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.

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.

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.

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.

This article provides a computer-assisted morality framing analysis of Vlaams Belang’s 2019 manifesto. The VB is regarded in the literature as a prototypical example of the Populist Radical Right (PRR). We first concisely review what PRR politics is and what it consists of, tentatively distinguishing four elements that we hypothesise will materialise in corresponding subframes running throughout the manifesto. We point to a mismatch between the omnipresent role of morality in all PRR subframes and the little attention devoted to the concept in the PRR literature. We introduce a useful theory from social psychology into framing literature to create a novel methodological approach to frame analysis that builds a bridge between a qualitative content and a quantitative context approach. The results support our hypothesis that populism, nationalism, nativism and authoritarianism can be distinguished from one another. Additionally, we detect a fifth PRR subframe, crimmigration, by its unique role of morality.

Following the municipal elections in the Walloon Region (Belgium) on 14 October 2018, 189 political groups won an absolute majority. Twenty-two of these decided not to exercise power alone, but favoured the formation of an oversized coalition by integrating a minority partner. The aim of this article is to identify the motivations behind the formation of a local coalition when one of the partners has an absolute majority. Semi-structured interviews with mayors and leaders of political groups in these municipalities make it possible to identify the motivations for, first, the choice to open and, second, the choice of a minority partner. By distinguishing between necessary and supporting motivations, this article shows that the search for greater representation is a necessary motivation for the choice to open, whereas personal affinities and memories of the past are necessary motivations for choosing minority partners. By prioritising motivations, this article shows that.

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.

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.

The COIVD-19 pandemic has drawn an increasing level of attention to the role of online dispute resolution (ODR) in dispute resolution systems. As ODR becomes increasingly prevalent, unique characteristics of conducting text-based mediations via ODR platforms begin to surface, warranting discussion on modifying mediator practises to adapt to ODR platforms. This article shines a light on the advantages and disadvantages of text-based mediations through interviews with court administrators and mediators with text-based mediation experience. Accordingly, this article proposes recommendations on training mediators to use ODR platforms and modifying their practises to achieve the best outcomes in text-based mediations. Focusing on the qualitative data and information gathered from these conducted interviews, this article seeks to offer practical advice about preparing mediators to participate in text-based mediations.