Search result: 1325 articles

x
Article

Access_open Mapping the Parameters of Online Dispute Resolution

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1 2022
Keywords ODR, ethics, online dispute resolution, alternative dispute resolution, technology, artificial intelligence
Authors Leah Wing
AbstractAuthor's information

    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.


Leah Wing
Leah Wing is Director, National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution; Co-Founder and President-elect, Board of Directors, International Council for Online Dispute Resolution; and Senior Lecturer II, Legal Studies Program, Department of Political Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (USA).
Article

The Pandemic, Climate Change and Mediation Converge in the Mediators’ Green Pledge

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1 2022
Keywords access to justice, online dispute resolution, impact of pandemic on mediation practice, commitments to “green” practice
Authors Ian Macduff
AbstractAuthor's information

    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.


Ian Macduff
Ian Macduff was, until early 2022, Director of the NZ Centre for ICT Law at the University of Auckland Law School, and before that was Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Centre for Dispute Resolution at Singapore Management University. He also taught at Victoria University of Wellington’s Law School for a number of years. He has been a practicing mediator for forty years and closely involved in the development of digital access to justice for the past twenty years.
Article

Lessons from India’s ODR Movement

Insights from Co-leading a Movement While Surviving a Pandemic between 2018 and 2021

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1 2022
Keywords Online Dispute Resolution, startups, entrepreneurs, ICICI Bank, E-ADR challenge, NITI Aayog, Supreme Court of India, ODR Handbook 2021, ODR national policy report
Authors Chittu Nagarajan and Sachin Malhan
AbstractAuthor's information

    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.


Chittu Nagarajan
Chittu Nagarajan is widely recognized as a global pioneer in ODR, Fellow of the National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution, Founding Board Member of the International Council for Online Dispute Resolution. Chittu is the founder of CREK ODR and co-founded Modria.com, one of the first global ODR platforms of repute, ODRworld and ODRindia, the first online dispute resolution service provider in India in 2004. She also served as Head of the eBay and PayPal Community Court initiative. She can be reached at chittu@crekodr.com.

Sachin Malhan
Sachin Malhan is the co-founder of Agami, established in 2018 with the objective of accelerating innovation in law and justice. It has pursued its mandate with a focus on discovering new ideas, curating and connecting critical actors across silos, and telling the story of a different future for law and justice. Agami began its ODR initiative in late 2018 and continues to advance ODR across different business ecosystems and strata of society. Sachin can be reached at sachin@agami.in.
Article

Europe’s Coordinated Approach to ODR

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1 2022
Keywords Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), AI, lawtech, justice systems, human rights, Council of Europe, access to justice, European Cyberjustice Network, European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice
Authors Graham Ross
AbstractAuthor's information

    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.


Graham Ross
Graham Ross is a UK lawyer and mediator with over 20 years of experience in IT and the law. Graham is the author of lthe original QUILL egal application software (accounts and time recording) and the founder of LAWTEL, the popular webbased legal information update service. Graham co-founded the first ODR service in the UK, WeCanSettle, designing the blind bidding software at the heart of the system. Graham subsequently founded TheMediationRoom.com, for whom he designed their online mediation platform. Graham speaks regularly at international conferences on the application of technology to ADR. Graham was host of the 5th International Conference on Online Dispute Resolution held in Liverpool, UK, in 2007 and has organised two other ODR conferences. Graham was a member of the EMCOD project which created a tool for the European Union for the measurement of justice through ODR. Graham was a member of the UK Civil Justice Council’s Advisory Group on Online Dispute Resolution, whose recommendations led to the creation of an online court for small claims. Graham is a Board Member of ICODR. Graham is also a leading trainer in ODR having created the accredited distance training course at www.ODRtraining.com.
Article

ODR Readiness of Portuguese-Speaking Countries

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1 2022
Keywords PALOP, ODR, ICT, Portuguese-speaking, dispute resolution
Authors Ana Maria Maia Gonçalves, Andrea Maia, Nuno Albuquerque e.a.
AbstractAuthor's information

    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.


Ana Maria Maia Gonçalves
Ana Maria Maia Gonçalves, Instituto de Formação e Certificação de Mediadores Lusófonos (ICFML)

Andrea Maia
Andrea Maia, Instituto de Formação e Certificação de Mediadores Lusófonos (ICFML)

Nuno Albuquerque
Nuno Albuquerque, Instituto de Formação e Certificação de Mediadores Lusófonos (ICFML)

François Bogacz
François Bogacz, Instituto de Formação e Certificação de Mediadores Lusófonos (ICFML). Correspondence should be addressed to ana@icfml.org and fb@icfml.org.
Article

The Brazilian Law System and Some Reflections on the Use of Technology

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1 2022
Keywords Brazilian, ODR, democracy, citizenship, judicial system, digital inclusion
Authors Beatriz Arruda and Renata Porto Adri
AbstractAuthor's information

    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.


