Enhanced dispute resolution through the use of information technology

Enhanced Dispute Resolution Through the Use of Information Technology

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 1-208

  Lodder, Arno R ^a   Zeleznikow, John ^b  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b VICTORIA UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925172236     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511777554     Document Type: Book

References (257)

1. Abrahams, B. and Zeleznikow, J. 2008a. Asset Negotiation in Trade-Off Support with a Multi-agent Environment. Proceedings of First International Conference on Human Factors and Computational Models in Negotiation (HUCOM 2008), K. Hindriks and w. Brinkman (eds.), Delft, the Netherlands.
2. Abrahams, B. and Zeleznikow, J. 2008b. A multi-agent architecture for online dispute Resolution services. Expanding the Horizons of ODR: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Online Dispute Resolution, M. Poblet (ed.), c EuR workshop proceedings series (c EuR-ws.org), Vol. 430, Florence, Italy, 13 December 2008, pp. 51-61.
3. Abrahams, B. and Zeleznikow, J. 2009. Resolving Family Law Disputes with a Multi-Agent Based Negotiation Support System. Proceedings of GDN2009, the 10th Annual Meeting INFORMS Section on Group Decision and Negotiation, Toronto, Ontario, 14-17 June. Online, available at: http://info.wlu.ca/∼wwwmath/faculty/kilgour/gdn/papers.htm (last accessed 26 August 2009).
4. Adelstein, R. and Miceli, T.J. 2001. Toward a Comparative Economics of Plea Bargaining. European Journal of Law and Economics, 11(1): 47-67.
5. Alexander, R. 1997. Family Mediation: Friend or Foe for Women. Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal, 8(4): 255-266.
6. Ashley, K. 1992. Case-Based Reasoning and its Implications for Legal Expert Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1: 113-208.
7. Astor, H. and Chinkin, C.M. 2002. Dispute Resolution in Australia, 2nd edn, sydney: Lexis Nexis Butterworths.
8. Baldwin, J. and McConville, M. 1977. Negotiated Justice: Pressures to Plead Guilty, London: Martin Robertson.
9. Ball, W.J. 1994. Using Virgil to Analyse Public Policy Arguments: A System Based on Toulmin's Informal Logic. Social Science Computer Review, 12(1): 26-37.
10. Barendrecht, J.M. and De Vries, B.R. 2004. Fitting the Forum to the Fuss with Sticky Defaults: Failure on the Market for Dispute Resolution Services? Working Paper (SSRN 572042).
11. Bellucci, E. 2004. Developing Compensation Strategies for the Construction of Negotiation decision support systems. Phd thesis, La Trobe university, Bundoora 3086, Victoria, Australia.
12. Bellucci, E. 2008. Asset Divider: A New Mediation TooI in Australian Family law. Proceedings of the First International Working Conference on Human Factors and Computational Models in Negotiation, Koen V. Hindriks and willem-paul Brinkman (eds.), delft university of technology, delft, The Netherlands, pp. 11-18.
13. Bellucci, E. and Zeleznikow, J. 1997. Family-Negotiator: an intelligent decision Support System for Negotiation in Australian Family Law. Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the International Society for Decision Support Systems, International Society for decision Support Systems, Lausanne, pp. 359-373.
14. Bellucci, E. and Zeleznikow, J. 1998. A Comparative Study of Negotiation decision Support Systems. Proceedings of Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, California, pp. 254-262.
15. Bellucci, E. and Zeleznikow, J. 2001. Representations for decision Making Support in Negotiation. Journal of Decision Support, 10(3-4): 449-479.
16. Bellucci, E. and Zeleznikow, J. 2005a. Managing Negotiation Knowledge with the Goal of developing Negotiation decision Support Systems. Proceedings of the 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Bruce Campbell, Jim Underwood and deborah Bunker (eds.), Sydney: Australasian Chapter of the Association for information Systems.
17. Bellucci, E. and Zeleznikow, J. 2005b. Managing Negotiation Knowledge: from Negotiation Support to Online dispute Resolution. Proceedings of Second International ODR Workshop, Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Wolf Legal Publishers, pp. 11-22.
18. Bellucci, E. and Zeleznikow, J. 2006. Developing Negotiation decision Support Systems that Support Mediators: a Case Study of the Family_Winner System. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law, 13(2): 233-271.
19. Bellucci, E., Lodder, A. and Zeleznikow, J. 2004. Integrating Artificial intelligence, Argumentation and Game Theory to develop an Online dispute Resolution Environment. Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence ICTAi04, T.M. Khoshgoftaar (ed.), iEEE Computer Society Press, 15-17 November, Los Alamitos, California, pp. 749-754.
20. Bench-Capon T.J.M, Lowes, D. and McEnery, A.M. 1991. Argument-based Explanation of Logic Programs. Knowledge Based Systems, 4(3): 177-183.
21. Bentham, J. 1988 (1789). The Principles of Morals and Legislation, Amherst: Prometheus Books.
22. Bibas, S. 2004. Plea Bargaining outside the Shadow of the Trial. Harvard Law Review, 117: 2464-2547.
23. Bibas, S. 2006. Transparency and Participation in Criminal Procedure. New York University Law Review, 81: 911-966.
24. Bjurulf, B. and Elgstrom, O. 2004. Negotiating Transparency, in: Elgstrom, O. and Jonsson, c. (eds.), European Union Negotiations: Processes, Networks and Institutions, London: Routledge.
25. Black, H.C. 1990. Black's Law Dictionary, St. Paul: west publishing Company.
26. Blanchard, R.E. 1993. Situation Awareness - Transition from Theory to Practice. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society: 32nd Annual Meeting, Santa Monica: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 39-42.
