Models of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): A report for the Legal Ombudsman
The aim of this research was to investigate what the Legal Ombudsman can learn from other Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) providers. The research was commissioned by the Legal Ombudsman to help it review and develop its dispute resolution model and ensure it remains fit-for-purpose. The research involved a case study design and fieldwork was conducted with ten organisations: four in the UK, one in Ireland, two in New Zealand, one in Australia, one in Canada and one in the USA. The research highlighted a range of dispute resolution practices and illustrated some of the key design choices that ADR providers need to make when designing or reviewing a dispute resolution scheme. These fell within four areas: the use of online dispute resolution; the early stages of dispute resolution processes; mediation approaches; and the later stages of dispute resolution and building influence.
The Third Party and Beyond: An Analysis of the Different Parties, in Particular the Fifth, Involved in Online Dispute Resolution
In a society that virtualises, with most of the current youth being online substantial parts of the day, to say that in the not so far future ODR will handle a large part of the disputes is not a daring prophecy. The relations between the various parties involved in ODR are more diverse and complicated than offline, both practically and legally. This article provides an analysis that stretches further than the two disputing parties and the Third Party. Several scenarios of the relationships between the various parties are analysed. One party is not human, the Fourth Party, commonly used to denote technology. In this paper it is argued that the concept of a Fifth Party as the provider of the technology is needed to understand all possible legal and practical relations.
BUILDING A GLOBAL REDRESS SYSTEM FOR LOW-VALUE CROSS-BORDER DISPUTES
Abstract This article examines UNCITRAL's draft Rules for Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) and argues that in low-value e-commerce cross-border transactions, the most effective consumer protection policy cannot be based on national laws and domestic courts, but on effective and monitored ODR processes with swift out-of-court enforceable decisions. The draft Rules propose a tiered procedure that culminates in arbitration. Yet, this procedure neither ensures out-of-court enforcement, nor does it guarantee compliance with EU consumer mandatory law. Accordingly, this article argues that the draft Rules may be inconsistent with the European approach to consumer protection.