Search result: 273 articles

x
Year 2015 x
Article

Transformation of Dispute Resolution in Africa

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1 2015
Keywords Lagos Court of Arbitration, Mauritius International Arbitration Court, ODR in Africa, Commonwealth States, UNCITRAL Working Group on ODR
Authors Ijeoma Ononogbu
AbstractAuthor's information

    Online Dispute Resolution ODR) is the new frontier in dispute resolution process. There has been an overwhelming positive expectation on the way ODR will work globally and Africa is likely to join the evolving dispute resolution concept.
    In recent years, technology has taken over virtually all aspects of our lives. This is from online shopping, online banking, online education, to online games, the list goes on and on.
    Online dispute resolution has been used in e-mediation and turned out a great success for e-commerce. The emergence of ODR and its successes are notable in eBay, which boasts of resolving over 35 million disputes using its ODR services. Africa as a continent is a goldmine of technological exploration. The success of M-Pesa in East Africa, which uses technology in mobile money transfer is a testament to the advantages and great advancements the continent has made in its use of the vast population of youngsters. With a recommendation, for African legal practitioners to join the global movement.


Ijeoma Ononogbu
Barrister & Solicitor, Nigeria, and Solicitor in International Dispute Resolution, England & Wales.
Article

Members Only?

Online Dispute Resolution in the Kibbutz Society

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1 2015
Keywords community ODR, Kibbutz, online mediation, online arbitration, dispute system design
Authors Rachel Ran
AbstractAuthor's information

    The rise and fall of the kibbutz society in Israel provides an unique opportunity to examine the application of technology to dispute resolution in a non-traditional setting. The internal dynamics of a small, closed community in an ideological crisis reflect technology’s role not only in undermining existing social order, but also in developing new norms, building consensus and resolving disputes.
    The article describes the nature of disputes in kibbutz communities, which is influenced greatly by the ongoing relationships between the parties, as the lines between co-workers, neighbors, friends and authority figures are blurred. It examines the existing dispute resolutions mechanisms, their formation, their advantages in relation to existing the social norms and their shortcomings, and introduces the concept of online dispute resolution (ODR) in this context.
    Finally, this article applies the advantages of ODR in the traditional, closed-community setting, and suggests additional opportunities for meeting the unique challenges of disputes in the kibbutz society. This merger plays a double role, as it challenges common perception of community disputes, while introducing new and unexpected avenues for the development of ODR.


Rachel Ran
University of Haifa Faculty of Law.
Article

Creating New Pathways to Justice Using Simple Artificial Intelligence and Online Dispute Resolution

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1 2015
Keywords expert system, online dispute resolution, artificial intelligence, access to justice, legal information technology
Authors Darin Thompson
AbstractAuthor's information

    Access to justice in can be improved significantly through implementation of simple artificial intelligence (AI) based expert systems deployed within a broader online dispute resolution (ODR) framework.
    Simple expert systems can bridge the ‘implementation gap’ that continues to impede the adoption of AI in the justice domain. This gap can be narrowed further through the design of multi-disciplinary expert systems that address user needs through simple, non-legalistic user interfaces.
    This article provides a non-technical conceptual description of an expert system designed to enhance access to justice for non-experts. The system’s knowledge base would be populated with expert knowledge from the justice and dispute resolution domains. A conditional logic rule-based system forms the basis of the inference engine located between the knowledge base and a questionnaire-based user interface.
    The expert system’s functions include problem diagnosis, delivery of customized information, self-help support, triage and streaming into subsequent ODR processes. Its usability is optimized through the engagement of human computer interaction (HCI) and affective computing techniques that engage the social and emotional sides of technology.
    The conceptual descriptions offered in this article draw support from empirical observations of an innovative project aimed at creating an expert system for an ODR-enabled civil justice tribunal.