27. Bibas, S. 2005. An Analysis of the Role of Different Players in E-mediation: the (Legal) Implications. Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on ODR, Wolf Legal Publishers, pp. 23-29.
28. Bibas, S. 2007. Mediation en Internet, Analyse van juridische regels en noodzakelijke waar- borgen voor mediation op internet, The Hague: Sdu Uitgevers.
29. Brams, S.J. and Taylor, A.D. 1996. Fair Division, from Cake Cutting to Dispute Resolution, Cambridge University Press.
30. Branting, L.K. 1994. A Computational Model of Ratio Decidendi. Artificial Intelligence and Law: an International Journal, 2: 1-31.
31. Brin, D. 2000. Disputation Arenas: Harnessing Conflict and Competitiveness for Society's Benefit. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 15: 597-617.
32. Brown, H.J. and Marriott, A.L. 1999. ADR: Principles and Practice, 2nd edn, London: Sweet & Maxwell.
33. Carroll, J.M., Neale, D.C., Isenhour, P.L., Rosson, M.B. and McCrickard, D.S. 2003. Notification and Awareness: Synchronizing Task-Oriented Collaborative Activity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(5): 605-632.
34. Chandar, S. and Zeleznikow, J. 2009. Risks to Consider when Negotiating IT Outsourcing Agreements. Proceedings of GDN2009, the 10th Annual Meeting INFORMS section on Group Decision and Negotiation, Toronto, Ontario, 14-17 June. Online, available at: http://info.wlu.ca/∼wwwmath/faculty/kilgour/gdn/papers.htm (last accessed 26 August 2009).
35. Charlton, R. 2000. Dispute Resolution Guidebook, Sydney: LBC Information Service.
36. Clark, P. 1991. A Model of Argumentation and its Application in a Cooperative Expert System. PhD thesis, Turing Institute, Department of Computer Science, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
37. Clegg, S. 1994. Power Relations and the Constitution of the Resistant Subject, in: Jermier, J.M., Knights, D. and Nord, W.E. (eds.), Resistance and Power in Organizations, London: Routledge.
38. Condliffe, P. 2009. Preferences and Justice in Alternative Dispute Resolution. Proceedings of GDN2009, the 10th Annual Meeting INFORMS section on Group Decision and Negotiation, M. Kilgour and Q. Wang (eds.), Toronto, Ontario, 14-17 June, p. 48.
39. Cooter, R. and Rubinfeld, D. 1994. An Economic Model of Legal Discovery. Journal of Legal Studies, 23: 435-463.
40. Cortes Dieguez, J.P. 2008. Developing online dispute Resolution for consumers in the European union, PhD thesis, university college of Cork.
41. Cowdery, N. 2005. Creative sentencing and plea Bargaining: does it Happen and what are the Results?, Law Asia Biennial Conference: Law Asia downunder 2.
42. De Vries, B., Leenes, R. and Zeleznikow, J. 2005. Fundamentals of providing negotiation advice online: the need for developing BATNAs. Proceedings of Second International ODR Workshop, Nijmegen: wolf legal Publishers, pp. 59-67.
43. Dick, J. 1987. Conceptual Retrieval and case Law. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Boston: AcM Press, pp. 106-115.
44. Dickey, A. 1990. Family Law, Sydney: The Law Book company.
45. Douglas, R. and Toulson, D. 1999. WIRE Intelligent Quantum (WIRE IQ) - Tort Evaluation by Precedent instead of ‘Rules’. Proceedings of Twelfth International Conference on Legal Knowledge Based Systems, Nijmegen: GNI, pp. 127-128.
46. Druckman, D. 1977. Negotiations, London: Sage.
47. Druckman, D. 2005. Doing Research: Methods of Inquiry for Conflict Analysis, London: Sage.
48. Druckman, D. and Albin, C. 2008. Distributive Justice and the Durability of Negotiated Agreements, The Australian centre for Peace and conflict Studies, Occasional Papers Series, 10, Brisbane, Queensland.
49. Dufner, D., Kwon, O. and Hadidi, R. 1999. Web-ccAT: A collaborative Learning Environment for Geographically Distributed Information Technology Students and Working Professionals. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 1(12).
50. Edwards, H. 1985. Alternative Dispute Resolution: Panacea or Anathema? Harvard Law Review, 99: 668-684.
51. Eidelman, J.A. 1993. Software for Negotiations. Law Practice Management, 19(7): 50-55.
52. Eisenberg, M.A. 1976. Private Ordering through Negotiation: Dispute Settlement and Rulemaking. Harvard Law Review, 89: 637-681.
53. Elisha, S. and Wiltgen, T. 2006. Resolving condominium Disputes: Mediation Works. 10 Hawaii Bar Journal 1.
54. Endsley, M.R. 1995. Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems. Human Factors, 37(1): 32-64.
55. Ewing, D.W. 1989. Justice on the Job: Resolving Grievances in the Nonunion Workplace, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
56. Fabri, M. and contini, F. (eds.). 2001. Justice and Technology in Europe: How ICT is Changing the Judicial Business, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
57. Fayyad, U., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G. and Smyth, P. 1996. The KDD Process for Extracting useful knowledge from Volumes of data. Communications ACM, 39(11): 27-41.
58. Finel, B. and Lord, K. 1999. The Surprising Logic of Transparency. International Studies Quarterly, 43: 315-339.
59. Fisher, R. and Ury, W. 1981. Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
60. Fisher, R., Kopelman, E. and Kupfer-Schneider, A. 1994. Beyond Machiavelli. Tools for Coping with Conflict, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
61. Fletcher, R. 2008. Mothers and Fathers Accessing Family Relationship Centres. Family Relationships Quarterly, 10: 3-5.
