Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-klmjj Total loading time: 0.22 Render date: 2021-09-18T12:46:05.225Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

The Liberty of Participation in Online Alternative Dispute Resolution Schemes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2019

Abstract

Electronic commerce is important, and perhaps, inevitable. Thus to consider the legal implications of the growth and development of electronic commerce is essential. However, the lack of suitable dispute resolution mechanisms in cyberspace will constitute a serious obstacle to the further development of electronic commerce. Bearing this in mind, this paper argues that when Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) moves to cyberspace, particularly arbitration and mediation as the main types of ADR, the form of online alternative dispute resolution (OADR) can maximise the growth of e-commerce.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and the internet are two very topical issues. Online alternative dispute resolution (OADR), or ADR online, refers to the use of internet technology, wholly or partially, as a medium by which to conduct the proceedings of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), in order to resolve commercial disputes which arise from the use of the internet. Those proceedings are operated by neutral private bodies under published rules of procedure.

Having said that, it is important to address mandatory OADR. This means that the parties are bound to adhere to the OADR process. Indeed, it is imperative to display what risks internet users should be willing to take with mandatory OADR schemes. This paper concludes that the issue of consent should be at the forefront of any contemplated OADR solutions. Clearly, it is unacceptable to impose mandatory OADR on internet users without their knowledge and consent Instead, a complainant who wishes to avoid the mandatory nature of OADR proceeding must be able to bring the action in any court that has a jurisdiction over the dispute. Bearing this in mind, there is a strong reason to believe that mandatory OADR schemes would not be enforceable in courts, and that the entire scheme of mandatory OADR might be unworkable.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by the International Association of Law Libraries 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a full account on UK government's strategy in relation to the encouragement of e-commerce, see the office of the e-Envoy, available online at http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/e-envoy/index-content.htm, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar

2 Burk, D., “Trademarks along the Infobahn: A First Look at the Emerging Law of Cyber-Marks”, (1995) 1 Richmond Journal of Law & Technology 9.Google Scholar

3 Ghemawat, P., “Distance Still Matters”, (2001) 79 Harvard Business Review 137.Google Scholar

4 For an intensive discussion on this issue see Lord Woolf Report, “Access to Justice: Final Report”, (London, 1996), available online at http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/final/contents.htm, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar

5 WIPO, “The Management of Internet Domain Names and Addresses: Intellectual Property issues, Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process”, 30th of April 1999, available online at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/report-final1.pdf, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar

6 Edwards, H., “Alternative Dispute Resolution: Panacea or Anathema”, (1986) 99 Harvard Law Review 668 at 672.Google Scholar

7 Goode, R., Commercial Law, (2nd edition, Penguin Books Limited, London, 1995) 1177.Google Scholar

8 Bernstein, L., “Understanding the Limits of Court-Connected ADR: A Critique of Federal Court-Annexed Court Programs”, (1993) 141 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2169.Google Scholar

9 [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 503.Google Scholar

10 Tyler, M., and Bretherton, D., “Research into Online Alternative Dispute Resolution, an Exploration Report Prepared for the Department of Justice in Australia”, 21st of March 2003, available online at http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)∼0ch+6+amended+Maximising+performance+of+system.pdf/$file/0ch+6+amended+Maximising+performance+of+system.pdf, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar

11 WIPO, “The Management of Internet Domain Names and Addresses: Intellectual Property issues, Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process”, 30th of April 1999, available online at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/report-finall.pdf, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar

12 EU Commission, “Recommendations on the Principles Applicable to the Bodies Responsible for Out-of-Court Settlement of Consumer Disputes”, (98/257/EC) O.J.L. 115, available online at http://aei.pitt.edu/1179/01/consumer_justice_gp_follow_COM_1998_198.pdf, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar

13 McNeil, I., Federal Arbitration Law: Agreements, Awards, and Remedies Under the Federal Arbitration Act, (Little Brown & Co., Boston, 1999) 17–8.Google Scholar

