1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Law and Social Science
  4. Volume 16, 2020
  5. Article

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Volume 16, 2020

Online Dispute Resolution and the Future of Justice

Abstract

Technology is changing the way we interact with each other, which in turn is changing the way we resolve our disputes. Every society throughout history has crafted social institutions to resolve problems fairly and consistently, and that is true also for the online society we are building on the Internet. Online dispute resolution (ODR) is the study of how to effectively use technology to help parties resolve their disputes. Originally crafted by companies like eBay to promote trust in eCommerce, ODR is now being integrated into the courts to expand access to justice and reduce costs. With the expansion of artificial intelligence and machine learning, ODR has the potential to become the new default for fast and fair resolutions, but there are many questions that still need to be answered, and much potential for fraud and abuse. In this article, I explain the need for ODR, provide a short history of its evolution, outline a rubric for building ODR systems, share some case studies demonstrating its use, and describe some ethical dilemmas that could accompany its expansion.

Keyword(s): ADR, alternative dispute resolution, mediation, negotiation, ODR, online dispute resolution, redress, resolution
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-043049
2020-10-13
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/16/1/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-043049.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-043049&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Amsler T. 2017. Community dispute resolution: assessing its importance and addressing its challenges. Dispute Resolution Magazine June 29
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson M, Perrin A, Jiang J, Kumar M 2019. 10% of Americans don't use the internet. Who are they. FactTank April 22. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/22/some-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Andreesen M. 2011. Why software is eating the world. Wall Street Journal Aug. 20. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903480904576512250915629460
    [Google Scholar]
  4. CJC ADR Work. Group 2018. ADR and civil justice Final Rep., UK CJC ODR Committee Dec. 4, 2018. http://odr.info/cjc/
  5. Condlin R. 2017. Online dispute resolution: stinky, repugnant, or drab. Cardozo J. Confl. Resol. 18:717–58
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Dabboussi S. 2018. Game theory in negotiation. Medium.com Nov 7. https://medium.com/@sabinelea/game-theory-in-negotiation-84dda8f4f707
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dyer C. 2018. Self-represented litigants: a guide for government and court decision makers Resour. Guide No. 4, Gov. Law Libr. https://www.aallnet.org/gllsis/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2018/01/scllguide4.pdf
  8. Ebner N. 2012. ODR and interpersonal trust. Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice: A Treatise on Technology and Dispute Resolution MSA Wahab, E Katsch, D Rainey pp. 215–48 The Hague, Neth.: Eleven Int. Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Edwards J. 2014. Uber is destroying the value of taxi monopolies in a bunch of American cities. Business Insider Nov. 28. https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-destroying-value-of-taxi-monopolies-cartels-2014-11
    [Google Scholar]
  10. FindLaw 2019. What is mediation. FindLaw.com. https://adr.findlaw.com/mediation/what-is-mediation-.html
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hector M. 2016. Declining court caseloads reflect societal, other changes. Ill. Bar J. 104:320
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Himonas D. 2018. Utah's online dispute resolution program. Dickinson Law Rev 122:3875–98
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Int. Corp. Assigned Names Numbers (ICANN) 2012a. List of approved dispute resolution service providers. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/providers-6d-2012-02-25-en
  14. Int. Corp. Assigned Names Numbers (ICANN) 2012b. Rules for uniform domain name dispute resolution policy (the “rules”). https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en
  15. Int. Counc. Online Dispute Resol. (ICODR) 2019. ICODR standards. http://www.icodr.org/standards
  16. Kane S. 2019. Top advantages of legal process outsourcing (LPO). The Balance Careers Nov. 20. https://www.thebalancecareers.com/top-advantages-of-outsourcing-2164339
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Katsh E, Rifkin J. 2001. Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
  18. Katsh E, Rule C. 2016. What we know and need to know about online dispute resolution. S. C. Law Rev. 67:329–44
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Knowlton N. 2016. Cases without counsel: research on experiences of self-representation in U.S. family court. Res. Rep., Inst. Adv. Am. Legal Syst Denver, CO: https://iaals.du.edu/sites/default/files/documents/publications/cases_without_counsel_research_report.pdf
  20. Kozak L. 2011. Judicial branch budget cuts. California Courts News July 26. https://www.courts.ca.gov/14876.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kurzweil R. 2005. The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology New York: Viking Penguin
  22. Lande J. 2015. Planning is critically important for early dispute resolution. Mediate.com (by way of the Indisputably blog) June 2015. https://www.mediate.com/articles/LandeJbl20150612.cfm
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Larson D. 2003. Online dispute resolution: Do you know where your children are. Negot. J. 19:199–205
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Larson D. 2010. Artificial intelligence: robots, avatars, and the demise of the human mediator. Ohio State J. Disp. Resol. 25:105–64