62. Folberg, J. and Taylor, A. 1984. Mediation: A Comprehensive Guide to Resolving Conflicts without Litigation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
63. Freeman, J.B. 1991. Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments, Berlin: Floris Publications.
64. Gazal-Ayal, Oren. 2006. Partial Ban on Plea Bargains. Cardozo Law Review, 27: 2295-2349.
65. Goldberg, S., Green, E. and Sander, F. 1985. Dispute Resolution, Boston: Little Brown and Company.
66. Goldring, J. 1976. Australian Law and International Commercial Arbitration. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 15: 216-252.
67. Gordon, T.F. 1995. The Pleadings Game: An Exercise in Computational Dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2(4): 239-292.
68. Gray, P., Gray, X. and Zeleznikow, J. 2007. Decision Negotiating Logic: For Richer or Poorer. Proceedings of Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, R. Winkels (ed.), Palo Alto: ACM Press, pp. 247-251.
69. Gray, P.N., Tierney, R., Gray, X. and Treanor, L.M. 2006. e Ganges: Pervasive Peacemaker. Proceedings of the first International Symposium on Pervasive Computing and Applications, Urumchi, China.
70. Grover, A. 2002. More Security is Needed For online ADR Applications. 20 Alternatives to High Cost Litig. 135.
71. Gruber, T.R. 1995. Towards Principles for the Design of Ontologies used for Knowledge Sharing. Intl J Human-Computer Studies, 43: 907-928.
72. Gutwin, C. and Greenberg, S. 1998. Effects of Awareness Support on Groupware Usability. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Los Angeles, pp. 511-518.
73. Habermas, J. 1973. Wahrheitstheorien, in: Fahrenbach, H. (ed.), Wirklichkeit und Reflexion, Pfullingen: Neske, pp. 211-265.
74. Hall, M.J.J., Calabro, D., Sourdin, T., Stranieri, A. and Zeleznikow, J. 2005. Supporting Discretionary Decision Making with Information Technology: A Case Study in the Criminal Sentencing Jurisdiction. University of Ottawa Law and Technology Journal, 2(1): 1-36.
75. Heumann, Milton. 1981. Plea Bargaining: The Experiences of Prosecutors, Judges, and Defense Attorneys, University of Chicago Press.
76. Hodge, william, Harrison, Rodney and Colgan, Graeme. 2005. Plea Bargaining. Commonwealth Law Journal, 7: 1112.
77. Hofstede, G. 1989. Cultural predictors of Negotiation styles, in: Mautner-Markhof, F. (ed.), Process of International Negotiations, Boulder: westview press, pp. 193-201.
78. Hollander Blumoff, R. 1997. Getting to ‘Guilty’: plea Bargaining as Negotiation. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 2: 115-148.
79. Holsapple, C.W. and Whinston, A.B. 1996. Decision Support Systems - a Knowledge Based Approach, St. paul: West publishing Company.
80. Honeyman, C. 1985. Patterns of Bias in Mediation. Missouri Journal of Dispute Resolution, 141-150.
81. Hörnle, J. 2009. Cross-border Internet Dispute Resolution, Cambridge University press.
82. Howard R.A. and Matheson, J.E. 1981. Influence Diagrams, in: Howard, R.A. and Matheson, J.E., Readings on the Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis, Vol. 2, Menlo park, CA: Strategic Decision Group.
83. Hunt, A. and Thomas, D. 2000. The Pragmatic Programmer, Boston: Addison- wesley.
84. Hutchinson, B., Tilman, V., Lodder, A.R., Borri, A. and Gouimenou, J. 2009. CEN/ISS [Draft] Workshop Agreement on Standardisation of Online Dispute Resolution Tools.
85. Iosif, V., Mika, p., Larsson, R. and Akkermans, H. 2003. Field Experimenting with Semantic Web Tools in a Virtual Organisation, in: Davies, J., Fensel, D. and van Harmelen, F. (eds.), Towards the Semantic Web, Chichester: John Wiley.
86. Jameson, J.K. 2001. Employee perceptions of the Availability and Use of Interest- Based, Right-Based, and power-Based Conflict Management Strategies. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 19(2): 163-196.
87. Jennings, N.R., Faratin, p., Lomuscio, A.R., parsons, S., Sierra, C. and Wooldridge, M. 2000. Automated Haggling: Building Artificial Negotiators. Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, p. 1.
88. Johnson, p.E., Zualkernan, I.A. and Tukey, D. 1993. Types of Expertise: An Invariant of problem Solving. International Journal of Man Machine Studies, 39: 641.
89. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. 1995. Conflict Resolution: A Cognitive perspective, in: Arrow, K. et al. (eds.), Barriers to Conflict Resolution, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, pp. 44-60.
90. Kannai, R., Schild, U. and Zeleznikow, J. 2007. Modeling the Evolution of Legal Discretion - an Artificial Intelligence Approach. Ratio Juris, 20(4): 530-558.
91. Katsh, E. and Rifkin, J. 2001. Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
92. Kaufman-Kohler, G. and schultz, T. 2004. Online Dispute Resolution: Challenges for Contemporary Justice, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
93. Keller, W. 1996. Disparate treatment of spouse Murder Defendants. S. Cal. Rev. L. & Women's Stud, 6: 255-280.
94. Kennedy, G., McMillan, J. and Benson, J. 1984. Managing Negotiations, 2nd edn, London: Hutchinson Business.
95. Kersten, G.E. 1997. Support for Group Decisions and Negotiations, in: Climaco, J. (ed.), An Overview, in Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Support, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
96. Kersten, G.E. 2001. Modeling Distributive and Integrative Negotiations. Review and Revised Characterization. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(6): 493-514.