14 WIPO, “The Management of Internet Domain Names and Addresses: Intellectual Property issues, Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process”, 30th of April 1999, available online at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/report-final1.pdf, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar

15 ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), as approved by ICANN on the 24th of October 1999, available online at http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/policy.htm, last visited on the 1st of October 2007. Before ICANN, in 1993, after a gradual increase in commercial internet activity, the National Science Foundation (NSF) subcontracted the job of registering domain names to a small company named “Network Solutions”. Network Solutions registered domain names on a first-come first-served basis, just as all the internet domain names had always been allocated. For an intensive discussion on this issue see Howitt, D., “War.com: Why the Battle Over Domain Names Will Never Cease”, (1997) 19 Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 719.Google Scholar

16 Article 4 (a) of ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), as approved by ICANN on the 24th of October 1999, available online at http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/policy.htm, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar

17 WIPO, “The Management of Internet Domain Names and Addresses: Intellectual Property issues, Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process”, 30th of April 1999, available online at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/report-finall.pdf, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar

18 Albert, G., “Right on the Mark: Defining the Nexus Between Trademarks and Internet Domain Names”, (1997) 15 John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law 277.Google Scholar

19 Katsh, E., and Rifkin, J., Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace, (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 2001) 64. Marcelo, H., and Ajay, N., “From International Treaties to Internet Norms: The Evolution of International Trademark Disputes in the Internet Age”, (2000) 21 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law 556.Google Scholar

20 Article 6 (b) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), as approved by ICANN on the 24th of October 1999, available online at http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-rules-24oct99.htm, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar

21 Katsh, E., and Rifkin, J., Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace, (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 2001) 111.Google Scholar

22 Heiskanen, V., “Dispute Resolution in International Electronic Commerce”, (1999) 16 Journal of International Arbitration 31.Google Scholar

23 Article 5 of the Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, (80/934/EC) O.J.L. 266.Google Scholar

24 EU Commission, “Recommendations on the Principles Applicable to the Bodies Responsible for Out-of-Court Settlement of Consumer Disputes”, (98/257/EC) O.J.L. 115, available online at http://aei.pitt.edu/1179/01/consumer_justice_gp_follow_COM_1998_198.pdf, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar

25 Article 3 of the European Council Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, (93/13/EC) O.J.L. 95.Google Scholar

26 De Zylva, M., “Effective Means of Resolving Distance Selling Disputes”, (2001) 67 Arbitration 236.Google Scholar

27 Thornburg, E., “Going Private: Technology, Due Process, and Internet Dispute Resolution”, (2000) 34 University of California Law Review 210.Google Scholar

29 Article 1 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce with Guide to Enactment (1996), available online at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/electronic_commerce/1996Model.html, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar

30 OECD, “Consumer Protection in the Electronic Marketplace”, DSTI/CP (98) 13/Final, available online at http://venus.icre.go.kr/metadata/12005_12E81082.pdf, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar

31 Perritt, H., “Dispute Resolution in Cyberspace: Demand for New Forms of ADR”, (2000) 15 Ohio State Journal of Dispute Resolution 698.Google Scholar

32 Bordone, R., “Electronic Online Dispute Resolution: Approach, Potential, Problems and a Proposal”, (1998) 3 Harvard Negotiation Law Review 203.Google Scholar

33 Thornburg, E., “Going Private: Technology, Due Process, and Internet Dispute Resolution”, (2000) 34 University of California Law Review 1179.Google Scholar

34 Rakoff, T., “Contracts of Adhesion: An Essay in Reconstruction”, (1984) 96 Harvard Law Review 1172. Griffiths, D, “Contracting on the Internet”, [1997] European Intellectual Property Review 4.Google Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Liberty of Participation in Online Alternative Dispute Resolution Schemes
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The Liberty of Participation in Online Alternative Dispute Resolution Schemes
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The Liberty of Participation in Online Alternative Dispute Resolution Schemes
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *