Developments and advancements in the ICT environment has led to high increase in electronic commerce. Cyber contractual disputes also emerge rapidly and this challenge the traditional consumer protection systems in terms of redressal and remedies. To protect consumers rights and interests, ADR mechanisms can be used which can overcome the difficulties confronted in the traditional litigation process. Dispute resolution in internet contracts can take place online either entirely or partly. There are various mechanisms available to resolve disputes which can protect disputants’ interests and rights absolutely. As the cyber environment usage continues to expand, it is utmost important to design effective mechanisms for resolving online commercial disputes because traditional adjudicatory process can be time consuming, expensive and may raise jurisdictional problems. Though the current trends and practice in the field of online dispute resolution exists, it appears that there are various aspects relating to which are yet to be clarified. This article aims to present a national and international scientific literature review on the models of Dispute Resolution mechanisms, discusses the use of Alternative dispute resolution systems (including ODR), types of procedure and mechanisms adapted for dealing with commercial disputes in India. It also looks into the international frameworks available with redressal systems and its effectiveness in dealing with cross border disputes.

THE INTERNET AS A SITE OF LEGAL EDUCATION AND COLLABORATION ACROSS CONTINENTS AND TIME ZONES: USING ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AS A TOOL FOR STUDENT LEARNING

Increasingly, digital technologies are influencing and impacting dispute resolution, particularly in the emerging field of online dispute resolution (ODR). ODR holds the potential to increase access to justice by engaging disputants in dramatically new ways. As a relatively new subject, ODR is unlikely to form part of the traditional curriculum at law schools. Aside from the question of whether it will become a mainstream part of tomorrow’s legal or dispute resolution landscape, ODR does show us that a familiarity with technology is becoming more important for tomorrow’s lawyers. As educators, how can we expose law students to these new forces of change in a meaningful way? How can we help students understand the benefits and drawbacks technology holds for the challenge of access to justice? This article describes a unique pilot project of an ODR simulation involving three universities in three cities, two continents, and three time zones. The main objectives of the project were to expose law students to ODR from the perspective of a disputant or client; expose clinical mediation students to a range of technology-based dispute resolution processes; demonstrate the potential for technology to support collaboration across vast distances; and promote experiential education by giving students “hands-on” ODR experience. This article will describe the simulation from an educator’s perspective.

No Sheriff in Town: Governance for Online Dispute Resolution

Online dispute resolution (ODR), the practice of resolving disputes via the Internet or digital applications, has been developing since the mid‐1990s. As the field has grown and gained traction, it has increasingly received attention from professional associations and industry leaders in the world of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). More recently, it has begun to receive recognition from sources outside of this field — in both the public and private sectors.As the field develops and individual initiatives become widely adopted, the attention it receives from external sources will undoubtedly focus on questions of quality, ethics, practitioner training, service provider qualifications, and monitoring. These questions — already beginning to be heard from within the field — derive, in essence, from one shared overall question, that of appropriate governance for the ODR field.In this article, we will explain what we mean when we discuss a field's governance and suggest that the field itself should investigate issues of its own governance. We explore and explain the current “low‐to‐no” state of governance in ODR — and the developments that are likely, should the field fail to actively address this issue. We discuss the costs of no governance, and the potential costs and disadvantages of employing a higher‐governance model. We ask whether ODR can, indeed, be governed at all, and illustrate why addressing ODR governance is a very complex venture, in terms of the web of factors to be addressed, no matter how beneficial internal governance may be.We do not, in this article, intend to decide any of these questions — but, rather, to pose them to the ODR field and to the wider fields of ADR and conflict management. We point out why the ODR field is at a developmental point that is highly suitable for discussing and deciding these questions — and why these decisions might have far‐reaching implications for a wide range of conflict‐related fields.

No Sheriff in Town: Governance for the ODR Field

Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), the practice of resolving disputes via the Internet or digital applications, has been developing since the mid-1990s. As the field has grown and gained traction, it has increasingly received attention from professional associations and industry leaders in the world of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) More recently, it has begun to receive recognition from sources outside of this field – in both the public and private sectors.As the field develops and individual initiatives become widely adopted, the attention it receives from external sources will undoubtedly focus on questions of quality, ethics, practitioner training, service provider qualifications, and monitoring. These questions – already beginning to be heard from within the field – derive, in essence, from one shared overall question, that of appropriate governance for the ODR field. In this paper, we will explain what we mean when we discuss a field’s governance and make the case that the field itself should investigate issues of its own governance. We explore and explain the current “low-to-no” state of governance in ODR – and the developments that are likely should the field fail to actively address this issue. We discuss the costs of no governance, and the potential costs and disadvantages of employing a higher-governance model. We ask whether ODR can, indeed, be governed at all, and illustrate why – addressing ODR governance is a very complex venture, in terms of the web of factors to be addressed – no matter how beneficial internal governance may be.We do not, in this article, intend to decide any of these questions – but rather to pose them to the ODR field and to the wider fields of ADR and conflict management. We point out why the ODR field is at a developmental point that is highly suitable for discussing and deciding these questions – and why these decisions might have far-reaching implications for a wide range of conflict-related fields.

