The definition of online dispute resolution (ODR) has become increasingly contested, particularly fueled by the recent explosion in the use of technology during the pandemic by courts and alternative dispute resolution practitioners. The recent expansion of stakeholders has contributed productively to the on-going discussion of the parameters of ODR that have implications for ethical practice. Does the use of video conferencing constitute ODR? What new procedural and substantive justice concerns arise with the use of technology in dispute handling and how should they be addressed? Since technology not only alters the role of third parties and disputants but also serves as a fourth party, what are the ethical implications for example, of employing artificial intelligence? How can explorations of the boundaries of ODR foster a re-imaging of 21st Century justice systems?
This article explores the importance of the parameters of ODR for the ethical practice of dispute resolution and introduces a paper, Framing the Parameters of Online Dispute Resolution (National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution, 2022) that offers a descriptive ODR Framework; one that encompasses the broad range of views on the boundaries of ODR along an axis of increasing reliance on technology through various functions and stages of dispute handling. The article discusses the implications of this ODR Framework for enhancing ethical guidance and regulation for whatever definition of ODR is utilized.

This article briefly examines the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on mediation practice and the potential benefits of maintaining a commitment to environmentally sound ways of practice as we emerge from the pandemic. It introduces the readers to a recent initiative, The Green Pledge, which is a voluntary commitment to reducing the carbon impact of practice.

The term metaverse describes a vision for the next iteration of the internet where users can navigate computer networks that resemble interconnected 3D spaces, discovering information and interacting with others. While the concept of the metaverse is not really new, it has recently become a hot area for investment, as CEOs are now spending billions of dollars to bring it to fruition in the near future. While many questions remain about how the metaverse will work and whom it will benefit, early implementations of different components of the underlying technology (e.g. virtual reality, digital holograms and avatar-based interactions) are giving us a chance to see how these technologies might be useful in resolving disputes online. This article explores the promises and challenges of online dispute resolution (ODR) in the metaverse by defining the key components, describing recent metaverse experiences, analysing impacts on party psychology and assessing the reasons to be both optimistic and sceptical about the potential for metaverse technologies in ODR moving forward.

While court administrations/justice departments were not among the early adopters of online dispute resolution (ODR) they can clearly, as gatekeepers to the majority of civil disputes, have an enormous influence on ODR and, in particular, the speed at which ODR is adopted as a widely accepted practice in dispute resolution.
Systems being rolled out by or for courts have been piecemeal as individual administrations pursue research into their own future. Early systems tend to be in either case management and/or e-filing but little in the way of e-negotiation or aids to resolution. What is shared is the existing challenges to the courts from rising costs, process delay and growth in the numbers of citizens unable, owing to cost, to pursue or defend litigation.
In Europe what is bringing court administrations together in their development of ODR has been the issue of human rights and access to justice, which explains why an overall influence in the sharing of knowledge and experience in ODR has been the Council of Europe. This was a body set up in the immediate aftermath of World War II with a view to encouraging European states to work together in advancing and protecting human rights. Its greatest creation has been the European Convention on Human Rights and, of particular relevance, Article 6, which secures the right to a “public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law”.
This article tracks various developments from bodies within the structure of the Council of Europe with regard to the application of ODR to the judicial system. These developments extend from research and debate on whether the overall impact on human rights and, in particular, access to justice, of ODR could be seen as a threat, and thus something to be protected against, or in a more positive light and, therefore, to be encouraged. This article tracks the formation of various bodies within the Council of Europe, such as the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice , The Working Group on Cyberjustice and Artificial Intelligence and, most recently, the European Cyberjustice Network. This article also notes outcomes such as the Report on the impact of ODR on Human Rights produced by the Committee of Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Council of Europe and the European Ethical Guidelines on the use of AI in judicial systems produced by The Working Group on Cyberjustice and Artificial Intelligence of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice.

In this article, we investigate whether the conditions for the emergence of an online dispute resolution (ODR) market in Portuguese-speaking countries have been met. The size of the Portuguese-speaking population and the internet penetration in Portuguese-speaking countries may look promising, but what is called networked readiness as well as the legal context needs to be factored in before any conclusion may be drawn.

This contribution has emerged in response to the provocations of the editor, Daniel Rainey, about the interest in knowing the status and use of technology by the Brazilian judicial system. It is based on the premise that the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of technological tools, even in complex legal systems such as that in Brazil. There is still much to be built on it, and there are many opportunities for adopting online solutions as a means of accessing justice.

Starting from the premise that the pandemic caused by the new coronavirus forced the growth of dispute resolution technologies in Brazil and around the world, this article presents a critique of one of the central arguments for the deployment of online dispute resolution techniques in the courts: that courts are a mere service. It proposes, therefore, the thesis that the term courts, as a synonym of the jurisdictional function, can be understood neither as a public service nor as a mere place but rather as a condition of possibility for fundamental rights, be it in physical or digital environments. In order to guarantee that the execution of procedural acts in digital environments conforms to the democratic constitutional procedure, this article proposes to create a seal of recognition to be granted by the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB) to the platforms that operate according to the due constitutional process. It is also suggested that minimal guidelines be formulated that are capable of offering a reference for the discussions, development, use and integration of online conflict resolution platforms, as well as that institutional protocols be adopted as a means of democratizing the application of technology in law.

El uso de la Tecnología aplicada a los métodos de resolución de conflictos, que desde hace varios años viene abriéndose camino con la presencia de las ODR (On line Dispute Resolution), han experimentado en el año 2020, a raíz del confinamiento obligatorio impuesto en muchos países como consecuencia de la Pandemia por covid 19, una proliferación asombrosa, constituyéndose en casi la alternativa válida de acceso a la justicia a nivel mundial. Por ello, nos proponemos abordar en este trabajo la transformación Digital que se ha ido desarrollando sobre las ODR, en los diferentes países de Hispanoamérica, y cómo la situación de Pandemia aceleró ese proceso de transformación.

India’s vast case pendency and inefficiency of formal mechanisms greatly hinder the resolution of disputes. Aimed at moving India beyond these traditional limitations, the online dispute resolution (ODR) movement in India developed and gained tremendous momentum with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Stakeholders otherwise resistant to change, both in government and in industry, were compelled to embrace technology and resort to an online mode of resolving disputes. This article traces the steady and promising growth of ODR in India and examines the contributions of innovators, entrepreneurs and enterprises who recognized the need for an alternative model of dispute resolution and participated in championing the expansion of ODR in the country. The article identifies insights from the Indian experience that could be portable to other missions for law and justice innovation in the world.