Reiling D, Technology for Justice: How Information Technology Can Support Judicial
Reform (Leiden University Press 2009)
‘Report of Working Group III (Online Dispute Resolution) on the Work of Its
Thirtieth Session (Vienna, 20-24 October 2014)’ (UNCITRAL, Working Group
III 2014) A/CN.9&827
‘Report of Working Group III (Online Dispute Resolution) on the Work of Its ThirtySecond Session (Vienna, 30 November-4 December 2015)’ (UNCITRAL, Working
Group III 2015) A/CN.9/862
‘Report of Working Group III (Online Dispute Resolution) on the Work of Its TwentySecond Session (Vienna, 13-17 December 2010)’ (UNCITRAL, Working Group III
2011) A/CN.9/716
‘Report of Working Group III (Online Dispute Resolution) on the Work of Its TwentySeventh Session (New York, 20-24 May 2013)’ (UNCITRAL, Working Group III
2013) A/CN.9/769
Resnik J, ‘Many Doors – Closing Doors – Alternative Dispute Resolution and Adjudication’ (1995) 10 Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 211
‘Resolution ResDH (2006) 60 Concerning the Judgment of the European Court of
Human Rights of 31 May 2001 (Final on 12 December 2001) in the Case of KS
against Finland.’
Reuben RC, ‘Constitutional Gravity: A Unitary Theory of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Public Civil Justice’ (2000) 47 UCLA Law Review 949
Rijavec V, Keresteš T and Ivanc T (eds), Dimensions of Evidence in European Civil
Procedure (Kluwer Law International 2016)
Rijgersberg RW, The State of Interdependence: Globalization, Internet and Constitutional Governance (TMC Asser Press 2010)
Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell T, ‘Terms of Use, Browse-Wrap Agreements and
Technological Architecture: Spotting Possible Sources of Unconscionability in the
Digital Era’ (2009) 2009 Contratto e Impresa/Europa 841
‘ROSS Intelligence’
Rudder CE, ‘Private Governance as Public Policy: A Paradigm Shift’ (2008) 70 Journal
of Politics 899
Rule C, Online Dispute Resolution for Business. B2B, E-Commerce, Consumer, Employment, Insurance, and Other Commercial Conflicts (Jossey-Bass 2002)
Salter S and Thompson D, ‘Public-Centred Civil Justice Redesign: A Case Study of the
British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal’ 3 McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution 113
Salyzyn A, ‘A New Lens: Reframing the Conversation about the Use of Video
Conferencing in Civil Trials in Ontario’ (2012) 50 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 429
Sander FE, ‘Varities of Dispute Processings’ in Leo A Levin and Russell Wheeler (eds),
The Pound Conference: Perspectives on Justice in the Future. Proceedings of the
National Conference on the Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration
of Justice (West Publishing 1979)
Schiavetta S, ‘The Relationship Between E-ADR and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights Pursuant to the Case Law of the European Court of Human
Rights’ (2004) 2004 Journal of Information, Law & Technology
———, ‘Electronic Alternative Dispute Resolution - Increasing Access to Justice Via
Procedural Protections’ (University of Oslo 2008)
Schmitz AJ, ‘’Drive-Thru’ Arbitration in the Digital Age: Empowering Consumers
Through Binding ODR’ 62 Baylor Law Review 178
Bibliography 207
Reform (Leiden University Press 2009)
‘Report of Working Group III (Online Dispute Resolution) on the Work of Its
Thirtieth Session (Vienna, 20-24 October 2014)’ (UNCITRAL, Working Group
III 2014) A/CN.9&827
‘Report of Working Group III (Online Dispute Resolution) on the Work of Its ThirtySecond Session (Vienna, 30 November-4 December 2015)’ (UNCITRAL, Working
Group III 2015) A/CN.9/862
‘Report of Working Group III (Online Dispute Resolution) on the Work of Its TwentySecond Session (Vienna, 13-17 December 2010)’ (UNCITRAL, Working Group III
2011) A/CN.9/716
‘Report of Working Group III (Online Dispute Resolution) on the Work of Its TwentySeventh Session (New York, 20-24 May 2013)’ (UNCITRAL, Working Group III
2013) A/CN.9/769
Resnik J, ‘Many Doors – Closing Doors – Alternative Dispute Resolution and Adjudication’ (1995) 10 Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 211
‘Resolution ResDH (2006) 60 Concerning the Judgment of the European Court of
Human Rights of 31 May 2001 (Final on 12 December 2001) in the Case of KS
against Finland.’
Reuben RC, ‘Constitutional Gravity: A Unitary Theory of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Public Civil Justice’ (2000) 47 UCLA Law Review 949
Rijavec V, Keresteš T and Ivanc T (eds), Dimensions of Evidence in European Civil
Procedure (Kluwer Law International 2016)
Rijgersberg RW, The State of Interdependence: Globalization, Internet and Constitutional Governance (TMC Asser Press 2010)
Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell T, ‘Terms of Use, Browse-Wrap Agreements and
Technological Architecture: Spotting Possible Sources of Unconscionability in the
Digital Era’ (2009) 2009 Contratto e Impresa/Europa 841
‘ROSS Intelligence’
Rudder CE, ‘Private Governance as Public Policy: A Paradigm Shift’ (2008) 70 Journal
of Politics 899
Rule C, Online Dispute Resolution for Business. B2B, E-Commerce, Consumer, Employment, Insurance, and Other Commercial Conflicts (Jossey-Bass 2002)
Salter S and Thompson D, ‘Public-Centred Civil Justice Redesign: A Case Study of the
British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal’ 3 McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution 113
Salyzyn A, ‘A New Lens: Reframing the Conversation about the Use of Video
Conferencing in Civil Trials in Ontario’ (2012) 50 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 429
Sander FE, ‘Varities of Dispute Processings’ in Leo A Levin and Russell Wheeler (eds),
The Pound Conference: Perspectives on Justice in the Future. Proceedings of the
National Conference on the Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration
of Justice (West Publishing 1979)
Schiavetta S, ‘The Relationship Between E-ADR and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights Pursuant to the Case Law of the European Court of Human
Rights’ (2004) 2004 Journal of Information, Law & Technology
———, ‘Electronic Alternative Dispute Resolution - Increasing Access to Justice Via
Procedural Protections’ (University of Oslo 2008)
Schmitz AJ, ‘’Drive-Thru’ Arbitration in the Digital Age: Empowering Consumers
Through Binding ODR’ 62 Baylor Law Review 178
Bibliography 207