Online Dispute Resolution: Consumer Redress in a Global Market Place

German Law Journal

Volumn 7, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 647-660

  Calliess, Gralf Peter ^a  

^a GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85175491448     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20718322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S2071832200004995     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. An earlier of this paper was presented to the Law Faculty during my stay as a visiting researcher at the Osaka University Graduate School of Law and Politics in summer 2005.
2. See, for the use of this term BERMAN, LAW AND REVOLUTION THE FORMATION OF THE WESTERN LEGAL TRADITION, (1983).
3. HAFT, NUTZANWENDUNGEN KYBERNETISCHER SYSTEME IM RECHT, (1968);
4. KILIAN, JURISTISCHE ENTSCHEIDUNG UND ELEKTRONISCHE DATENVERARBEITUNG - METHODENORIENTIERTE VORSTUDIE, (1974);
5. FIEDLER, RECHTSINFORMATIK UND JURISTISCHE TRADITION, in: FS WELZEL 1974, 167;
6. COMPUTERGESTÜTZTE JURISTISCHE EXPERTENSYSTEME, (Erdmann/Fiedler/Haft/Traunmüller eds., 1986)
7. Post, Anarchy, State and the Internet: An Essay on Law Making in Cyberspace, JOURNAL OF ONLINE LAW (J. ONLINE L.) art. 3 (1995);
8. Karamon, ADR on the Internet, 11 OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION (OHIO ST. J. ON DISP. RESOL) 537 (1996);
9. Cona, Application of Online Systems in Alternative Dispute Resolution, 45 BUFFALO LAW REVIEW 975 (1997);
10. Eisen, Are We Ready for Mediation in Cyberspace?, 1998 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 1305;
11. Almaguer/Baggott, Shaping New Legal Frontiers: Dispute Resolution for the Internet, 13 OHIO ST. J. ON DISP. RESOL. 711 (1998);
12. Bordone, Electronic Online Dispute Resolution: A Systems Approach - Potential, Problems, and a Proposal, 3 HARVARD NEGOTIATION LAW REVIEW 175 (1998);
13. Perritt, Dispute Resolution in Cyberspace: Demand for New Forms of ADR, 15 OHIO ST. J. ON DISP. RESOL. 675 (2000).
14. KATSH/RIFKIN, ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION: RESOLVING CONFLICTS IN CYBERSPACE 93 (2001).
15. Lodder/Thiessen, THE ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION, in: ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ODR), PAPERS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2003 UNITED NATIONS FORUM ON ODR (Katsh/Choi eds., 2003) available at http://www.odr.info/unece2003/pdf/lodder_thiessen.pdf.
16. See, Teitz, Providing Legal Services for the Middle Class in Cyberspace: The Promise and Challenge of On-line Dispute Resolution, 70 FORDHAM INT'L L.J. 985, 990-995 (2001).
17. See, Gibbons, Creating a Market for Justice. A Market Incentive Solution to Regulating the Playing Field: Judicial Deference, Judicial Review, Due Process, and Fair Play in Online Consumer Arbitration, 23 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 1 (2003);
18. Bingham, Control over Dispute-System Design and Mandatory Commercial Arbitration, 67 LAW & CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS 237 (2004).
19. Bates, Consumer's Dream Or Pandora's Box: Is Arbitration a Viable Option for Cross-Border Consumer Disputes, 27 FORDHAM INT'L L.J. 823 (2004);
20. Goodman, The Pros and Cons of online dispute resolution: an assessment of cyber-mediation websites, Duke Law & Technology Review 0004 (2003) available at http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0004.html.
21. Kojima, A Planetary System of Justice, in: CIVIL PROCEDURE AND ADR IN JAPAN, 10 (2004) ;
22. Kojima, Dispute Resolution Systems and Legal Culture in: CIVIL PROCEDURE AND ADR IN JAPAN, 292 (2004).
23. For the importance of party autonomy and consent in the litigation process see Wagner, PROZEßVERTRÄGE. PRIVATAUTONOMIE IM VERFAHRENSRECHT, (1998).
