Cyber-Arbitration

European Business Organization Law Review

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 611-628

  Girsberger, Daniel ^a   Schramm, Dorothee ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LUCERNE   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84900263028     PISSN: 15667529     EISSN: 17416205     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1566752900001075     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. Gerold Herrmann, "Some Legal E-flections on Online Arbitration ("cybitration")", in: R. Briner, L. Y. Fortier, K. P. Berger, J. Bredow (eds.), Law of International Business and Dispute Settlement in the 21st Century, Liber Amicorum Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel (Kbln 2001) 267, who uses the word "cybitration" and claims copyright for it.
2. E. Gaillard, John Savage (eds.), Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration (The Hague: Kluwer Law International 1999) §1 N 14-15, with further references.
3. T. Schultz, G. Kaufmann-Kohle, D. Langer, V. Bonnet, Online Dispute Resolution: The States of the Art and the Issues, http://www.online-adr.org/reports/TheBlueBook-2001.pdf (Geneva 2001) 3 (all references to Internet were visited in April 2002).
4. See also the definition of the scope of a survey in progress by the ABA Task Force on E-Commerce and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) http://www.law.washington.edu/ABA-eADR/surveys/GeneralSurvey.htmx
5. E. Katsh, J. Rifkin A. Gaitenby, "Ecommerce, E-disputes, and E-dispute Resolution: In the Shadow of 'eBay Law,'", 15 Ohio State J. of Dispute Resolution (2000) 705-734
6. Task Force on Electronic Commerce and Alternative Dispute Resolution, "Addressing Disputes in Electronic Commerce, Recommendation and Report", Draft March 2002 http://www.law.washington.edu/ABA-eADR/home.html.
7. A. Vahrenwald, "Out-of-court dispute settlement systems for e-commerce. Report on legal issues. Part I, The Parties to the dispute" (2002)
8. http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/policy.htm.
9. In the meantime, new TLDs have been added such as: aero, biz, coop, info, museum, name.
10. http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/uniform-rules.htm.
11. At the time of this writing, those ODR providers are: The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), Geneva, National Arbitration Forum (NAF) and CPR, U.S.A., as well as the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC), China, see http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/approved-providers.htm.
12. eResolution, which had also been accredited, abandoned its services on 30 November 2001, see http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/172619.html.
13. M. Geist, "Fair.com?: An Examination of the Allegations of Systemic Unfairness in the ICANN UDRP", http://aixl.uottawa.ca/~geist/geistudrp.pdf 2ff.
14. Broadbridge Media, L.L.C. v. HyperCD.com, 106 F. Supp. 2d 505, 508 f. (S.D.N.Y.), referring to Art. 18 Rules.
15. Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware and Building Supply, Inc., 2000 WL 562470, 2. (N.D.I1L)
16. P.-E. Moyse, "La force obligatoire des sentences arbitrales rendues en matiere de noms de domaine" (October 2000) http://www.juriscom.net/pro/2/ndm20001010.htm
17. G. Dinwoodie, "A new copyright order: why national courts should create global norms", 149 U. Pa. L Rev. (2000) 469-524f., N. 170
18. G. Dinwoodie, "(National) trademark laws and the (non-national) Domain Name System", 21 U. Pa. J. Int'lEcon. L. (2000) 495-512f.
19. A. M. Froomkin, "Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA and the Constitution", 50 Duke L J. (2000) 17, 100
20. E.G. Thornburg, "Going private: Technology, Due Process, and Internet Dispute Resolution", 34 U.C. Davis L Rev. (2000) 151, 190.
21. Geist, supra n. 9
22. M. Mueller, "Rough Justice: An Analysis of ICANN's Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy" (November 2000) http://dcc.syr.edu/roughjustice.pdf, 19f.
23. D.G. POST, "Juries and the UDRP" (September 2000) http://www.icannwatch.org/archive/juries_and_the_udrp.htmx
24. For an updated statistics, see http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/statistics/results.html.
25. Schultz Kaufmaiin-Kohler, Langer Bonnet, supra n. 3, Appendix. http://www.novaforum.com/completed_cases_revised.html.
26. Online Resolution http://www.onlineresolution.com/oa-how.cfm
27. Nova Forum http://www.novaforum.com/resolving_your_dispute_step_7_revised.html.
28. WebMediate chooses the Neutral only if the parties cannot agree on a Neutral, Art. 4.1 WebArbitrator Procedure and Rules, http://www.webmediate.com/terms.html.
29. Online Resolution does not provide information on possible Neutrals, as opposed to WebMediate http://www.webmediate.com/cgi/Circle.cgi
30. NovaForum. Most aspects of due process do not particularly apply to online proceedings. However, specific problems arise with respect to independence of the Neutral and with respect to the right to be heard.