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Lucas L. 2017. Every year, millions try to navigate US courts without a lawyer. The Conversation Sept. 21. http://theconversation.com/every-year-millions-try-to-navigate-us-courts-without-a-lawyer-84159
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Miller J. 2019. Law schools face diminished enrollment numbers. The Heights Feb. 10. https://bcheights.com/2019/02/10/law-schools-face-diminished-enrollment-numbers/
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Moffitt ML. 2006. Before the big bang: the making of an ADR pioneer. Negot. J. 22:4437–43
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Natl. Cent. State Courts 2019a. ODR for courts JTC Resour. Bull., Natl. Cent. State Courts Nov. 29. https://www.ncsc.org/∼/media/Files/PDF/About%20Us/Committees/JTC/JTC%20Resource%20Bulletins/2017-12-18%20ODR%20for%20courts%20v2%20final.ashx
  29. Natl. Cent. State Courts 2019b. Self-representation resource guide. https://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Access-and-Fairness/Self-Representation/Resource-Guide.aspx
  30. Natl. Cent. Technol. Dispute Resolut. (NCTDR) 2018. NCSC Pew Charitable Trusts ODR project announcement Proj. Announc., July 10. http://odr.info/ncscpew-charitable-trusts-odr-project-announcement/
  31. Pew Trusts 2019a. Online dispute resolution offers a new way to access local courts Fact Sheet Jan. 4. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2019/01/online-dispute-resolution-offers-a-new-way-to-access-local-courts
  32. Pew Trusts 2019b. Online dispute resolution moves from E-commerce to the courts. Pew Trusts June 4. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2019/06/04/online-dispute-resolution-moves-from-e-commerce-to-the-courts
    [Google Scholar]
  33. PR Newswire 2014. American Arbitration Association selects Modria to power New York No Fault caseload. PR Newswire March 5. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/american-arbitration-association-selects-modria-to-power-new-york-no-fault-caseload-248543191.html
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Prossack A. 2018. The benefits of everyday negotiations. Forbes.com Feb. 13. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashiraprossack1/2018/02/13/the-benefits-of-everyday-negotiations/#3845f9663a9e
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Rabinovich-Einy O, Katsh E. 2019. Blockchain and the inevitability of disputes: the role for online dispute resolution. J. Disp. Res. 2019:247–75
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Rigertas LA. 2014. The legal profession's monopoly: failing to protect consumers. Fordham Law Rev 82:2683–703
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Rule C. 2000. New mediator capabilities in online dispute resolution. Mediate.com Dec. https://www.mediate.com/articles/rule.cfm
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Rule C. 2008. Making peace on eBay: resolving disputes in the world's largest marketplace. ACResolution Magazine, Fall http://colinrule.com/writing/acr2008.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Rule C, Nagarajan C. 2010. Leveraging the wisdom of crowds: the eBay Community Court and the future of online dispute resolution. ACResolution Magazine Winter. http://colinrule.com/writing/acr2010.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Rule C, Wilson M. 2015. Online resolution and citizen empowerment: property tax appeals in North America. Revolutionizing the Interaction between State and Citizens through Digital Communications SB Edwards III, D Santos 185–205 Hershey, PA: Inf. Resour. Manag. Assoc http://www.colinrule.com/writing/assessments.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Sander FEA, Goldberg SB. 1994. Fitting the forum to the fuss: a user‐friendly guide to selecting an ADR procedure. Negot. J. 10:49–68
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Schmitz A. 2016. Building trust in ecommerce through online dispute resolution. Research Handbook on Electronic Commerce Law JA Rothchild 307–36 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Schmitz AJ, Rule C. 2018. The New Handshake: Online Dispute Resolution and the Future of Consumer Protection Chicago: Am. Bar Assoc .
  44. Schmitz AJ, Rule C. 2019. Online dispute resolution for smart contracts. J. Disp. Resol. 2019:2103–25
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Steiner I. 2015. Report holds eBay dispute resolution as model for courts. . eCommerceBytes Feb. 16. https://www.ecommercebytes.com/C/blog/blog.pl?/pl/2015/2/1424141431.html
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Sternlight JR. 2020. Pouring a little psychological cold water on online dispute resolution. J. Disp. Resol. 2020:15
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Tardi C. 2019. Moore's law. Investopedia.com Sept. 5. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mooreslaw.asp
    [Google Scholar]
  48. The Economist 2016. What is the Nash equilibrium and why does it matter. The Economist Sept. 7. https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2016/09/06/what-is-the-nash-equilibrium-and-why-does-it-matter
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Vozza S. 2014. The 5 most common negotiating mistakes. Fast Company June 23. https://www.fastcompany.com/3033337/the-5-most-common-negotiating-mistakes
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Wikipedia.com 2020. Technological singularity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
  51. Xia S. 2018. China's internet courts are spreading; online dispute resolution is working. China Law Blog Dec. 23. https://www.chinalawblog.com/2018/12/chinas-internet-courts-are-spreading-online-dispute-resolution-is-working.html
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-043049
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error