Darin Thompson
Legal Counsel, BC Ministry of Justice; Adjunct Law Professor, University of Victoria; Adjunct Law Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School. Email: darinmobile@gmail.com.
Article

Using Online Arbitration in E-Commerce Disputes

A Study on B2B, B2C and C2C Disputes

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1 2015
Keywords online arbitration, e-commerce disputes, electronic market exchange
Authors Farzaneh Badiei
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article provides a thorough analysis of the use of online arbitration in online disputes. It first defines online arbitration and provides a categorization of its different kinds. It then establishes which category of online arbitration is more suitable for e-commerce disputes considering the nature of the disputes, the relation between the parties and the parties’ access to technology. It concludes that using binding or non-binding online arbitration depends on the existence of trust between the parties. It then goes on to analyse the extent to which online arbitration can be held on the Internet without using offline mechanisms, and concludes that this is dependent on the nature of the transaction, the parties’ access to technology and the enforcement mechanisms.


Farzaneh Badiei
Farzaneh Badiei is a PhD candidate at the Institute of Law and Economics, Hamburg University. The program is funded by the German Science Foundation. She holds an LLM from Kingston University, UK and was a visiting scholar at Syracuse University School of Information Studies, USA.
News

The Online Court

Misunderstandings and Misconceptions when Delivering a Vision for the Future of Justice

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1 2015
Keywords online courts, online judges, civil justice, Alternative Dispute Resolution, mediation
Authors Graham Ross
AbstractAuthor's information

    An ODR Advisory Group set up in 2014 by the Civil Justice Council of England and Wales to research and advise on the opportunities for introducing ODR into the justice system has produced a Report (<https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Online-Dispute-Resolution-Final-Web-Version1.pdf>) that recommends an extensive online dimension to the court system in England and Wales. The Report raises the novel perspective of a court being seen more as a service rather than as a physical venue, seeking to place its primary focus on informing and assisting the public in containing and resolving, if not avoiding in the first place, disputes and to do so with less intervention by a judge. When judges do become involved they also will be encouraged to work more online than in a courtroom. The Report, therefore, does not look simply at ODR as aiding ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution), as may have been the case hitherto for most applications of ODR, but as its being integral to the court process itself. The twin benefits the Group sees as being achieved are to both significantly widen access to the courts while, at the same time, reducing the burden of public cost incurred in operating and maintaining the court system.
    It is becoming clear from comments on the Report published online that there is a significant level of misunderstanding over certain aspects of the Report. This is to be expected to a degree, especially given the wide publicity for the Report. Indeed, the early comments are welcomed as they give the opportunity to all proponents of the Report to advance the debate by minimizing such misunderstandings.
    The website (<https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/reviews/online-dispute-resolution/>) accompanying the Report provides a suitable venue to continue the debate.


Graham Ross
Head of the European Advisory Board to Modria.com Inc and, Member of the Civil Justice Council’s ODR Advisory Group.
Article

European Earth Observation Data Policy

Meeting Various Goals by Multiple and Diverse Actors: A Herculean Task?

Journal International Institute of Space Law, Issue 5 2015
Authors Irmgard Marboe
Author's information

Irmgard Marboe
Univ. Prof., University of Vienna, Austria

Kumar Abhijeet
Doctoral Candidate, Institute of Air and Space Law, University of Cologne, Germany
Article

How Simple Terms Mislead Us

The Pitfalls of Thinking about Outer Space as a Commons

Journal International Institute of Space Law, Issue 5 2015
Authors Henry R. Hertzfeld, Brian Weeden and Christopher D. Johnson
Author's information

Henry R. Hertzfeld
Research Professor, Space Policy Institute, George Washington University, Washington, DC

Brian Weeden
Technical Advisor, Secure World Foundation, Washington, DC

Christopher D. Johnson
Project Manager, Secure World Foundation, Washington, DC

Maureen Williams
University of Buenos Aires / Conicet, Chair, ILA Space Law Committee
Article

Small But on the Radar

The Regulatory Evolution of Small Satellites in the Netherlands

Journal International Institute of Space Law, Issue 5 2015
Authors Neta Palkovitz and Tanja Masson-Zwaan
Author's information

Neta Palkovitz
PhD candidate, International Institute of Air and Space Law, Leiden University, The Netherlands, ISIS – Innovative Solutions In Space B.V., The Netherlands

Tanja Masson-Zwaan
International Institute of Air and Space Law, Leiden University, The Netherlands

