Accredited online dispute resolution services: Creating European legal standards for ensuring fair and effective processes

Information and Communications Technology Law

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 221-237

  Cortes, Pablo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK   (Ireland)

Author keywords

alternative dispute resolution; consumer protection; online dispute resolution; regulation; small claims

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876164787     PISSN: 13600834     EISSN: 14698404     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13600830802473014     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. ABA Task Force on E-Commerce and ADR. n.d. Recommended Best Practices for Online Dispute Resolution Service Providers 8–9 Available online at: http://www.abanet.org/dispute/documents/BestPracticesFinal102802.pdf (accessed 25 June 2008)
2. Abernethy, S., 2003. “ Building large-scale online dispute resolution and trustmark systems ”. In Proceedings of the UNECE Forum on ODR Available online at: http://www.odr.info/unece2003 (accessed 25 June 2008)
3. Alderman, R., 2008. The Future of Consumer Law in the United States: Hello Arbitration, Bye-bye Courts, So-long Consumer Protection, Houston, TX: University of Houston Law Center.
4. Anon. 1990. Mandatory mediation and summary jury trial: Guidelines for ensuring fair and effective processes. Harvard Law Review, 103: 1086
5. Cassondra, J., 1997. The scope of mediation immunity. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 12: 629
6. Colón-Fung, I., 2007. Protecting the new face of entrepreneurship: Online appropriate dispute resolution and international consumer-to-consumer online transactions, Fordham. Journal of Corporate and Financial Law, 12: 233
7. Conley Tyler, M., and Bretherton, D., 2003. Seventy-six and Counting: An Analysis of ODR Sites Report of Research Conducted for the Department of Justice, Victoria, Australia. Available online at: http://www.odr.info/unece2003/pdf/Tykr.pdf
8. Cortés Diéguez, J. P., 2008. Does the proposed European procedure enhance the resolution of small claims?. Civil Justice Quarterly, 27 (1): 83
9. Doyle, M., Ritters, K., and Brooker, S., 2004. Seeking Resolution: The Availability and Usage of Consumer to Business Alternative Dispute Resolution in the United Kingdom, London: Department for Trade and Industry.
10. Edwards, L., and Wilson, C., 2006. Redress and Alternative Dispute Resolution in Cross-Border E-Commerce Transactions DG Internal Policies of the Union, Policy Department Economic and Scientific Policy, Briefing Note (IP/A/IMCO/IC/2006-206)
11. Edwards, L., and Wilson, C., 2007. Redress and alternative dispute resolution in EU cross-border E-commerce transactions. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 21: 315
12. European Commission 2007 An analysis and evaluation of alternative means of consumer redress other than redress through ordinary judicial proceedings
13. European Consumers' Organization (BEUC). 2003. Alternative Dispute Resolution: BEUC's Position on the Commission's Green Paper (BEUC/X/048/2002)
14. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) & United States Department of Commerce (USDC). 2000. Summary of Public Workshop: Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumers Transactions in the Borderless Online Marketplace, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
15. García Álvaro, J. A., 2003. Online dispute resolution: Uncharted territory. Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration, 7: 175
16. Gellman, R., 2000. Online privacy dispute resolution: BBBOnline. Privacy Law & Policy Reporter, 7: 145
17. Gibbons, L. J., 2006. Online dispute resolution and the need for more than virtu(e)al professionalism. University of Toledo Law Review, 38: 351
18. Gillieron, P., 2008a. From face-to-face to screen-to-screen: Real hope or fallacy?. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 23 (2): 301
19. Gillieron, P., 2008b. From face-to-face to screen-to-screen: Real hope or fallacy?. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 23 (2): 301
20. Hanycz, C., 2008. More access to less justice: Efficiency, proportionality and costs in Canadian civil justice reform. Civil Justice Quarterly, 27 (1): 99
21. Hörnle, J., 2002. Online dispute resolution in business to consumer E-commerce transactions. Journal of Information, Law and Technology, 7 (2) Available online at: http://www2.warwick. ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2002_2/hornle
