scholarly journals Złożenie skargi przez konsumenta za pośrednictwem ODR (Online Dispute Resolution) – internetowego systemu rozstrzygania sporów

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-194
Author(s):  
Anna Rogacka-Łukasik
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
The Other ◽  
Online Dispute Resolution ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Technical Innovations ◽  
Modern Form ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution), as a non-judicial resolution of disputes, is a wide range of mechanisms that aim to put an end to a conflict without the need of conducting a trial before the court. On the other hand, the modern form of ADR is ODR (Online Dispute Resolution) – an online dispute resolution system that is the expression of the newest means of communication and technical innovations in order to help in non-judicial dispute resolving. The goal of this publication is to present the ODR platform and, in particular, to describe the process of filing a complaint by the consumer by means of it.

scholarly journals PRINSIP KEMANFAATAN PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA ELEKTRONIK SEBAGAI ALTERNATIF PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA TRANSAKSI PERDAGANGAN ELEKTRONIK

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 67
Author(s):  
Ayudya Rizqi Rachmawati ◽  
Rahmadi Indra Tektona ◽  
Dyah Ochtorina Susanti
Keyword(s):  
Electronic Commerce ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Online Dispute Resolution ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

The research is motivated by the need for eff ective, effi cient and low-cost dispute resolution in dispute arising from electronic commerce transactions. That is because the implementation of electronic commerce transaction ha the characteristic of speed and ease, then it must also be accommodated in the process of settling the dispute. This study aims to analyze, and provide a description of the form of application principle of utilities in ODR as an alternative dispute resolution of electronic commerce user. The result of this normative legal research which uses statute and conseptual approach provide an explaination that online dispute resolution as an e-commerce alternative dispute resolution system trial has been in accordance with the principle of utilities, because to fulfi ll an element that there are in principle utilities in the analysis on law and economic.

scholarly journals The evolution of alternative dispute resolution and online dispute resolution in the European Un

CES Derecho ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-17
Author(s):  
Shamaise Peters
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Consumer Trust ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Online Dispute Resolution ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Dispute Resolution System ◽  
The Eu

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. 

scholarly journals TOWARDS AN EFFECTIVE KENYAN LABOUR DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM: A COMPARISON WITH THE SOUTH AFRICAN LABOUR DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM

Obiter ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johana K Gathongo ◽  
Adriaan van der Walt
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Labour Dispute ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Labour Standards ◽  
International Labour Standards ◽  
The Government ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

There have been notable concerns in the current dual dispute resolution system in Kenya. The problems include protracted referral timeframes for dismissal disputes, non-regulation of maximum timeframes for the agreed extension after 30 days conciliation period has lapsed, the absence of statutory timeframes for appointing a conciliator/ commissioner and arbitration process under both the Labour Relations Act, 2007 and the Employment Act, 2007. Likewise, the responsibility of resolving statutory labour disputes in Kenya is still heavily under the control of the government through the Ministry of Labour. There is still no independent statutory dispute resolution institution as envisaged by the Labour Relations Act, 2007. As a result, the Kenyan dispute resolution system has been criticised for lack of impartiality leading to the increase in strikes and lockouts.This article examines the effectiveness of the Kenyan labour dispute resolution system. The article evaluates the provisions of international labour standards relevant to labour dispute resolution. The article illuminates and describes the bottlenecks in the current Kenyan system and argues that it does not adequately respond to the needs of parties in terms of the international labour conventions. A comparative approach with South Africa is adopted to see how independent institutions, such as the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, Bargaining Councils and specialised Labour Courts can lead to effective dispute resolution. In view of that, a wide range of remedial intervention intended to address the gaps and flaws highlighted in the study are made. Systematically, the article provides suggestions and possible solutions for a better institutional framework and processes to address them.

Competing constraints in alternative dispute resolution

1996 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 79-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Calvin D. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Rapid Growth ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Preliminary Analysis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Mediation Process ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Community Justice ◽  
Justice Program ◽  
The One

Despite rapid growth in the provision of alternative dispute resolution services by governments, little sociological attention has been paid to the emerging form these services take. In this paper I offer a preliminary analysis of mediations conducted by the Community Justice Program in Queensland. I focus on the interactional management of two competing constraints on the talk. On the one hand mediation services must provide an accountably standardised and recognisable process. This creates the need for formalisation of the mediation process. On the other hand, because of philosophical commitments to disputant control over the dispute and its outcome, Community Justice Program mediations must be conducted in such a way as to display this commitment to disputant control and authority in the proceedings. This creates a conflicting need for displays of informality. This paper focuses on some strategies which appear to be designed to achieve this mix of formality and informality in Community Justice Program mediations.

From alternative dispute resolution to pluralist dispute resolution: towards an integrated dispute-resolution mechanism in China

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-180
Author(s):  
Zhiqiong June Wang ◽  
Jianfu Chen
Keyword(s):  
Social Control ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Careful Examination ◽  
National Strategy ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Future Direction ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

AbstractSince 1978, we have observed the steady development of institutions, mechanisms and processes of dispute resolution in China. In the last ten years or so, we then noted frequent issuance of new rules and measures as well as revision of existing laws, the promotion of mediation as the preferred method for resolving disputes and, more recently, the promotion of an integrated dispute-resolution system as a national strategy for comprehensive social control (as well as for resolving disputes), in the name of reforming and strengthening ‘the Mechanism for Pluralist Dispute Resolution’. Careful examination of these latest developments suggests that fundamental changes are taking place that may potentially alter the course of the development of the Chinese dispute-resolution system. These developments are the focus of this paper with an aim to ascertain the nature of the developments and their future direction or directions.

Politicising law or legalising politics? Justiciability and the “political question” on the examples from international justice

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 45-58
Author(s):  
Mikhail Gal'perin
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Political ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
Political Question ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

Author is pointing out the problem of interaction between the political nature of the dispute concerned and the competence of international tribunals. To assess such legal interaction the “justiciability” concept is used. This concept, well known from the US and the UK jurisprudence, allow national courts, for the purpose of stable state administration, to exercise “prudency” in invalidating executive acts, guarantee the operation of the principle of separation of powers, preserve the legitimacy of an unelected judicial branch allowing it, at the same time, to participate in a dialogue with the other branches and the public. Despite the fact that the concept initially appeared in the national law, it became equally important for the international dispute resolution system. Using some remarkable recent cases from the supreme national and international tribunals’ practice author concludes that international tribunals are increasingly expanding their own competence to cover issues traditionally reserved for national authorities and/or lying exclusively in the diplomatic realm. The “evolutive” interpretation of provisions of international law adapted by some international tribunals (and other international organs) contradicts their literal meaning as originally intended by the states, is becoming a persistent trend. This entails a natural reaction of national legal systems represented by higher courts: on the one hand, they avoid direct confrontation through maintaining the classical paradigm of respect to international law, and, on the other hand, draw “border lines” designed to limit the jurisdiction of international courts and arbitration tribunals. The politicization of international arbitration is a question that should not be embarrassingly swept under the carpet or considered marginal. Otherwise, there is a risk that it would destroy the international dispute resolution system and, as a consequence, undermine the mechanisms of international law. At the same time, no peaceful resolution of the conflict of jurisdictions is possible without understanding the problem in the legal plane, without joint determination of which cases are justiciable in the international process, and which questions should be considered “political”. Author made the attempt to give a legal definition of the “political question” in the international procedure and formulate legal tests which could help international judges and arbitrators to define, whether they are ready to and whether they should consider the particular case, related to the “political question”, on the merits (and not to recognise it inadmissible on procedural grounds).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document