Beatriz Arruda
Beatrice Gabriel Arruda, specialist in Corporate Social Responsibility at PUC/MG, Certified Mediator ICFML-IMI, Platform Operations and Training Manager MOL – Online Mediation.

Renata Porto Adri
Renata Porto Adri, Master and PhD in State Law from PUC/SP, Legal Analyst of the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office, Mediator graduated by ESMP-SP and Certified Advanced by ICFML-IMI, Postgraduate in Mediation, Negotiation and Conflict Resolutions by UCP-Porto.
Article

ODR and Online Courts in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Is It Correct to Affirm That Courts Are a Mere Service?

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1 2022
Keywords procedural law, dispute resolution, online dispute resolution, online courts, jurisdiction, online court hearings
Authors Dierle Nunes and Hugo Malone
AbstractAuthor's information

    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.


Dierle Nunes
Dierle Nunes, PhD in Procedural Law from Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais (PUC Minas) / Universitá degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. Tenure Professor at PUC Minas PPGD (Law Graduate Program) and collaborator at UFMG. Member of the Commission of Jurists that advised on the 2015 Brazilian Civil Procedure Code at the Chamber of Deputies. Lawyer. dierle@cron.adv.br.

Hugo Malone
Hugo Malone, PhD. Student. Master in Procedural Law from Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais (PUC Minas). Researcher in the research group ‘Processualismo Constitucional democrático e reformas processuais’ (Democratic Constitutional Proceduralism and Procedural Reforms). Legal Adviser at the Law Court of Minas Gerais. hugomalone@yahoo.com.br. This article results from the research group ‘Processualismo Constitucional democrático e reformas processuais’ (‘Democratic Constitutional Processualism and Procedural Reforms’), linked to Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais and to Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais and registered at CNPQ’s National Directory of Research Groups http://dgp.cnpq.br/dgp/espelhogrupo/3844899706730420. The group is a founding member of ‘ProcNet – International Research Network on Civil Justice and Contemporary Procedure’ (http://laprocon.ufes.br/grupos-de-pesquisa-integrantes-da-rede). This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.
Case Law

2022/1 EELC’s review of the year 2021

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 1 2022
Authors Niklas Bruun, Filip Dorssemont, Zef Even e.a.
Abstract

    Various of our academic board analysed employment law cases from last year.


Niklas Bruun

Filip Dorssemont

Zef Even

Ruben Houweling

Marianne Hrdlicka

Anthony Kerr

Attila Kun

Jean-Philippe Lhernould

Daiva Petrylaitė

Luca Ratti

Jan-Pieter Vos

    The Danish Ministry of Employment has been held liable for a protracted legislative process following the ECJ’s ruling in the Ole Andersen case (C-499/08), which concluded that the Salaried Employees Act was not compliant with Directive 2000/78/EC concerning equal treatment in employment and occupation (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age).


Christian K. Clasen
Christian K. Clasen is a partner at Norrbom Vinding, Copenhagen.

    The Iaşi Court of Appeal in Romania has upheld a decision issued by the Vaslui Tribunal which found that an employee cannot be the subject of disciplinary action for the refusal to perform work during their weekly rest notwithstanding that a working time schedule imposed by the employer was based on the applicability of an internal company policy.


Andreea Suciu
Andreea is Managing Partner of Suciu | The Employment Law Firm

Andreea Oprea
Andreea is an attorney-at-law at Suciu | The Employment Law Firm.
Article

Fit for Office? The Perception of Female and Male Politicians by Dutch Voters

Journal Politics of the Low Countries, Issue 1 2022
Keywords political underrepresentation, gender stereotypes, role incongruity, candidate evaluation, experimental vignette study
Authors Rozemarijn E. van Dijk and Joop van Holsteyn
AbstractAuthor's information

    The underrepresentation of women in politics is a worldwide phenomenon and the Netherlands fit the pattern: about 39% of the Dutch MPs are female. Based on social role incongruity theory, it is expected that female politicians are evaluated more negatively than male politicians since women do not fit the dominant male politician role. However, most research is conducted in the United States, that is, a candidate-centred system where individual characteristics play an important role. This article focuses on the party-centred parliamentary context in which we examine (1) whether gender stereotypes are present among citizens and (2) to what extent these stereotypes influence the evaluation of politicians. We do this by conducting an experimental vignette survey design. We find that at the mass level there is no difference between the evaluation of male and female politicians, although gender stereotypes are present.


