scholarly journals Online Mediation: a Game Changer or Much Ado About Nothing?

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 33-50 ◽  

This paper focuses on the phenomenon of Online Mediation, which is gaining in popularity in recent years. Being part of the Online Dispute Resolution family, this particular method is the one applied most often. The very idea of disputes being heard and resolved in the global network seems exciting and quite appealing to some, while for others it presents a source of major concern. New technologies influence the ways parties and the neutral interact, share ideas and reach a settlement. Moreover, they have a clear impact on how people evaluate the other party, their mediator and the whole procedure they are involved into. This makes trust a significant issue for online mediation, one that is not so easy to establish while relying on the old techniques. Another important thing is the absence of positive regulation for the sector. In spite of recent instruments adopted by the EU, online mediation is still a field largely unknown to lawyers, consumers, business players and national regulators. The present article aims at clarifying the notion of ‘online mediation’ (which, surprisingly, has not been properly done yet), showing some of the most obvious benefits and drawbacks of this dispute resolution method (a deeper, more profound look on them will only be possible over time, when online mediation proves itself in practice and more statistical data are available) and providing valuable remarks on the solutions for the problems determined.

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Bogdan

This paper deals with the central provisions of the new EU Regulation No 524/2013 on Online Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes, which will apply from 9 January 2016. The purpose of the Regulation is to create a European userfriendly interactive website (“ODR platform”) for out-of-court, independent, impartial, inexpensive and fast resolution of disputes stemming from online sale or service contracts between a consumer resident in the EU and a trader established in the EU. The paper presents the principal features of the Regulation and discusses its potential contribution to improved functioning of the EU internal market.


Author(s):  
Inmaculada Barral-Viñals

This paper examines consumer access to justice in the EU by analysing how Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) can improve this access, especially in the case of low-value cross-border disputes, which constitute the majority of consumer contract complaints. The discussion is based on a widened concept of open justice that not only seeks to provide greater transparency, but also greater participation and collaboration as a means to improve consumer access to justice. The approach deals with the subjective and objective obstacles to accessing justice and the role of participatory justice. Finally, the paper examines the decisions taken by the EU in its attempt to foster both ADRs and ODRs for consumer disputes and determines which obstacles have been eliminated in promoting access to justice.


Author(s):  
Noam Ebner

The past few decades have seen explosive growth in the degree to which disputes that would previously have been litigated in court, or simply allowed to fester, are being dealt with constructively by other methods. The development of the field of conflict resolution and management, and of its sub-field, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which focus on understanding conflict and on developing processes to deal with it, has provided both the theoretical background and the practical applications needed to transform conflicts into opportunities for learning and building. These developments have greatly affected, inter alia, the way conflict is handled inside organizations and in the workplace. The intuitive understanding of conflict’s combined potential for good and evil in organizations and in long term relationships such as employment and labor relations resulted in these being some of the earliest focal points for ADR.a The task of managing workplace conflict is a day-to-day job of managers (Lax & Sebenius, 1987). Whether formally listed in the company’s organizational responsibility chart or not, the task of identifying and managing conflict is most often assigned to human resources experts. In the age of e-communication, new types and sources of organizational conflict are emerging (Landry, 2000) and organizational dispute resolution experts need to update their toolbox. As HRM makes the transition to e-HRM, traditional ADR is adopting new methods for coping with conflict through e-methods and processes. The technology and skills necessary for managing online mediation, arbitration, and negotiation processes are being developed and improved, and the new subfield of online dispute resolution (ODR) is rapidly taking form. The aim of this article is to introduce, in general, the field of ODR to the e-HRM community, and to elaborate on one process which is suitable for widespread use in e-HRM: that of online mediation. In addition, we will also suggest other potentialities of ODR for e-HRM, in the hopes that this discussion will be taken up and developed by others in both fields.


Legal Studies ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 114-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Cortés

This paper examines the new legal framework on consumer Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the EU. Its primary contribution lies in identifying that harmonising the complaint submission in a pan-European Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform, and directing parties to nationally approved ADR entities that comply with minimum standards, will not fulfil the potential of an extra-judicial consumer redress system. This paper proposes key functions that the ODR platform should incorporate if it is to provide effective redress. This paper also argues that a successful ODR platform should include built-in incentives that encourage parties to: (i) participate in approved ADR processes; (ii) settle complaints with little or no intervention from neutral third parties; and (iii) ensure voluntary compliance with final outcomes.


CES Derecho ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-17
Author(s):  
Shamaise Peters

The evolution of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) as an augmentation from Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) may lead to an authentic paradigm shift in the way disputes are handled beyond the traditional court systems. To assess state of the art and convey awareness, this paper explores the regulatory landscape of the European Union (EU) using the United Kingdom and Estonia to illustrate the key advancements and shortcomings of the supranational strategy. It discusses the relationships between ADR capabilities and its productive use in ODR, the ODR deployment and adoption, and the consequences that may arise if dispute resolution technologies leapfrog. The paper also speaks of automation and suggests the need to build integrative models into Artificial Intelligence (AI) - powered ODR platforms. It is apparent that the early challenges in the development of the ADR culture in the EU are still unresolved, affecting the proper integration of ADR principles and ODR technologies. A more effective coupling could be expected to smooth digital trade interactions by increasing access to justice and consumer trust in the redress capacities of the Dispute Resolution System (DRS) as a whole. 