22. Hörnle, J., 2003. Online dispute resolution: Emperor's new clothes?. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 17 (1): 27
23. Katsh, E., 2007. Online dispute resolution: Some implications for the emergence of law in cyberspace. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 21: 97
24. Katsh, E., and Aresty, J., 2007. A new face for small claims courts. The Boston Globe, 29 (September)
25. Katsh, E., and Rifkin, J., 2001. Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
26. Kaufmann-Kohler, G., and Schultz, T., 2004. Online Dispute Resolution: Challenges for Contemporary Justice, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
27. Kierkegaard, S., 2004. “ Online alternative dispute resolution: Information obligations in EC E-commerce law ”. In EU Electronic Commerce Law, Edited by: Nielsen, R., Jakobsen, S., and Trzaskowski, J., Copenhagen: Djøf.
28. Leuven, Belgium: SANCO the Study Centre for Consumer Law, Centre for European Economic Law, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress/reports_studies/index_en.htm
29. Lodder, A., 2006. The third party and beyond: An analysis of the different parties, in particular the fifth, involved in online dispute resolution. Information and Communications Technology Law, 15 (2): 143
30. Martin, M., 2002. Keep it online: The Hague Convention and the need for online alternative dispute resolution in international business-to-consumer E-commerce. Boston University International Law Journal, 20: 125
31. Menkel-Meadow, C., 1990. Pursuing settlement in adversarial culture: A tale of innovation co-opted or the law of ADR. Florida State University Law Review, 19: 1
32. Morek, R., 2006. The regulatory framework for online dispute resolution: A critical view. University of Toledo Law Review, 38: 163
33. Patrikios, A., 2006. Resolution of cross-border e-business disputes by arbitration tribunals on the basis of transnational substantive rules of law and e-business usages: The emergence of the. Lex Informatica, University of Toledo Law Review, 38: 271
34. Pearlstein, A., 2007. The justice bazaar: Dispute resolution through emergent private ordering as a superior alternative to authoritarian court bureaucracy. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 22: 739
35. Ponte, L., and Cavenagh, T., 2005. Cyberjustice: Online Dispute Resolution for E-Commerce, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Parson Prentice Hall.
36. Public Citizen. 2007. The Arbitration Trap: How Credit Card Companies Ensnare Consumers Available online at: http://www.citizen.org (accessed 25 June 2008)
37. Ramsay, I., 2006. “ Consumer redress and access to justice ”. In International Perspectives on Consumers' Access to Justice, Edited by: Rickett, E. F.C., and Telfer, G. W.T., New York: Cambridge University Press.
38. Rule, C., 2002. Online Dispute Resolution for Businesses: B2B, E-Commerce, Consumer, Employment, Insurance and Other Commercial Conflicts, San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
39. Schiavetta, S., 2004. The relationship between e-ADR and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights Pursuant to the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights. Journal of Information, Law and Technology, 1 Available online at: http://ww2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/eli/jilt/2004_1/schiavetta/
40. Schultz, T., 2003. An essay on the role of government for ODR: Theoretical considerations about the future of ODR. ADR Online Monthly UMASS, 7 (8) Available online at: http://www.ombuds.org/center/adr2003_8.html
41. Schultz, T., 2004. Does online dispute resolution need governmental intervention? The case for architectures of control and trust. North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology, 6: 71
42. Szöke, G., 2006. The possibility of online mediation under the Hungarian Mediation Act in comparison with a number of international, including European, documents on mediation. Information and Communications Technology Law, 15 (2): 129
43. Thornburg, E., 2006. “ Privatisation and power: Dispute resolution for the internet ”. In International Perspectives on Consumers' Access to Justice, Edited by: Rickett, C. F., and Telfer, G. W., New York: Cambridge University Press.
44. United Nations Conference on Trade, Development (UNCTAD). 2003. “ Online dispute resolution: E-commerce and beyond ”. In E-Commerce and Development Report New York United Nations
45. Zhao, Y., 2005. Dispute Resolution in Electronic Commerce, Amsterdam: Koninklijke Brill NV.
46. Zuckerman, A., 2001. Civil Justice in Crisis: Comparative Perspectives of Civil Procedure, Oxford: Oxford University Press.