Ijodr_2352-5002_2022_009_002_totaal_original1024_1
Rss

International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution

About this journal  

Subscribe to the email alerts for this journal here to receive notifications when a new issue is at your disposal.

Issue 1, 2016 Expand all abstracts
Article

Access_open Is ODR ADR?

Reflections of an ADR Founder from 15th ODR Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 22-23 May 2016

Keywords alternative dispute resolution, justice, process pluralism, dispute system design, history of conflict resolution
Authors Carrie Menkel-Meadow
AbstractAuthor's information

    This essay presents the observations of a founder of the dispute resolution field to new developments in online dispute resolution, expressing both concerns and hopes for greater access to justice.


Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Chancellor’s Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine and Visiting Distinguished Scholar Queen Mary, University of London, School of Arbitration.
Article

Access_open Is ODR ADR?

A Response to Carrie Menkel-Meadow

Authors Colin Rule

Colin Rule
Article

Access_open Ethical Principles for Online Dispute Resolution

A GPS Device for the Field

Keywords ODR, ethics, alternative dispute resolution, technology
Authors Leah Wing
AbstractAuthor's information

    The disruptive force of technology has led to innovative dispute resolution practices that increase access to justice and also raise new ethical considerations. In response, there have been assertions about the importance of applying to online dispute resolution (ODR) the shared values already enshrined within alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as well as calls to more carefully assess ways they may be insufficient or need refining to adequately address the new ethical challenges emerging in ODR. As ODR is increasingly incorporated into legislation, regulation and a wide variety of sectors in society, it is timely to explore the importance of ethical principles specifically for ODR. In the hope of contributing to these efforts, this article examines the benefits and challenges of articulating a set of ethical principles to guide the development and implementation of ODR systems, technology and processes.


Leah Wing
Leah Wing is Co-Director, National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution, and Senior Lecturer, Legal Studies Program, Department of Political Science, University of Massachusetts at Amherst (USA).
Article

Access_open Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators

[Annotated for Online Dispute Resolution Practice in 2016]

Authors Daniel Rainey
Author's information

Daniel Rainey
The notations made to these model rules were made under the direction of Daniel Rainey, Board Member of the InternetBar.Org (http://danielrainey.us), in dialogue with Susan Nauss Exon, Professor of Law at La Verne School of Law, and with the assistance of graduate students in the Dispute Resolution Program at Southern Methodist University. The annotation team consisted of Betsy Attel, Ann Ellison, Dana Garnett, Brandon Hillhouse, Joseph Kanu, Izzy Lewis, Sarah Nevins Al-Zubi, David Russell, Jeffrey Thompson, Yanina Vashchenko, and Niki Watson. The purpose of the annotation project is to begin a discussion regarding how to update the model rules and to accommodate changes in practice that have occurred as a result of the integration of a wide range of information and communication technology (ICT) into mediation and other forms of conflict or dispute engagement.
Article

Access_open The Role of ODR in Resolving Electronic Commerce Disputes in China

Keywords ODR, China, electronic commerce disputes
Authors Jie Zheng
AbstractAuthor's information

    Online dispute resolution (ODR) has been developed in response to the growth of disputes in electronic commerce transactions. It is based on the legal framework of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) by taking into consideration electronic communications and information technology. This article will introduce the current legal framework and practice of ODR in China, find legal issues that affect the development of ODR and, finally, propose suggestions to overcome these barriers.


Jie Zheng
Jie Zheng is a PhD researcher in Ghent University, Faculty of Law, Department of Interdisciplinary Study of Law, Private Law and Business Law. E-mail: <jie.zheng@ugent.be>.
Article

Access_open The Balochistan Ombudsman and Online Dispute Resolution

Keywords Pakistan, Balochistan, Ombudsman, capacity building, Online Dispute Resolution
Authors Frank Fowlie and Sher Shah Khan
AbstractAuthor's information

    In August 2015 Dr. Frank Fowlie, a Fellow with the National Centre for Technology and Dispute Resolution at the University of Massachusetts – Amherst, acted as an external evaluator to review the Ombudsman of Balochistan. Part of his evaluation concerned the use of Online Dispute Resolution as a mechanism to increase citizen engagement with the Ombudsman.


Frank Fowlie
Dr. Frank Fowlie is the Independent Mediator with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. He previously served as the Ombudsman at the International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2012-2015). Dr. Fowlie also serves as a Capacity Building Consultant with the World Bank in Pakistan, specifically working with the Ombudsman of the Province of Balochistan (2015). He holds a Doctor of Conflict Resolution from La Trobe University, Melbourne, and is a Fellow with the Centre for Information Technology and Dispute Resolution at the University of Massachusetts – Amherst.

Sher Shah Khan
Sher Shah Khan holds a Master in Public Sector Management from London School of Economics and Political Sciences and a Master in Political Science from Government College Lahore, Pakistan. He carries over 15 year international civil services expertise in governance and public administration institutional development, while working with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations. Currently, Mr. Khan serves as Senior Public Sector Specialist with the World Bank Group, working on governance reforms in the provinces of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan, Sindh and Punjab, and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) region.