2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3-4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aron Balogh

The world of labor market and industrial relations is a field where conflicts and disputes are inevitable characteristics of the operation, regardless of the form of employment. Also, labor disputes appear both from an individual aspect, where the disputants are the employer and the employee, and in a collective respect, where the disputes take place between the employer(s) and the collective of the workers, typically represented by an employee organization (union) or a works council.  When a conflict or a dispute cannot be resolved through negotiation, the law offers dispute resolution mechanisms for the participants. Therefore, several legal mechanisms have been evolved in order to resolve disputes, starting from the classical form of litigation, where a court determines the end of the dispute by its judgement, and other alternative forms of dispute resolution, such as arbitration, mediation and conciliation, where the parties can reach a decision or a settlement outside of the judicial system of the state. EU Member States have introduced various legislative rules for labor dispute resolution covering all manner of individual and collective disputes. ADR schemes are also supported by the ILO, as the ILO Recommendation No. 92 (1951) suggests that voluntary conciliation should be made available to assist in the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes between employers and workers. Within the aegis of the European Union, several instruments have emerged with the attempt to elaborate the basic principles for the operation of ADR schemes in the context of cases between businesses and consumers. The Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes (the “ADR Directive”) and Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes (the “ODR Regulation”) ensured that consumers could turn to quality alternative dispute resolution entities for all kinds of contractual disputes with traders, and established an EU-wide online platform for consumer disputes that arise from online transactions with traders. Workplace mediation is widely and successfully utilized in the USA for solely employment purposes both in the private and the public sector. Also, in the United States is a “employment at will” doctrine prevails, that basically means – unless stipulated to the contrary by the parties – the employment relationship can be terminated with immediate effect without any justification (just cause), thus workers do not have access to legal remedies as in the EU where the statutory laws provide a broad protection against arbitrary or unjust termination. Mediation, however, provide an effective solution for employees and workers, even if situated outside the protective scope of labor law. While the role of customer/consumer ADR and mediation is increasing throughout the whole European Union, workplace and employment mediation still constitutes a “grey zone”.  In many of the legal instruments of the EU and also in several products of the national legislations, consumers and workers are treated with the same legal awareness, thus protective laws compensate their weaker position in their legal relationships, but as far as the utilization and access of dispute resolution schemes are concerned, a significant but not always reasonable differentiation can be detected. Also, while mediation is an available tool for individual employment matters, still has not been utilized considerably, and remained an instrument only to resolve mostly collective conflicts. Therefore, the aim of this paper to present various styles of mediations from a comparative perspective, to express their biggest advantages and to highlight the areas where mediation could be more suitable to use in the context of the individual disputes of the workplace.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 191-222
Author(s):  
Urša Jeretina

Abstract The consumer field is widespread and often encompasses different legal fields on a single market, especially when it comes to the field of consumer protection. In fact, the consumer mostly remains a weaker party in resolving consumer disputes, especially in administrative proceedings. Traditional court proceedings do not always offer the most cost-appropriate way of resolving consumer disputes, because the damage with legal costs is disproportionate, especially in Small Claims (20 EUR). In theory, Alternative Dispute Resolution (hereinafter: ADR) is considered more flexible, faster and cheaper for disputes between consumers and businesses. Insofar, Consumer ADR (hereinafter: CADR) is seen as a useful tool that helps consumers realize their right of access to justice. It is argued that CADR systems provide valuable information on the needs of disputants, while preserving confidentiality, increasing consumer satisfaction, equality and grater trust. While CADR is praised in theory as an added value, in practice it still remains unrecognizable and therefore is seen as an ineffective formalism in some EU countries. It seems that consumers and businesses lack awareness of the CADR schemes and their benefits, which have effects on the efficient use of CADR in different public and private institutions. The focus of this paper is on the field of Public Administrative Law, which, through different approaches of scientific analysis, combines the main administrative aspects of CADR systems in the EU. Special attention is given to different administrative barriers in the development of various CADR schemes, which cause the formation of administrative dilemmas in some Member states. The new EU legal regulation on Consumer ADR, Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) and EU Administrative law have set flexible rules and principles that would assure the quality of dispute resolution between EU entities with private or public interests. Similarities in proposed principles would lead us closer towards a common European Administrative Space. However, so far such EU initiatives have left many questions unanswered regarding the supervision and financing of CADR schemes, as well as the administrative issues about the purely internal harmonization of “administrative” CADR practices in Member States. An example of the substantial administrative dilemmas in CADR practices, mostly in the field of universal services, can be recognized in existing CADR systems in selected EU countries, e.g. Slovenia and Croatia. POINTS FOR PRACTICIONERS: Special attention is paid to the interplay between the CADR and public administration in the EU, which introduces us to various definitions of the concept of CADR in administrative proceedings. The theoretical view shows that the parties in consumer dispute resolution produce various legal relationships (C2B/G or G/B2C, B2B or G2B) of different legal natures (public or private interests), whether under administrative or civil law. Through comparative analysis of the concept of CADR in administrative proceedings among selected EU countries, divergences are shown in the legal framework of CADR procedures, existing CADR schemes and measuring efficiency tools for CADR procedures, which causes key administrative dilemmas in the main sectors of universal services. Despite divergences, some similarities appear between new principles of proposed new EU regulation, which could lead us closer to a common European Administration law. Unfortunately, the statistical analysis of existing CADR cases in selected Member states indicates an inefficient use of these pledged mechanisms. The given guidelines and improvements with one coherent CADR model contribute to the achievement and pursuit of the set goals towards an efficient European Administrative space.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document