Suchergebnisse

If an individual or company is defamed online, they have two options to resolve the dispute, absent a technical solution. They can complain to an intermediary or launch a civil action. Both are deficient for a variety of reasons. Civil litigation is often unsuitable given the nature of online communications (across different platforms, jurisdictions, involving multiple parties, and spread with ease), the length and cost of litigation, and the ineffectiveness of traditional remedies. Intermediary dispute resolution processes can sometimes be effective, but lack industry standards and due process, place intermediaries in pseudo-judicial roles, and depend on the changeable commitments of management. At its core, the problem is the high-volume, low-value, and legally complex matrix of online defamation disputes. In this article, I ask: Are there alternative ways to resolve disputes that would improve access to justice and resolution for complainants? The key to resolving some of these problems, I argue, is revisiting the basic issue of what complainants want in the resolution of a defamation dispute and then connecting this with innovations in dispute resolution. Ultimately, I recommend the creation of an online tribunal as a complement to traditional court action. In coming to this conclusion, I explore various issues and proposals for reform, including the challenges wrought by online defamation, what defamation claimants want when they sue, the role of technology in resolving such disputes, streamlined court processes, online dispute resolution, and the regulatory role of intermediaries.

This article situates the action in ADR theory by viewing it as a hybrid process that draws on both the command and consensus portions of a rational dispute resolution continuum. Class action legislation does this in a number of ways, the most important being the scope it gives to courts to approve or disapprove class settlements that have been privately negotiated by defence and class counsel. The rationale is to protect the interests of absent class members and ensure that the legislative goals of class actions-access to justice, judicial economy and behaviour modification-are well served. Class actions can thereby render moot some of the private/public debate over settlement by taking disputes out of the purely private realm and placing them in the quasi-public realm. However, this places courts in an unaccustomed role and calls for the need for more empirical research on settlement quality to help judges evaluate negotiated outcomes. A recently completed study by the Rand Institute for Civil Justice is suggested as a model for fulfilling this research need in Canada. The article's focus is comparative and Canadian, drawing on legislation and case law in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia.

Annotation Hartley examines the introduction of alternative dispute resolution (e.g., mediation) in a court system in Georgia. Attorneys supported the introduction of mediation to consolidate control of the legal process and to add it to their practices. They also used mediation to settle some cases more quickly. Mediation gave judges flexibility to weed out minor cases and process others more quickly. However, these changes were not so great as to put a dent in settlement or trial rates, and Hartley concludes that while changes in court procedures have effects, researchers need to examine the behavior of actors in depth in order to discover these effects.

This book provides an insight into commercial relations between large economies and Small States, the benefits of regional integration, the role of Small States as financial centres as well as B2B and State to State dispute resolution involving Small States. Several contributions allow the reader to familiarise themselves with the general subject matter; others scrutinise the particular issues Small States face when confronted with an international dispute and discuss new and innovative solutions. These solutions range from inventive ideas to help economic growth to appropriate mechanisms of dispute resolution including inter-State dispute resolution and specific areas of arbitration such as tax arbitration. Researchers, policy advisors and practitioners will find a wealth of insights, information and practical ideas in this book

Intro -- Foreword -- Preface -- The Motivation for This Book -- What the Book Shares -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- Abbreviations -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- Chapter 1: The Evolution of Family Dispute Resolution and the Need for Online Family Dispute Resolution in Australia -- 1.1 Introduction -- 1.2 Historical Development of Alternative Dispute Resolution -- 1.2.1 Global Adoption of ADR in Family Law -- 1.3 Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Australian Family Law -- 1.4 The 2006 Reforms to the Australian Family Law Act -- 1.5 Delivery Options for Family Alternative Dispute Resolution -- 1.6 A Brief Introduction to the Potential of an Australian Online Family Dispute Resolution System -- References -- Chapter 2: Artificial Intelligence and Online Family Dispute Resolution -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Some Early Artificial Intelligence Systems That Provide Dispute Resolution Advice -- 2.3 Towards an Intelligent Online Family Dispute Resolution System -- 2.3.1 DEUS -- 2.3.2 Split-Up and Family Dispute Resolution -- 2.3.3 Asset Divider and Game Theoretic Approaches to Family Dispute Resolution -- References -- Chapter 3: Current Research and Practice in Online Family Dispute Resolution -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 Method -- 3.2.1 Search Strategy -- 3.2.2 Search Results -- 3.3 Results -- 3.4 Discussion -- 3.5 ODR-Related Services and Programs -- 3.5.1 Method -- 3.5.2 Results -- References -- Chapter 4: Case Study: The Development and Evaluation of Relationship Australia Queensland´s Online Family Dispute Resolution ... -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 Developing OFDR Capabilities -- 4.2.1 System Design and Features -- 4.3 OFDR Services and Processes -- 4.4 Testing and Training -- 4.5 Evaluation -- 4.5.1 Time 1: Pre Go-Live Testing -- 4.5.1.1 Organisational Context -- 4.5.1.2 Job Analysis -- 4.5.1.3 Individual-Level Considerations.