97. Kersten, G.E. and Noronha, S.J. 1997. Supporting International Negotiations with a WWW-based System, Interim Report, IIASA, Austria.
98. Kersten, G.E. and Noronha, S.J. 1999. Negotiation via the World Wide Web: A Cross-Cultural Study of Decision Making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8: 251-279.
99. Klein, M.C.A., Steenbergen, W. van, Uijttenbroek, E.M., Lodder, A.R. and van Harmelen, F. 2006. Thesaurus-based Retrieval of Case Law, in: van Engers, T. (ed.), JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, Berlin and Tokyo: IOS Press, pp. 61-70.
100. Kochan, T. 1992. Walton and McKersie's Behavioral Theory of Labor Relations: An Industrial Relations Perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13: 289-295.
101. Kolodner, J.L. and Simpson, R.L. 1989. The Mediator: Analysis of an Early Case- Based Problem Solver. Cognitive Science, 13(4): 507-549.
102. Korobkin, R. 2006. Psychological Impediments to Mediation Success: Theory and Practise. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 21: 281-238.
103. Kraus, S. 2001. Strategic Negotiation in Multi-Agent Environments, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
104. Kraus, S., Sycara, K. and Evenchik, A. 1998. Reaching Agreements through Argumentation: A Logical Model and Implementation. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 104(1-2): 1-69.
105. Kraus, S., Hoz-Weiss, P., Wilkenfeld, J., Andersen, D. and Pate, A. 2008. Resolving Crises through Automated Bilateral Negotiations. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 172(1): 1-18.
106. Kydd, A. 2003. Which Side Are You On? Bias, Credibility, and Mediation. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4): 597-611.
107. Larson, D.A. 2006. Technology Mediated Dispute Resolution (TMDR): A New Paradigm. Ohio State Journal of Dispute Resolution, 629.
108. Lax, D.A. and Sebenius, J. 1986. The Manager as Negotiator, New York: The Free Press.
109. Lewicki, R.J., Saunders, D.M. and Minton, J.W. 1999. Zone of Potential Agreement in Negotiation, 3rd edn, Burr Ridge, H: Irwin-McGraw Hill.
110. Lewicki, R.J., Barry, B., saunders, D.M. and Minton, J.w. 2003. Negotiation, 4th edn, New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
111. Llewellyn, K. 1962. Jurisprudence, University of chicago press.
112. Lodder, A.R. 1999. Dialaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation, Dordrecht: Kluwer academic Publishers.
113. Lodder, A.R. 2002a. European Union E-Commerce Directive - Article by Article Comments. Guide to European Union Law on E-Commerce, in: Lodder, A.R. and Kaspersen, (eds.), e Directives, The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstractM009945.
114. Lodder, A.R. 2002b. Online Negotiation and Mediation: Is There Room for Argument Support Tools? Paper presented at the 17th BILETA Annual Conference. Online, avail- ableat:www.bileta.ac.uk/Document%20Library/1/Online%20Negotiation%20and%20Mediation%20-%20Is%20There%20Room%20for%20Argument%20Support%20Tools.pdf (last accessed 9 November 2008).
115. Lodder, A.R. 2004. Man and Machine: What's the Difference. JAVI, 3(1): 20-21.
116. Lodder, A.R. 2006. The Third Party and Beyond: An Analysis of the Different Parties, in Particular the Fifth, Involved in Online Dispute Resolution. Information and Communication Technology Law, 15(2). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1269562.
117. Lodder, A.R. and Herczog, A. 1995 Dia Law: A Dialogical Frameworkfor Modeling Legal Reasoning, Proceedings of Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York: ACM Press, pp. 146-155.
118. Lodder A.R. and Huygen, P. 2001. eADR: A Simple Tool to Structure the Information Exchange Between Parties in Online Alternative Dispute Resolution. Legal Knowledge and the Information Systems JURIX2001: The Fourteenth Annual Conference, pp. 117-129.
119. Lodder, A.R. and Oskamp, A. (eds.). 2006. Information Technology and Lawyers. Advanced Technology in the Legal Domain, from Challenges to Daily Routine, Berlin: Springer.
120. Lodder, A.R. and Zeleznikow, J. 2005. Developing an Online Dispute Resolution Environment: Dialogue Tools and Negotiation Systems in a Three Step Model. The Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 10: 287-338.
121. Loui, R.P. and Norman, J. 1995. Rationales and Argument Moves. Artificial Intelligence & Law, 3: 159-189.
122. Loui, R.P., Norman, J., Olson, J. and Merill, A. 1993. A Design for Reasoning with Policies, Precedents and Rationales. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York: ACM Press, pp. 202-211.
123. Loui, R.P., Norman, J., Alpeter, J., Pinkard, D., Craven, D., Linsday, J. and Foltz, M. 1997. Progress on Room 5: A Testbed for Public Interactive Semi-Formal Legal Argumentation. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York: AcM press, pp. 207-214.
124. Mack, K. and Roach Anleu, S. 1995. Balancing Principle and Pragmatism: Guilty Pleas. Journal of Judicial Administration, 4(4): 232-239.
125. Mack, K. and Roach Anleu, S. 1996. Guilty Pleas: Discussions and Agreements. Journal of Judicial Administration, 6(8): 9.
126. Mack, K. and Roach Anleu, S. 1997. Sentence Discount for a Guilty Plea: Time for a New Look. Flinders Journal of Law Reform, 1: 123.