24. For these two potential meanings of ODR see Hörnle, Disputes Solved in Cyberspace and the Rule of Law, 2001 (2) JOURNAL OF INFORMATION LAW AND TECHNOLOGY (JILT) available at http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2001_2/hornle/;
25. Teitz, supra note 7, at 990;
26. Schultz, 'Does Online Dispute Resolution Need Governmental Intervention? The Case for Architectures of Control and Trust', 6 NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY (2004) 71;
27. PONTE/CAVENAGH, CYBERJUSTICE: ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION, (2004);
28. KAUFMANN-KOHLER/SCHULTZ, ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION: CHALLENGES FOR CONTEMPORARY JUSTICE (2004).
29. Conley Tyler, 115 and Counting: The State of ODR 2004, in: PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRD ANNUAL FORUM ON ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION, (Melissa Conley Tyler, Ethan Katsh, and Daewon Choi eds., 2004) available at http://www.odr.info/unforum2004/ConleyTyler.htm.
30. See Tamberlin, Online Dispute Resolution and the Courts, in: PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRD ANNUAL FORUM ON ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION, (Melissa Conley Tyler, Ethan Katsh, and Daewon Choi eds., 2004) available at http://www.odr.info/unforum2004/tamberlin.htm: on a pilot project in Australia;
31. On the pilot project at the German "Bundesgerichtshof" see the presentation available at http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/docs/bgh_erv_praesentation_2002-07-26.pdf;
32. within this project a XML-based software for standardized exchange of data was developed, which is called "XJustiz".
33. Available at http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm.
34. As of July 24, 2006, see: http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/statistics/cumulative/results.html.
35. As of July 24, 2006, see: www.squaretrade.com (About us).
36. See, Calliess, GRENZÜBERSCHREITENDE VERBRAUCHERVERTRÄGE, IUS PRIVATUM 103, (2006), ch. 6, 262- 278, also available at http://www.jura.uni-frankfurt.de/ifawz1/teubner/dokumente/Calliess Globale Zivilregimes.pdf;
37. see as well Helfer, Whither the UDRP: Autonomous, Americanized or Cosmopolitan?, 12 CARDOZO JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW (CARDOZO J. INT'L & COMP. L.) 493 (2004);
38. Brannigan, The UDRP: How Do You Spell Success?, 5 DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL (2004)
39. Dinwoodie, Detaching Trademark Law From The Nation-State, 41 Houston Law Review 885 (2004).
40. See overview at http://pages.ebay.com/services/;
41. Baron, Private Ordering on the Internet: The EBay Community of Traders, 4 BUSINESS AND POLITICS (2002), available at http://www.bepress.com/bap/ vol4/iss3/art1;
42. Schultz, eBay: un système juridique en formation ?, 22 REVUE DU DROIT DES TECHNOLOGIES ET DE L'INFORMATION, 27-51 (2005).
43. For the following see, Abernethy, Building Large-Scale Online Dispute Resolution & Trustmark Systems, in:, ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ODR), PAPERS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2003 UNITED NATIONS FORUM ON ODR (Katsh/Choi eds., .2003) available at http://www.odr.info/unece2003/pdf/ Abernethy.pdf.
44. Mifsud Bonnici/de Vey Mestdagh, On the use of legal measures to entice participation in Online Dispute Resolution systems for the settlement of online-related disputes, in: SECOND INTERNATIONAL ODR WORKSHOP, 31-42 (Zeleznikow/Lodder eds., 2005), available at http://odrworkshop.info/papers2005/odrworkshop2005Bol.pdf.
45. For details see Calliess, supra, note 18, 262 ff.
46. See Peterson, General Counsel of the American Arbitration Association, June 2000 Statement at the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives of the 106th Congress on the draft "Fairness and Voluntary Arbitration Act" H.R. 534 available at http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju65871.000/hju65871_0. htm;
47. see also, Abernethy, supra note 20 at 8.
48. OECD, Guidelines for Consumer Protection in the Context of Electronic Commerce (1999) available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/13/34023235.pdf.