31. A. Redfern, M. Hunter, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, 3rd ed. (London 1999) 217.
32. Geist, supra n. 9, 8-18.
33. G. Kaufmann-Kohler, H. Peter, "Formula 1 Racing and Arbitration: The FIA Tailor-Made System for Fast Track Dispute Resolution", Arb. Int. (2001) 186f.
34. WebMediate, for example, foresees an online proceeding without any personal contacts, Art. 6.2 WebArbitration Procedure and Rules, supra n. 16.
35. On the other hand, NovaForum allows tele- and videoconferencing, http://www.novaforum.com/resolving_your_dispute_step_7_revised,htmlx
36. For the New York Convention, A. J. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958 (Deventer 1981) 10-4.2.3. (b). In the course of the drafting process for the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, a mandatory right of the parties was claimed to request a hearing
37. A. Broches, Commentary on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (Deventer 1990) p. 124 f. This claim, however, was not reflected in the final text of Art. 24 para. 1 (2) UNCITRAL Model Law, which includes an exception. In an older German off-line court case, where the Neutral had not forwarded the letter of one party to the other party, the court found a violation of due process: OLG Hamburg, MDR (1975) 940
38. van den Berg, supra n. 22.
39. So far, most offerors have not provided information on their homepage regarding the taking of evidence. WebMediate, however, while not offering a witness hearing, asks for sworn or unsworn witness statements, Art. 11 WebArbitration Procedure and Rules, supra n. 16.
40. Herrmann, supra n. 1, 273.
41. Kaufmann-Kohler, Peter, supra n. 20, 189.
42. European Court of Human Rights of 8.7.1986, Lithgow et al. v. United Kingdom, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/hudoc/ViewRoot.asp?Item=0&Action=Html&X=227152702&Notice=0&Noticemode=&RelatedMode=0, § 201.
43. Art. VI of the Recommendation 98/257/EC of the Commission dated 30 March 1998 on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes, OJ(EC) [1998] L 115/31-34.
44. G. Kaufmann-Kohler, "Choice of court and choice of law clauses in electronic contracts", in: v. Jeanneret (ed.), Aspects juridiques du commerce electronique (Zurich 2001) 20f.
45. Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, OJ [1993] L 95/29-34.
46. Vahrenwald, supra n. 5, 105.
47. Kaufmann-Kohler, supra n. 28, 26ff.
48. Art. 8(1) UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985 http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/un.arbitration.model.law.1985/doc.html
49. Art. II and V lit. a New York Convention; § 1060(1) and § 1059(2) No. 1 lit. a of the German Code on Civil Procedure
50. Art. 7 and 178 Swiss Act on Private International Law (SPILA)
51. http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/un.arbitration.model.law.1985/doc.html
52. 1060(1) and § 1059(2) No. 1 lit. a of the German Code on Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO), as amended. Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 16 January 1995, BGE 121 in 38, 44
53. G. Kaufmann-Kohler, "Arbitration Agreements in Online Business to Business Transactions", in: Briner Fortier, Berger Bredow, supra n. 1, 358-362
54. L. J. Gibbons, "Rusticum Judicium? Private 'Courts' Enforcing Private Law and Public Rights: Regulating Virtual Arbitration in Cyberspace", 23 Ohio Northern L Rev. (1998) 769, http://law.utoledo.edu/publications/Gibbons-Ohio%20N.U.%20L.%20Rev.htm, sub m.B.2.
55. R. Hill, "On-Line Arbitration: Issues and Solutions", Arbitration International (1999) 200ff.
56. The express language of Online Resolution, http://www.onlineresolution.com/oa-how.cfm.
57. FordJourney, in Art. 15 of its terms and conditions, http://www.fordjourney.com, offers arbitration. The arbitration, however, is binding only upon FordJourney. The arbitration is administered online by the London Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, https://www.arbitrators.org/fordjourney/.
58. Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures, OJ(EC) [2000] L 13/12-20.
59. In Germany, for example, the Directive was implemented by the new §§ 126a of the Biirgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) and 292a of the Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO) in the context of a new Act on Electronic Signatures = Gesetz iiber Rahmenbedingungen fur elektronische Signaturen of 16.5.2001, BGBl. 12001, 876.
60. The 2001 Draft of a Federal Law on Certification of Digital Signatures = Entwurf eines Bundesgesetzes iiber Zertifizierungsdienste im Bereich der elektronischen Signatur (ZertES), http://www.ofj.admin.ch/themen/e-commerce/bg-zertes-d.pdf, and commentary = Botschaft von Juli 2001 BBl (2001) 5679 (inserting Art. 14 Abs. 2bisOR).
61. Art. 29 ZertES-E in connection with Art. 3(2) ZertES-E (equivalent foreign recognition proceedings). This rule may cause problems in relation to EU proceedings, while Switzerland requires an accreditation of certification instances, the EU does not (Art. 3(2) Directive allows, but does not require, accreditation). It is doubtful whether the occasional supervision required by Art. 3(3) Directive can be viewed as an equivalent.