127. Mack, K. and Roach Anleu, S. 1998. Reform of Pre-Trial Criminal Procedure: Guilty Pleas. Criminal Law Journal, 22: 263.
128. Mackenzie, G., Vincent, A. and Zeleznikow, J. 2007. Decision Support for Criminal Sentencing and Plea Bargaining. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Law and Technology (IASTEAD), 24-26 September 2007, Berkeley, pp. 49-59.
129. Mackenzie, G., Vincent, A. and Zeleznikow, J. 2008. Negotiating about Charges and Pleas - Balancing Interests and Justice, in: climaco, J., Kersten, G. and costa, J.P. (eds.), Proceedings of Group Decision and Negotiation 2008, Portugal: INESC Coimbra, pp. 167-180.
130. Marshall, Catherine. 1989. Representing the Structure of Legal Argument. Proceedings of Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York: ACM Press, pp. 121-127.
131. Matthijssen, L. 1999. Interfacing between Lawyers and Computers. An Architecture for Knowledge Based Interfaces to Legal Databases, Dordrecht: Kluwer Law International.
132. Matwin, S., Szpakowicz, S., Koperczak, Z., Kersten, G.E. and Michalowski, G. 1989. NEGOPLAN: An Expert System Shell for Negotiation Support. IEEE Expert, 4(4): 50-62.
133. McEwen, C., Rogers, N. and Maiman, R. 1995. Bring in the Lawyers: Challenging the Dominant Approaches to Ensuring Fairness in Divorce Mediation. Minnesota Law Review, 79: 1317-1412.
134. Milnor, J. 1998. John Nash and ‘A Beautiful Mind’. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 45(10): 1329-1332.
135. Mnookin, R. 2003. When Not to Negotiate. University of Colorado Law Review, 74: 1077-1107.
136. Mnookin, R. and Kornhauser, L. 1979. Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce. Yale Law Journal, 88: 950-997.
137. Mnookin, R. and Ross, L. 1995. Introduction, in: Arrow, K. et al. (eds.), Barriers to Conflict Resolution, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, pp. 17-18.
138. Mnookin, R., Peppet, S.R. and Tulumello, A.S. 2000. Beyond Winning: Negotiating to Create Value in Deals and Disputes, Cambridge, MA: The Belnap Press of Harvard University Press.
139. Mollen, S. 1999. Alternate Dispute Resolution of Condominium and Cooperative Conflicts. St John's Law Journal, 75.
140. Murninghan, J.K. 1986. Organizational coalitions: structural contingencies and the Formation process, in: Lewicki, R.J., sheppard, B.H. and Bazerman, M.H. (eds.), Research on Negotiations in Organizations, Vol 1., Greenwich, cT: JAI press.
141. Nakano, R. 2001. Web Content Management: A Collaborative Approach, Boston: Addison-Wesley.
142. Nasar, S. 1994. A Beautiful Mind: A Biography of John Forbes Nash, Jr., Winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, New York: simon & schuster.
143. Nash, J. 1950. Non-cooperative games. PhD thesis, princeton University.
144. Nash, J. 1953. Two Person cooperative Games. Econometrica, 21: 128-140.
145. Neale, M.A. and Bazerman, M.H. 1983. The Role of Perspective-taking Ability in negotiating under Different Forms of Arbitration. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 36: 378-388.
146. Neale, M.A. and Bazerman, M.H. 1991. Cognition and Rationality in Negotiation, New York: The Free Press.
147. Mtta, K. and shibasaki, M. 1997. Defeasible Reasoning in Japanese criminal Jurisprudence. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 5: 139-176.
148. O’Malley, P. 1983. Law, Capitalism, and Democracy: A Sociology of the Australian Legal Order, London: George Allen and Unwin.
149. Oskamp, A., Lodder, A.R. and Apistola, M. (eds.). 2004. IT Support of the Judiciary: Australia, Singapore, Venezuela, Norway, the Netherlands and Italy, The Hague: Asser press.
150. Orwell, G. 1945. Animal Farm, London: secker and Warburg.
151. Osborne, M.J. and Rubinstein, A. 1990. Bargaining and Markets, San Francisco: Academic Press Inc.
152. Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1969. The New Rhetoric, translated by Wilkenson, J. and Weaver, P., University of notre Dame Press. Originally published in 1958 in French as Perelman, c. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1958. La Nouvelle Rhetorique: Traite de l’Argumentation, Presses Universitaires de France.
153. Peterson, D. 2008. What Determines Success in Negotiating? How to Improve as a Negotiator and Mediator. Online, available at: www.sbcadre.org/articles/0027.htm (last accessed 6 september 2009).
154. Peterson, M. and Waterman, D.A. 1985. Evaluating civil claims: An Expert systems Approach to Evaluating Liability cases, in: Walter, c. (ed.), Computer Power and Legal Reasoning, St. Paul: West Publishing company, pp. 627-659.
155. Phegan, R. 1995. The Family Mediation system: An Art of Distributions. McGill Law Journal, 40: 365.
156. Pierani, Marco. 2005. ODR Developments under a consumer Perspective: The Italian case. Proceedings of Second International ODR Workshop, Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, pp. 43-45.
157. Pruitt, D.G. 1981. Negotiation Behavior, New York: Academic Press.
158. Pruitt, D.G and carnevale, P.J. 1993. Negotiation in Social Conflict, Maidenhead and philadelphia: open university press.
159. Pryles, M.C. 2002. Dispute Resolution in Asia, 2nd edn, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
160. Quirchmayr, G. 2006. Internet, WWW and beyond, in: Lodder, A.R. and A. Oskamp (eds.), Information Technology and Lawyers, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 137-163.