Fairness, Trust, and Security in Online Dispute Resolution

The past fifteen years have witnessed immense growth in the application of technology in the field of conflict resolution. One area of particular interest is the growth of the practice and study of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), which has its roots in the worlds of technology and of Alternative Dispute Resolution. As the field of ODR develops, its terminology and conceptual frameworks require exploration and clarification, with special care taken to convey shared meaning between participants coming from the two contributing worlds noted above. In this article, we introduce three conceptual areas – key concepts in ODR – that would benefit from such clarification: trust, fairness, and security. We discuss multiple connotations and uses of each term, and explain why developing a clearer understanding of each would benefit the ODR field.

@ Face Value?

Mediation is a process wherein a third party, or mediator, attempts to assist two conflicting parties in dealing with their dispute. Research has identified party trust in the mediator as a key element required for mediator effectiveness. In online video-based mediation, the addition of technology to the mix poses both challenges and opportunities to the capacity of the mediator to build trust with the parties through nonverbal communication. While authors researching the field of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) have often focused on trust, their work has typically targeted text-based processes. As ODR embraces video-based processes, nonverbal communication becomes more salient. Nonverbal communication research has identified examples of specific actions that can contribute to trust. This paper combines that research with current scholarship on trust in mediation and on nonverbal communication in mediation, to map out the landscape mediators face while seeking to build trust through nonverbal communication in online video-based mediation. Suggestions for future research and implications for practice are noted, holding relevance to researchers and practitioners in any field in which trust, nonverbal communication and technology converge.

Building the Virtual Courthouse: Ethical Considerations for Design, Implementation, and Regulation in the World of ODR

For some time now, there has been a well-documented movement toward alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and away from traditional litigation through courts in the United States and around the world. The benefits of the ADR movement are manifold, ranging from greater control over the process of dispute resolution to alleviating overburdened courts. But the costs of ADR are also becoming increasingly apparent, including a relative lack of due process protections. A more recent phenomenon is the marriage of technology to ADR, creating the field of online dispute resolution (ODR). Increasingly, both public- and private-sector actors are moving towards ODR to resolve low-value disputes. Some companies, such as Modria, are seeking to increase efficiency still further through automating the dispute resolution process through the use of algorithms, effectively removing humans from the justice delivery system. The limited literature analyzing the ODR movement has so far neglected the ethics of these emerging systems. Where should policymakers, business leaders, and societies draw the line between disputes that may be resolved online, potentially using an automated system, and those requiring in-person hearings? This Article seeks to begin the conversation about these questions by reviewing the current technological state of ODR and its use by companies including eBay, Modria, and Cybersettle, among others, before moving on to consider ethical ODR issues including balancing such values as transparency, efficiency, and conflict dynamics. Finally, suggestions for regulating this burgeoning industry are made drawing from the interdisciplinary literature on polycentric governance.

Developing Online Dispute Resolution for Consumers in the EU: A Proposal for the Regulation of Accredited Providers

This paper evaluates the development of online dispute resolution (ODR) methods in resolving small value disputes arising out of e-commerce transactions and the need for designing a regulatory model to realise its full potential in the EU. The paper proposes the drafting of a European Regulation in the field of ODR that would set legal standards for mandatory ODR. The proposed Regulation would create a pan-European trustmark that would be granted to those ODR providers that comply with its legal provisions. Compliance would be monitored by the co-operation between national and regional authorities through the European Consumer Centres Network (ECC-Net). The ECC-Net national offices and online businesses would refer national and cross-border disputes to accredited ODR providers. The proposed Regulation would encourage the use of consensual ODR processes as a step previous to the adjudicative processes for all accredited and mandatory ODR. Decisions will be legally binding but appealable, when appropriate, through an online procedure akin to the European Small Claims Procedure.

Accredited online dispute resolution services: creating European legal standards for ensuring fair and effective processes

The aim of this article is to consider the need for regulation within the European Union (EU) in order to close the existing gap between the need for effective and fair online dispute resolution (ODR) mechanisms in electronic commerce and their actual use. At present, ODR relies on soft laws and self-regulation rather than legislative intervention. Yet, some aspects, such as mandatory ODR clauses included in electronic contracts and the enforceability of online awards, need to be supported by legislation and cannot be left exclusively to self-regulatory initiatives. This article suggests that establishing clear procedural standards in the ODR field will increase awareness as well as provide the necessary tools for promoting those ODR schemes that offer quality services by accrediting them with a pan-European trustmark. The article proposes that this can be achieved through a European directive, which will contribute to the development of ODR within the EU by allowing accredited ODR providers to offer mandatory services and issue enforceable decisions. Whether many disputes will be resolved online is not a matter of ‘If’, but of ‘When’ and ‘How’. The question of exactly when is not of great importance; time will tell. The question of ‘How’ is what we should focus on. (Lodder 2006: 153)