62 ‘Online Dispute Resolution for Cross-Border Electronic Commerce Transactions.
Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution’, 30 November 2015, A/CN.9/WG.
III/XXXII/CRP.3, available at http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/work
inggroups/wg_3/crp3-e.pdf (accessed 25 June 2018).
63 Henkin (n 14) 353.
64 M Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument.
Reissue with a New Epilogue (Cambridge University Press 2005) 235–236.
65 Jussi Syrjänen, Oikeudellisen ratkaisun perusteista (Suomalainen lakimiesyhdistys
2008) 43.
66 See Teubner, ‘Global Bukowina: Legal Pluralism in the World Society’ in Günther
Teubner (ed), Global Law Without a State (Dartmouth 1997)) 3.
67 It is another question whether ODR procedures might provide more effective relief
than litigation and in which cases would this apply. However, such examination is not
possible in this scope.
68 ‘What the power of technology does is to extraordinarily amplify the rends rooted in
social structure and institutions: oppressive societies may be more so with the new
surveillance tools, while democratic, participatory societies may enhance their openness
and representativeness by further distributing political power with the power of technology. Thus, the direct impact of new information technologies on power and the state is
an empirical matter, on which the record is mixed. But, a deeper, more fundamental
trend is at work, actually undermining the nation-state’s power: the increasing diffusion
of both surveillance capacity and the potential for violence outside the institutions of the
state and beyond the borders of the nation.’ See, Castells (n 15) 341.
69 ibid.
70 Fundamentally, sovereignty as justification is constitutive: in the end, it draws its force
from democracy. Tuori examines the legitimacy of legislation through Habermas’
theory of the Rechtstaat. According to Tuori’s view, political process where norms
are formed and the legal sphere where they are interpreted are intertwined and the
background for their internal connection is the legitimacy of law which law then
relayed to the political system. See Tuori (n 36) 94–.
71 Susan W Brenner, Cyberthreats and the Decline of the Nation-State (Routledge 2014).
72 ibid 9–23.
73 ibid 30–31.
74 ibid 32–88.
75 Online Dispute Resolution Advisory Group, https://www.judiciary.uk/reviews/
online-dispute-resolution/ (accessed 25 June 2018).
76 K Benyekhlef and N Vermeys, ‘ODR and the Courts’ in Online Dispute Resolution:
Theory and Practice. A Treatise on Technology and Dispute Resolution. (Eleven International Publishing 2012).
77 Mutanen (n 11) 389.
140 Three quests for justification
Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution’, 30 November 2015, A/CN.9/WG.
III/XXXII/CRP.3, available at http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/work
inggroups/wg_3/crp3-e.pdf (accessed 25 June 2018).
63 Henkin (n 14) 353.
64 M Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument.
Reissue with a New Epilogue (Cambridge University Press 2005) 235–236.
65 Jussi Syrjänen, Oikeudellisen ratkaisun perusteista (Suomalainen lakimiesyhdistys
2008) 43.
66 See Teubner, ‘Global Bukowina: Legal Pluralism in the World Society’ in Günther
Teubner (ed), Global Law Without a State (Dartmouth 1997)) 3.
67 It is another question whether ODR procedures might provide more effective relief
than litigation and in which cases would this apply. However, such examination is not
possible in this scope.
68 ‘What the power of technology does is to extraordinarily amplify the rends rooted in
social structure and institutions: oppressive societies may be more so with the new
surveillance tools, while democratic, participatory societies may enhance their openness
and representativeness by further distributing political power with the power of technology. Thus, the direct impact of new information technologies on power and the state is
an empirical matter, on which the record is mixed. But, a deeper, more fundamental
trend is at work, actually undermining the nation-state’s power: the increasing diffusion
of both surveillance capacity and the potential for violence outside the institutions of the
state and beyond the borders of the nation.’ See, Castells (n 15) 341.
69 ibid.
70 Fundamentally, sovereignty as justification is constitutive: in the end, it draws its force
from democracy. Tuori examines the legitimacy of legislation through Habermas’
theory of the Rechtstaat. According to Tuori’s view, political process where norms
are formed and the legal sphere where they are interpreted are intertwined and the
background for their internal connection is the legitimacy of law which law then
relayed to the political system. See Tuori (n 36) 94–.
71 Susan W Brenner, Cyberthreats and the Decline of the Nation-State (Routledge 2014).
72 ibid 9–23.
73 ibid 30–31.
74 ibid 32–88.
75 Online Dispute Resolution Advisory Group, https://www.judiciary.uk/reviews/
online-dispute-resolution/ (accessed 25 June 2018).
76 K Benyekhlef and N Vermeys, ‘ODR and the Courts’ in Online Dispute Resolution:
Theory and Practice. A Treatise on Technology and Dispute Resolution. (Eleven International Publishing 2012).
77 Mutanen (n 11) 389.
140 Three quests for justification