161. Raiffa, H. 1968. Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choice under Uncertainty, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.
162. Raiffa, H. 1982. The Art and Science of Negotiation: How to Resolve Conflicts and Get the Best Out of Bargaining, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.
163. Raiffa, H., Richardson, J. and Metcalfe, D. 2002. Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
164. Raines, S. and Conley Tyler, M. 2007. From eBay to Eternity: Advances in Online Dispute Resolution. University of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No. 200. Online, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=955968 (last accessed 31 August 2009).
165. Raith, M.G. 2000. Fair Negotiation Procedures. Mathematical Social Sciences, 39(3): 303-322.
166. Reimer, U., Brockhausen, P., Lau, Th. and Reich, J. 2003. Ontology-based Knowledge Management at Work: The Swiss Life Case Studies, in: Davies, J., Fensel, D. and van Harmelen, F. (eds.), Towards the Semantic Web, Chichester: John wiley.
167. Riskin, L. 1996. Understanding Mediators’ Orientations, Strategies, and Techniques: A Grid for the Perplexed. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 7: 25.
168. Rissland, E., Ashley, K. and Branting, L.K. 2005. Case-Based Reasoning and Law. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 20(3): 293-298.
169. Ross, H.L. 1980. Settled Out of Court, New York: Aldine.
170. Ross, L. 1995. Reactive Devaluation in Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, in: Arrow, K.J., Mnookin, R.H., Ross, L., Tversky, A. and Wilson, R., Barriers to Conflict Resolution, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, pp. 26-42.
171. Roth, A.E. 1979. Axiomatic Models of Bargaining. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems No. 170. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
172. Rubin, J.Z. and Sander, F.E. 1991. Culture, Negotiation, and the Eye of the Beholder. Negotiation Journal, 6: 249-254.
173. Rule, C. 2002. Online Dispute Resolution for Businesses, San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
174. Rusanow, G. 2003. Knowledge Management and the Smarter Lawyer, New York: ALM Publishing.
175. Saaty, T. 1980. The Analytical Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority, Allocation, New York: McGraw-Hill.
176. Saaty, T. 1994. How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Interfaces, 19: 19-43.
177. Saaty, T. 1995. Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process, Pittsburgh: Rws publications.
178. Sander, F. 1976. Varieties of dispute processing, 70 Federal Rules decisions 111.
179. Sander, F. 2002. Some concluding Thoughts. Ohio State Journal of Dispute Resolution, 17: 205-211.
180. Schelling, T.C. 1958. The Strategy of Conflict: Prospectives for a Re-orientation of Game Theory. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(3): 203-264.
181. Schiavetta, S. 2008. Electronic Alternative Dispute Resolution - Increasing Access To Justice Via Procedural Protections, PhD thesis, University of Oslo.
182. Schild, U. 1998. Decision Support for Criminal Sentencing. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6(4): 151-202.
183. Schild, U. and Zeleznikow, J. 2008. The Three Laws of Robotics Revisited. International Journal of Intelligent Systems Technologies & Applications, 4(3-4): 254-270.
184. Schlobohm, D.A. and Waterman, D.A. 1987. Explanation for an Expert System that Performs Estate Planning. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Boston: ACM Press, pp. 18-27.
185. Schultz, T. 2005. Reguler le commerce electronique par la resolution des litiges en ligne, Brussels: Bruylant.
186. Scott, R. and Stuntz, W. 1992. Plea Bargaining as Contract. The Yale Law Journal, 101(8): 1909-1968.
187. Sebenius, J.K. 2007. Negotiation Analysis: Between Decisions and Games, in: Edwards, W., Miles, R. and von Winterfeldt, D. (eds.), Advances in Decision Analysis, Cambridge University Press, pp. 469-488.
188. Seifman, R.S. and Freiberg, A. 2001. Plea Bargaining in Victoria: The Role of Counsel. Criminal Law Journal, 25(2): 63-74.
189. Senger, J. 2004. Decision Analysis in Negotiation. Marquette Law Review, 87: 723-735.
190. Shapiro, D.L. and Brett, J.M. 1993. Comparing Three Processes Underlying Judgments of Procedural Justice: A Field Study of Mediation and Arbitration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(6): 1167-1177.
191. Shavell, S. 2003. Economic Analysis of Litigation and the Legal Process. Discussion Paper No. 404, John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics, and Business, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
192. Simon, H.A. 1957. Models of Man, New York: John Wiley.
193. Simpson, R. 1985. A Computer Model of Case-Based Reasoning in Problem Solving. Doctoral dissertation, School of Information and Computer Science, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
194. Solovay, N. and Reed, C.K. 2003. The Internet and Dispute Resolution Untangling the Web, New York: Law Journal Press.
195. Sourdin T. 2005. Alternative Dispute Resolution, 2nd edn, Australia: Lawbook Co, Thomsons.
196. Stipanowich, T.J. 2004. ADR and the ‘Vanishing trial’: The Growth and Impact of ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1(3): 843-912.
197. Stranieri, A. and Zeleznikow, J. 2005. Knowledge Discovery from Legal Databases, Vol. 69, Dordrecht: Springer.
198. Stranieri, A., Yearwood, J. and Meikle, T. 2000. The Dependency of Discretion and Consistency on Knowledge Representation. International Review of Law Computers and Technology, 14: 325-340.
199. Stranieri, A., Zeleznikow, J. and Yearwood, J. 2001. Argumentation Structures that Integrate Dialectical and Monoletical Reasoning. Knowledge Engineering Review, 16(4): 331-348.