62. Art. 176ff. of the Swiss Private International Law Act (SPILA) or Art. 1492ff. of the French Nouveau Code de Procedure Civile (NCPC).
63. Art. 176 SPILA; Art. 1(3) lit. a UNCITRAL Model Law, supra n. 32.
64. Art. 1492 NCPC, Art. 1(3) lit. b Nr. 2 UNCITRAL Model Law, supra n. 32
65. Kaufmann-Kohler, supra n. 28, 16-19.
66. Compare Art. 1(2) UNCITRAL Model Law (supra n. 32), Art. V(l) lit. d New York Convention
67. Vahrenwald, supra n. 5, 83.
68. Vahrenwald, supra n. 5, 82
69. D. Girsberger, "Entstaatlichung der friedlichen Konfliktregelung zwischen nichtstaatlichen Wirkungseinheiten: Umfang und Grenzen", in: Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Volkerrecht (ed.), Volkerrecht und Internationales Privatrecht in einem sich globalisierenden internationalen System - Auswirkungen der Entstaatlichung transnationaler Rechtsbeziehungen (Heidelberg 2000) 252, with further references.
70. Hill, supra n. 33, 204f
71. R. Hill, "The Internet, Electronic Commerce and Dispute Resolution: Comments", 14-4 J. lnt. Arb. (1997) 104
72. Kaufmann-Kohler, supra n. 33, 357f
73. Art. 4 WebMediate Terms of Use, http://www.webmediate.com/terms.htmlttarb
74. J. Arsic, "International Commercial Arbitration on the Internet: Has the Future Come Too Early?", 14-3 Journal of International Arbitration (September 1997) 219
75. Herrmann, supra n. 1, 273.
76. D. Girsberger, "The Internet and Jurisdiction Based on Contract", in: Frank Emmert (ed.), 4 European Journal of Law Reform: Special Issue on International Procedural Law (2002) 167-185.
77. D. Girsberger, Weber-Stecher, "E-Banking und Internationales Privatrecht", in: W. Wiegand (ed.), E-Banking: rechtliche Grundlagen, Berner Bankrechtstag vol. 8 (Bern 2002) 203ff., with further references. The Geneva Roundtable on Electronic Commerce and Private International Law proposed to create a general presumption of internationality except where all parties involved have their habitual residence in the same country and were aware of that fact not later than when the contract was concluded
78. Report in http://hcch.net/doc/gen_pd7e.doc, 23.
79. UDRP mechanism (supra 3.1.)
80. Online Resolution, e.g., allows for the decision to be binding only if the parties agree in advance http://www.onlineresolution.com/oawhatis.html
81. NovaForum, at http://www.novaforum.com/learn_about_our_8_step_methodology_revised.html, and Web-Mediate Art. 20, WebArbitration Procedure and Rules, supra n. 16.
82. FordJourney, allows for the consumer to invoke the state courts, while the result is binding on FordJourney, https://www.arbitrators.org/fordjourney/.
83. Supra 3.1.
84. Supra 4.2.
85. Kaufmann-Kohler, Peter, supra n. 20, 186f.
86. See also the similar requirement of Art. 35 Abs. 2 UNCITRAL Model Law, supra n. 32
87. Vahrenwald, supra n. 5, 112.
88. On the other hand, ODR has several advantages, such as cost and time efficiency. However, this is not necessarily so in every real life situation. For example, the look into the eye of a witness or a Neutral may replace tens or hundreds of e-mail-messages when determining whether an alleged fact complies with a testimony.
89. For a detailed analysis of the current state of affairs regarding ADR in Europe, see European Commission, Green Paper on alternative dispute resolution in civil and commercial law, Brussels, 19.4.2002 COM (2002) 196 final.
90. Art. IV of the Recommendation 98/257/EC of the Commission on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes, supra n. 28.
91. Art. II No. 2 Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC, supra n. 28.
92. Directive 2000/3 I/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market ("Directive on electronic commerce"), OJ(EC) [2000] L 178/1-16.
93. Art. 17 (1) E-Commerce Directive reads: "Member States shall ensure that, in the event of disagreement between an information society service provider and the recipient of the service, their legislation does not hamper the use of out-of-court schemes, available under national law, for dispute settlement, including appropriate electronic means."
94. Art. 17 (2) E-Commerce Directive reads: "Member States shall encourage bodies responsible for the out-of-court settlement of, in particular, consumer disputes to operate in a way which provides adequate procedural guarantees for the parties concerned".
95. On ODR see the Reports of the American Bar Association Task Force on E-commerce & Alternative Dispute Resolution of May, 2001 http://www.law.washington.edu/ABa-eADR/drafts/docs/2001.05.21draft.pdf, and April, 2002, Task Force on Electronic Commerce and Alternative Dispute Resolution, Addressing Disputes in Electronic Commerce, Recommendation and Report, Draft March 2002, http://www.law.washington.edu/ABA-eADR/home.html.