49. See the very early analysis of Pichler, Trust and Reliance - Enforcement and Compliance: Enhancing Consumer Confidence in the Electronic Marketplace, JSM Thesis, Stanford 2000 available at http://www.law.stanford.edu/library/biblio/rufus.pdf;
50. DE BRUIN, CONSUMER TRUST IN ELECTRONIC COMMERCE: TIME FOR BEST PRACTICE, (2002);
51. Calliess, supra note 18 at. 7.
52. See, http://www.bbbonline.org/consumer.
53. As of July 24, 2006, see, http://www.trustedshops.de/de/trustedshops/index.html.
54. See, www.trustuk.org.uk;
55. for a similar German version see: www.internet-guetesiegel.de.
56. See, http://www.ecom.jp/en/index.html.
57. See, http://www.jadma.org/e-page/index_e.shtml.
58. The JADMA Guidelines available at http://www.jadma.org/e-page/guide_1e.html.
59. See, http://www.jcci.or.jp/home-e.html.
60. See, http://mark.cin.or.jp.
61. See, Sawada, Building Trust in Japanese EC Market, 22 September 2004, Presentation Slides, available at http://www.ecom.jp/adr/en/html/Outline%20of%20ECOM%20ADR%20Office.pdf.
62. See, http://www.ecom.jp/adr/en/index.html as well as the outline in Sawada (FN 34). As of March 2006, however, ECOM ADR ceased its operations.
63. E.g. in the account of Conley Tyler, supra note 12, not a single one is headquartered in Japan, available at http://www.odr.info/unforum2004/ConleyTyler.htm;
64. and on the webpage of ADRJapan only foreign ODR-projects are linked: http://www.adr.gr.jp/adr.html.
65. See, Sawada, note 34.
66. See, http://www.meti.go.jp/english/information/data/IT-policy/trust-mark.htm.
67. See, www.onlineconfidence.org.
68. For a list with links to members see, http://www.globaltrustmarkalliance.org/members.asp.
69. See, http://www.gbde.org/consumerconfidence.html.
70. Available at, http://www.gbde.org/agreements/adragreement03.pdf.
71. http://www.iccwbo.org/home/statements_rules/statements/2004/DISPUTES-rev.pdf.
72. The ABA Best Practices are reprinted as an Annex to Calliess, supra, note 18, 445-455.
73. For details see, Calliess, supra, note 18, 347-362.
74. See, http://www.crossborderadr.org/.
75. See, http://www.bbb.org/alerts/article.asp?ID=658.
76. See only Calliess, Value-added Norms, Local Litigation and Global Enforcement: why the Brussels-Philosophy failed in The Hague, 5 GERMAN LAW JOURNAL (2004) available at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=527 .
77. The early European model of limitation of choice of law for consumer contracts in Art. 5 of the 1980 Rome Convention was recently copied by the USA in the revised Art. 1-301 of the Uniform Commercial Code (2001), and Japan is considering introducing a comparable "country of consumer law applies"-rule in the context of the current reform of the Horei (Law No. 10 of 1898).
78. On 15 December 2005 the European Commission presented a proposal for a Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), where the reformed Art. 5 abolishes choice of law in consumer contracts completely: COM (2005) 650 final.
79. See, Hadfield, Privatizing Commercial Law, 24 REGULATION 40 (2001);
80. Bernstein, Private Commercial Law in the Cotton Industry, 99 MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW 1724 (2001);
81. Aviram, A Network Effects Analysis of Private Ordering, (Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper 2003/80) with further references.
82. See, Berger (ed.), THE PRACTICE OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW (2001);
83. Zumbansen, Piercing the Legal Veil: Commercial Arbitration and Transnational Law, 8 EUROPEAN LAW JOURNAL 400 (2002).
84. Supra notes 7 & 8.
85. Art. 3 para. 2 of the Supplementary Provisions of the Arbitration Act (Law No. 138 of 2003);
86. see Nakamura, Salient Features of the New Japanese Arbitration Law Based Upon the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, JCAA NEWSLETTER, April 2004, at 5 available athttp://jcaa.or.jp/e/arbitration-e/syuppan-e/newslet/news17.pdf.