200. Stranieri, A., Zeleznikow, J., Gawler, M. and Lewis, B. 1999. A Hybrid - Neural Approach to the Automation of Legal Reasoning in the Discretionary Domain of Family Law in Australia. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 7(2-3): 153-183.
201. Stuckenschmidt, H., van Harmelen, F., de Waard, A., Scerri, T., Bhogal, R., van Buel, J., Crowlesmith, I., Fluit, Ch., Kampman, A., Broekstra, J. and van Mulligen, E. 2004. Exploring Large Document Repositories with RDF Technology: The DOPE Project. IEEE Intelligent Expert, 19(3): 34-40.
202. Stulberg, J. 2000. Mediation, Democracy and Cyberspace. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 15: 619-642.
203. Stuntz, W. 2004. Plea Bargaining and Criminal Law's Disappearing Shadow. Harvard Law Review, 117: 2548-2560.
204. Sycara, K. 1993. Machine Learning for Intelligent Support of Conflict Resolution. Decision Support Systems, 10: 121-136.
205. Sycara, K. 1998. Multiagent Systems. AI Magazine, 19(2): 79-92.
206. Tata, C. 2000. Resolute Ambivalence: Why Judiciaries do not Institutionalise their Decision Support Systems? International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 14: 297-316.
207. Thian, Y.S. 2004. Singapore, in: Oskamp. A., Lodder, A.R. and Apistola, M. (eds.), IT Support of the Judiciary: Australia, Singapore, Venezuela, Norway, the Netherlands and Italy, The Hague: Asser Press, pp. 45-70.
208. Thiessen, E.M. 1993. ICANS: An Interactive Computer-Assisted Multiparty Negotiation Support System. PhD dissertation, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, Dissertation Abstracts International, 172p.
209. Thiessen, E.M. and McMahon, J.P. 2000. Beyond Win-Win in Cyberspace. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 15: 643.
210. Thiessen, E.M., Loucks, D.P. and Stedinger, J.R. 1998. Computer-Assisted Negotiations of Water Resources Conflicts. Group Decision and Negotiation Journal, 7(2): 109-129.
211. Thompson, L. 1991. Information Exchange in Negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27: 161-179.
212. Tor, Avishalom, Gazal-Ayal, Oren and Garcia, Stephen M. 2006. Substantive Fairness and Comparative Evaluation in Plea Bargain Decision Making. Available at SSRN.
213. Toulmin, S. 1958. The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press.
214. Ury, W.L., Brett, J.M. and Goldberg, S.B. 1988. Getting Disputes Resolved, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
215. Van Boven, L., Gilovich, T. and Medvec, V. 2003. The Illusion of Transparency in Negotiations. Negotiation Journal, 19(2): 117-131.
216. Van Laarschot, R., van Steenbergen, W., Stuckenschmidt, H., Lodder, A.R. and van Harmelen, F. 2005. The Legal Concepts and the Layman's Terms. Bridging the Gap through Ontology-Based Reasoning about Liability. JURIX 2005, IOS Press, pp. 115-125.
217. von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. 1947. The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 2nd edn, Princeton University Press.
218. Vincent, A. and Zeleznikow, J. 2005. Toulmin-Based Computational Modelling of Judicial Discretion in Sentencing. Proceedings of The Uses of Argument, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 18-21 May, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, pp. 465-475.
219. Vincent, A. and Zeleznikow, J. 2006. Discretionary Judicial Sentencing: Decision Making and Decision Support, in: Hafner, Carole and O’Rourke, Maureen (eds.), Law and Technology: Law Tech 2006, Calgary: ACTA Press, pp. 119-126.
220. Vincent, A. and Zeleznikow, J. 2007. The De-Socialisation of the Courts, Sentencing Decision Support and Plea Bargaining. International Review of Law Computers & Technology, 21(2): 157-175.
221. Vincent, A., Sourdin, T. and Zeleznikow, J. 2007. Criminal Sentencing, Intuition and Decision Support, in: Elleithy, K. (ed.), Advances and Innovations in Systems, Computing Sciences and Software Engineering, Berlin: Springer, pp. 41-46.
222. von Wright, G.H. 1972. The Logic of Preference Reconsidered. Theory and Decision, 3(2): 140-169.
223. Vreeswijk, G.A.W. and Lodder, A.R. 2005. Gear Bi: Towards an Online Arbitration Environment Based on the Design Principles Simplicity, Awareness, Orientation, and Timeliness. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 13(2): 297-321.
224. Walton, D. 2004. A New Dialectical Theory of Explanation. Philosophical Explorations, 7: 71-89.
225. Walton, R.E. and McKersie, R.B. 1965. A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations, New York: McGraw-Hill.
226. Wang, F.F. 2008, Online Dispute Resolution: Technology, Management and Legal Practice from an International Perspective, Abington: Woodhead Publishing.
227. Waterman, D.A. and Peterson, M. 1980. Rule-Based Models of Legal Expertise. Proceedings of the First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Stanford University, AAAI, pp. 272-275.
228. Waterman, D.A. and Peterson, M. 1981. Models of Legal Decision making, Technical Report, R-2717-1CJ, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
229. Waterman, D.A. and Peterson, M. 1984. Evaluating Civil Claims: An Expert Systems Approach. Expert Systems, 1(1): 65-76.
230. Waterman, D.A., Paul, J. and Peterson, M. 1986. Expert Systems for Legal Decision Making. Expert Systems, 3(4): 212-226.