José Monserrat Filho
Brazilian Space Agency (AEB), Brazilian Association of Air and Space Law (SBDA), Brazilian Society for the Advancement of Science (SBPC), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

Shouping Li
Professor of international law, Law school of Beijing Institute of Technology, Director of Institute of Space Law of Beijing Institute of Technology

Dennis J. Burnett
Adjunct Professor, University of Nebraska College of Law, USA

María-del-Carmen Muñoz-Rodríguez
Associate Professor of Public International Law and European Union Law, University of Jaén, Spain

Yun Zhao
Professor, Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong

Guoyu Wang
Ph.D. assistant professor, deputy dean of institute of space law of BIT, visiting scholar of National Center for Romote Sensing, Air, and Space Law Mississippi University School of Law (2011-2012), Senior Acadamy Fellow, Chatham House (2014-)

Yangzi Tao
Master in International Law, Beijing Institute of Technology Law School

    Those who talk can be heard. Those who are allowed to talk may be listened to. This study is an attempt to give legal voice to those who cannot talk or are usually not listened to: children. This study is about the attention given to their interests, the best interests of the child. When these interests are immersed in a minority context, children may be overlooked for different reasons, including discriminatory attitudes or prejudice regarding their families. Law and its interpretation must be changed in order to include the difference. This study discusses the best interests of the child principle with special attention to its legal relevance in cases where lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) are, or want to be, parents. The authoritative source for the interpretation of the principle is the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The analysis focuses on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and its case law. The study aims to explore the Court’s approach to the best interest of the child and identify whether the principle is being consistently applied in cases involving LGBT families, given the fact that sexual orientation and gender identity are still sensitive issues in Europe. This is done by comparing these cases to cases lodged by applicants who were not identified as an LGBT person. The margin of appreciation doctrine and the lack of European consensus on sexual minorities’ rights are confronted with the urgent paramount consideration that has to be given to children’s best interests. The analysis explores whether there is room for detecting a possible Court’s biased approach towards the concept of the best interests of the child. This study challenges the Court’s decisions in the sense that the focus should not only be at the LGBT parents’ rights to private and family life, but also at the interests of their daughters and sons. This is an attempt to call upon the ECtHR and all states not only to actively fight discrimination against LGBT persons, but, ultimately, to stop interpreting the concept of the best interests of the child in an arguably biased way, and to consider the principle’s legal value in any decision, regardless of their parents’ sexual orientation, gender identity or any other distinction.


Mr. Gabriel Alves de Faria
Gabriel Alves de Faria is a Brazilian lawyer, LGBTI activist and human rights specialist who holds a Law degree from the Federal University of Espirito Santo and a European Master’s Degree in Human Rights and Democratisation (E. MA/EIUC - Utrecht University). Among other legal and social experiences in the human rights field, Gabriel has worked as a researcher in comparative sexual orientation Law at Leiden University and most recently as a Fellow and consultant lawyer at the LGBTI Rapporteurship of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, DC. His latest project is a documentary on the situation of LGBTI persons in Southeast Asia.

    I will argue that it is possible to give a neutral or antiperfectionist legitimation for state support for religion, which I consider a perfectionist good that is not in the common interest. I will argue that state support for perfectionist goods (and thus also for religion) can, in some circumstances and under certain conditions, be allowed as a second-best option in order to guarantee an adequate range of valuable options to choose among - and this range of options is a necessary condition for autonomy. Subsequently, I will argue that the bottom line - which is also the limit - for support is a sufficient range of valuable options. Furthermore, I will argue that state support for religion is only allowed if there is a democratic consensus about the value of that particular perfectionist good. Finally, I will claim that state support for religion is only allowed under certain conditions.


Leni Franken
Leni Franken is als doctor-assistente verbonden aan het Centrum Pieter Gillis (Universiteit Antwerpen), waar zij levensbeschouwing doceert in de faculteiten Rechten en Toegepaste Ingenieurswetenschappen.
Showing 181 - 200 of 273 results
1 2 6 7 8 10 12 13 14
You can search full text for articles by entering your search term in the search field. If you click the search button the search results will be shown on a fresh page where the search results can be narrowed down by category or year.