Rozemarijn E. van Dijk
Rozemarijn E. van Dijk is a PhD student at the department of political science at the University of Antwerp, Belgium.

Joop van Holsteyn
Joop J.M. van Holsteyn is Professor in Political Behaviour and Research Methods at Leiden University, the Netherlands.
Article

Meetings between victims and offenders suffering from a mental disorder in forensic mental health facilities: a qualitative exploration of their subjective experiences

Journal The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue Online First 2022
Keywords Victim-offender meetings, restorative justice, forensic mental health, victimology, perception
Authors Mariëtte van Denderen and Michiel van der Wolf
AbstractAuthor's information

    Most studies about victim-offender meetings have been performed within prison populations, with little reference to offenders diagnosed with mental disorders. In establishing the effects of such meetings, these studies often use quantitative measures. Little is known about meetings between victims and offenders with mental disorders and about the more qualitative subjective experiences of the participants regarding these meetings. In this interview study, we inquired into the subjective experiences of sixteen participants in victim-offender meetings, six of whom are victims and ten offenders of severe crimes, currently residing in forensic mental health facilities. Topics of the interviews included benefits of the meeting and perceptions of each other prior to and after the meeting. Important benefits that participants experienced from meeting each other were reconnecting with family, processing the offence and contributing to each other’s well-being. Such benefits are comparable to those mentioned in studies on meetings with offenders without a mental disorder, challenging the practice that mentally disordered offenders are often excluded from such meetings. Most victims experienced a positive change in perception of the offender owing to the meeting. They perceived the offender as a human being and associated him less exclusively with his offence. Implications for clinical practice are addressed.


Mariëtte van Denderen
M.Y. van Denderen is criminologist and senior researcher at the Forensic Psychiatric Centre Dr. S. van Mesdag, Groningen, the Netherlands.

Michiel van der Wolf
M.J.F. van der Wolf is Professor of Forensic Psychiatry at Leiden University and Associate Professor of Criminal Law at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands. Corresponding author: M.Y. van Denderen at m.van.denderen@fpcvanmesdag.nl. Funding: This work was supported by an international, non-governmental, organization that prefers to stay anonymous (more information is available at request). Acknowledgements: We want to thank the victims, bereaved individuals and offenders who shared their experiences about the meeting. We would also like to thank the social workers of the FPC Dr. S. van Mesdag and FPC the Oostvaardersclinic, among which H. van Splunter, and Perspectief Herstelbemiddeling for their cooperation. We thank F. Fierstra, L. Gunnink, E. de Jong and F. Drijfhout for transcribing the interviews. Disclosure statement: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Article

Restorative justice training for judges and public prosecutors in the European Union: what is on offer and where are the gaps?

Journal The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue Online First 2022
Keywords restorative justice, judicial training, judges, public prosecutors
Authors Ana Catarina Pereira, Britt De Craen and Ivo Aertsen
AbstractAuthor's information

    Judges and public prosecutors across Europe continue to be the main source of referral of cases to restorative justice programmes organised in the context of the criminal justice system. As a result, the training of these two groups of legal professionals regarding what restorative justice is and what it can offer to victims, offenders and the community has for many years been identified as a priority for the development of restorative justice in the European Union (EU). However, little information is available about what actually exists in terms of judicial training on restorative justice within the national judicial training institutions responsible for the initial and/or continuous training of judges and/or public prosecutors. Therefore, we developed an online survey on judicial training on restorative justice and invited 38 judicial training institutions operating in the (then) 28 EU Member States to participate in our study. We were able to make relevant observations regarding the reasons for the non-existence of restorative justice training in most of the judicial training institutions studied and identify important elements of the architecture of the restorative justice training offered by the judicial training institution of Czech Republic.


Ana Catarina Pereira
Ana Pereira is a PhD researcher in Criminology at the Leuven Institute of Criminology at KU Leuven, Belgium. She received a PhD grant from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, FCT).

Britt De Craen
Britt De Craen is a master’s student in Criminology at the Leuven Institute of Criminology at KU Leuven, Belgium.

Ivo Aertsen
Ivo Aertsen is Professor Emeritus of the Leuven Institute of Criminology at KU Leuven, Belgium. Corresponding author: Ana Pereira, anacatarina.alvespereira@kuleuven.be.

David Tait
David Tait is Professor of Justice Research, Western Sydney University, Australia.