231. Wertheim, E., Love, A., Littlefield, L. and Peck, C. 1992. I Win: You Win, Ringwood: Penguin Books.
232. Wettig, S. and Zehendner, E. 2003. The Electronic Agent: A Legal Personality under German Law? in: Oskamp, A. and Weitzenbock, E. (eds.), Proceedings of the Law and Electronic Agents Workshop (LEA’03).
233. Wildeboer, Gwen R., Klein, Michel C.A. and Uijttenbroek, Elisabeth M. 2007. Explaining the Relevance of Court Decisions to Laymen, in: Lodder, A.R. and Mommers, L. (eds.), Proceedings of JURIX 2007, Amsterdam and Berlin: IOS Press, pp. 129-138.
234. Wilkenfeld, J., Kraus, S., Holley, K.M. and Harris, M.A. 1995. GENIE: A Decision Support System for Crisis Negotiations. Decision Support Systems, 14(4): 369-391.
235. Williams, G.R. 1983. Legal Negotiation and Settlement, St. Paul: West Publishing Co.
236. Wright, R.W. 1999. Principled Adjudication: Tort Law and Beyond. Canterbury Law Review, 7: 265-296.
237. Wright, R. and Miller, M. 2002. The Screening/Bargaining Tradeoff. Stanford Law Review, 55: 29-117.
238. Wright, R. and Miller, M. 2003. Honesty and Opacity in Charge Bargains. Stanford Law Review, 55: 1409-1417.
239. Zartman, I.W. 1993. Decision Support and Negotiation Research: A Researcher's Perspective. Theory and Decision, 34(3): 345-351.
240. Zeleznikow, J. 2000. Building Judicial Decision Support Systems in Discretionary Legal Domains. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 14(3): 341-356.
241. Zeleznikow, J. 2002a. Risk, Negotiation and Argumentation - a Decision Support System Based Approach. Law, Probability and Risk, 1: 37-48.
242. Zeleznikow, J. 2002b. Using Web-based Legal Decision Support Systems to Improve Access to Justice. Information and Communications Technology Law, 11(1): 15-33.
243. Zeleznikow, J. 2004. The Split-Up Project: Induction, Context and Knowledge Discovery in Law. Law, Probability and Risk, 3: 147-168.
244. Zeleznikow, J. 2006a. Using Toulmin Argumentation to Support Dispute Settlement in Discretionary Domains, in: Hitchcock, D. and Verheij, B. (eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 261-272.
245. Zeleznikow, J. 2006b. Using an Argumentation Based Approach to Manage Legal Knowledge, in: schwartz, D.G. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management, Hershey: Idea Group Inc, pp. 638-642.
246. Zeleznikow, J. 2009. Beyond Interest Based Bargaining - Incorporating Interests and Justice in the Development of Negotiation Support Systems. Proceedings of GDN2009, the 10th Annual Meeting INFORMS Section on Group Decision and Negotiation, Toronto, Ontario, 14-17 June. Online, available at: http://info.wlu.ca/∼wwwmath/faculty/kilgour/gdn/papers.htm (last accessed 26 August 2009).
247. Zeleznikow, J. and Abrahams, B. 2009. Incorporating Issues of Fairness into the Development of a Multi-agent Negotiation Support System. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Barcelona: ACM Press, pp. 177-185.
248. Zeleznikow, J. and Bellucci, E. 2003. Family_Winner: Integrating Game Theory and Heuristics to Provide Negotiation Support. Proceedings of Sixteenth International Conference on Legal Knowledge Based System, Amsterdam: IOS Publications, pp. 21-30.
249. Zeleznikow, J. and Bellucci, E. 2006. Family_Mediator - Adding Notions of Fairness to those of Interests. Proceedings of Nineteenth International Conference on Legal Knowledge Based System, Amsterdam: IOS Publications, pp. 121-130.
250. Zeleznikow, J. and Hunter, D. 1994. Building Intelligent Legal Information Systems: Knowledge Representation and Reasoning in Law, Kluwer Computer/Law Series, 13.
251. Zeleznikow, J. and Stranieri, A. 1998. Split Up: The Use of an Argument Based Knowledge Representation to Meet Expectations of Different Users for Discretionary Decision Making. Proceedings of IAAI’98 - Tenth Annual Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, AAAI/MIT Press, pp. 1146-1151.
252. Zeleznikow, J. and Vincent, A. 2007. Providing Decision Support for Negotiation: The Need for Adding Notions of Fairness to Those of Interests. University of Toledo Law Review, 38: 101-143.
253. Zeleznikow, J., Bellucci, E. and Hodgkin, J. 2002. Building Decision Support Systems to Support Legal Negotiation. Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Law and Technology (Law Tech2002), Anaheim: ACTA Press, pp. 112-117.
254. Zeleznikow, J., Stranieri, A. and Gawler, M. 1996. Split-Up: A Legal Expert System which Determines Property Division upon Divorce. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 3: 267-275.
255. Zeleznikow, J., Bellucci, E., Schild, U. and Mackenzie, G. 2007a. Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law - Using Utility Functions to Support Legal Negotiation, in: Winkels, R. (ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Palo Alto.
256. Zeleznikow, J., Bellucci, E., Vincent, A. and Mackenzie, G, 2007b. Bargaining in the shadow of a Trial: Adding Notions of Fairness to Interest-Based Negotiation in Legal Domains, in: Kersten, G., Rios, J. and chen, E. (eds.), Proceedings of Group Decision and Negotiation Meeting 2007, Volume ii, Concordia university, Montreal, Canada.
257. Zeleznikow, J., Meersman, R., Hunter, D. and van Helvoort, E. 1995. Computer Tools for Aiding legal negotiation. ACIS95 - Sixth Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Curtin University of technology, Perth, Western Australia, pp. 231-251.