Munzer Emad
Munzer Emad is a doctoral candidate in Law, Western Sydney University, Australia. Corresponding author: David Tait at d.tait@westernsydney.edu.au.
Conversations on restorative justice

A talk with Howard Zehr

Journal The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue 1 2022
Authors Brunilda Pali
Author's information

Brunilda Pali
Brunilda Pali is Senior Researcher, Social and Cultural Anthropology, Faculty of Social Sciences, KU Leuven, Belgium. Corresponding author: Brunilda Pali at brunilda.pali@kuleuven.be.

    Restorative justice has frequently been presented as a new criminal justice paradigm, and as something that is radically different from punishment. I will argue that this ‘oppositioning’ is problematic for two reasons: first, because some cases of restorative justice constitute de facto punishment from the perspectives of some positions on what punishment is; second, because restorative justice could reasonably be more widely adopted as a new form of de jure punishment, which could potentially increase the use of restorative justice for the benefit of victims, offenders and society at large. In connection with the latter, I want to present some preliminary thoughts on how restorative justice could be incorporated into future criminal justice systems as de jure punishment. Furthermore, I will suggest that by insisting that restorative justice is radically different from punishment, restorative justice advocates may - contrary to their intentions − play into the hands of those who want to preserve the status quo rather than developing future criminal justice systems in the direction of restorative justice.


Christian Gade
Christian Gade is an Associate Professor of Human Security and Anthropology at Aarhus University and a mediator in the Danish victim-offender mediation programme (Konfliktråd). Corresponding author: Christian Gade at gade@cas.au.dk. Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Pernille Reese, head of the Danish Victim-Offender Mediation Secretariat, for our many dialogues about restorative justice and punishment. Furthermore, I am grateful to Søren Rask Bjerre Christensen and Isabelle Sauer for their thoughtful comments on earlier drafts of this article. Last but not least, I would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback.
Article

Access_open Retribution, restoration and the public dimension of serious wrongs

Journal The International Journal of Restorative Justice, Issue 1 2022
Keywords public wrongs, R.A. Duff, agent-relative values, criminalisation, punishment
Authors Theo van Willigenburg
AbstractAuthor's information

    Restorative justice has been criticised for not adequately giving serious consideration to the ‘public’ character of crimes. By bringing the ownership of the conflict involved in crime back to the victim and thus ‘privatising’ the conflict, restorative justice would overlook the need for crimes to be treated as public matters that concern all citizens, because crimes violate public values, i.e., values that are the foundation of a political community. Against this I argue that serious wrongs, like murder or rape, are violations of agent-neutral values that are fundamental to our humanity. By criminalising such serious wrongs we show that we take such violations seriously and that we stand in solidarity with victims, not in their capacity as compatriots but as fellow human beings. Such solidarity is better expressed by organising restorative procedures that serve the victim’s interest than by insisting on the kind of public condemnation and penal hardship that retributivists deem necessary ‘because the public has been wronged’. The public nature of crimes depends not on the alleged public character of the violated values but on the fact that crimes are serious wrongs that provoke a (necessarily reticent) response from government officials such as police, judges and official mediators.


Theo van Willigenburg
Theo van Willigenburg is Research Fellow at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Faculteit Religie en Theologie, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Corresponding author: Theo van Willigenburg at t.van.willigenburg@vu.nl.

    Evaluations of restorative justice frequently report that only a minority of schools succeed in adopting a whole-school approach. More common are a consortium of practices necessitating the evaluation of schools not implementing the whole-school model but still achieving positive results. Previous research established that unconventional models have successful outcomes, yet little is known about the contextual factors and the causal mechanisms of different practices. This study finds that models of restorative justice facilitating student voice and consequently procedural justice have promising outcomes. Importantly, alternative models may be less resource-intensive, making them more feasible to fully implement.


Heather Norris
Heather Norris is a Lecturer in the Department of Psychology at Aberystwyth University, Wales, UK. Corresponding author: Heather Norris at hnn1@aber.ac.uk.

Claudia Mazzucato
Claudia Mazzucato is Associate professor of Criminal Law at Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy. She has known the Parents Circle-Families Forum since 2005 and is engaged with them in joint projects concerning restorative responses to political and collective violence and violent extremism. Corresponding author: Claudia Mazzucato at claudia.mazzucato@unicatt.it.

Robi Damelin
Robi Damelin is an Israeli active member of the Parents Circle-Families Forum, for which she acts as spokesperson and Director of International Relations. Detailed information and updates about the projects, events and activities mentioned in this Notes from the Field can be found at the Forum’s official website: www.theparentscircle.org. Contact author: Robi Damelin at damelin@zahav.net.il.
Showing 1 - 20 of 1325 results
« 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 49 50
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.