11 ‘Online Dispute Resolution for Cross-Border Electronic Commerce Transactions.
Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution’ (UNCITRAL, Working Group III
2016) A/CN.9/888, available at http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/odr/
V1700382_English_Technical_Notes_on_ODR.pdf (accessed 19 June 2018).
12 Tania Sourdin and Chinthaka Liyanage, ‘The Promise and Reality of Online Dispute
Resolution in Australia’ in Mohamed S Abdel Wahab, Ethan Katsh and Daniel
Rainey (eds), Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice. A Treatise on Technology
and Dispute Resolution (Eleven International Publishing 2012) 471–472; Poblet and
Ross’ empirical findings on the status of ODR shed light to the current situation. See
closer, Marta Poblet and Graham Ross, ‘ODR in Europe’ in Mohamed S Abdel Wahab,
Ethan Katsh and Daniel Rainey (eds), Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice. A
Treatise on Technology and Dispute Resolution. (Eleven International Publishing 2012).
13 E.g. Mohamed S Abdel Wahab, Ethan Katsh and Daniel Rainey (eds), ‘Introduction’,
Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice: A Treatise on Technology and Dispute
Resolution (Eleven International Publishing 2012) 2.
14 E.g., Benyekhlef and Vermeys state that ‘true ODR … is having trouble to say the
least’. See Karim Benyekhlef and Nicolas Vermeys, ‘The End of ODR’ (Slaw Canada’s
online legal magazine, 10 January 2015), available at http://www.slaw.ca/2015/10/
01/the-end-of-odr/ (accessed 15 June 2018).
15 In his article, Markus Hartung makes the important distinction between general purpose
office tech and legal tech in the narrow sense, which are considered to refer to
technologies that replace tasks previously or currently conducted by lawyers. However,
as Hartung points out, such distinctions are not always easy to make and academic
debates about their exact meaning are, at least sometimes, pointless. In any case,
applications such as online dispute resolution, blockchains and artificial intelligence are
discussed in the articles of this important pioneering compilation, emphasising the
inclusivity of legal tech terminology. Markus Hartung, ‘Gedanken Zu Legal Tech Und
Digitalisierung’ in Markus Hartung, Micha-Manuel Bues and Gernot Halbleib (eds),
Legal Tech. Die Digitalisierung des Rechtmarkts (Verlag CH Beck 2018).
16 In their 2014 article, McGinnis and Pearce discuss the impact machine intelligence will
have on the legal profession and the practice of law, arguing that data-driven legal
technologies will increase process automation and contribute to the disintegration of
lawyers’ monopoly on legal service production. John O McGinnis and Russell G
Pearce, ‘The Great Disruption: How Machine Intelligence Will Transform the Role
of Lawyers in the Delivery of Legal Services’ (2014) 82 Fordham Law Review 3041.
17 Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April
2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights 2004.
18 Avinash K Dixit, Lawlessness and Economics: Alternative Modes of Governance (Princeton
University Press 2004) 1–4.
19 As Cortés points out, ‘consumer protection in e-commerce is meaningless unless
effective enforcement mechanisms are provided’. Cortés (n 7) 35.
20 The complexity, cost and time of cross-border court proceedings might prevent
consumers, especially, from pursuing their rights, which has been acknowledged by
the EU. These difficulties of public redress mechanisms are partly the reason behind
the EU’s regulatory project on ODR. The objective is to provide more efficient means
for redress through non-binding ADR and the ODR platform. See ‘Executive Summary of the Impact Assessment on Directive on Consumer ADR and Regulation on
Consumer ODR’ (European Commission 2011) SEC (2011) 1409 final 1; See also
Immaculada Barral-Viñals, ‘Consumer Trust and Business Benefits with ODR’ in
Colin Adamson (ed), Online Dispute Resolution: An International Business Approach
to Solving Consumer Complaints (Author House 2015).
21 The success of the New York Convention has also been emphasised within the EU.
Because of this success and worries from stakeholders, provisions regarding arbitration
22 Theoretical implications of dispute resolution technology
Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution’ (UNCITRAL, Working Group III
2016) A/CN.9/888, available at http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/odr/
V1700382_English_Technical_Notes_on_ODR.pdf (accessed 19 June 2018).
12 Tania Sourdin and Chinthaka Liyanage, ‘The Promise and Reality of Online Dispute
Resolution in Australia’ in Mohamed S Abdel Wahab, Ethan Katsh and Daniel
Rainey (eds), Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice. A Treatise on Technology
and Dispute Resolution (Eleven International Publishing 2012) 471–472; Poblet and
Ross’ empirical findings on the status of ODR shed light to the current situation. See
closer, Marta Poblet and Graham Ross, ‘ODR in Europe’ in Mohamed S Abdel Wahab,
Ethan Katsh and Daniel Rainey (eds), Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice. A
Treatise on Technology and Dispute Resolution. (Eleven International Publishing 2012).
13 E.g. Mohamed S Abdel Wahab, Ethan Katsh and Daniel Rainey (eds), ‘Introduction’,
Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice: A Treatise on Technology and Dispute
Resolution (Eleven International Publishing 2012) 2.
14 E.g., Benyekhlef and Vermeys state that ‘true ODR … is having trouble to say the
least’. See Karim Benyekhlef and Nicolas Vermeys, ‘The End of ODR’ (Slaw Canada’s
online legal magazine, 10 January 2015), available at http://www.slaw.ca/2015/10/
01/the-end-of-odr/ (accessed 15 June 2018).
15 In his article, Markus Hartung makes the important distinction between general purpose
office tech and legal tech in the narrow sense, which are considered to refer to
technologies that replace tasks previously or currently conducted by lawyers. However,
as Hartung points out, such distinctions are not always easy to make and academic
debates about their exact meaning are, at least sometimes, pointless. In any case,
applications such as online dispute resolution, blockchains and artificial intelligence are
discussed in the articles of this important pioneering compilation, emphasising the
inclusivity of legal tech terminology. Markus Hartung, ‘Gedanken Zu Legal Tech Und
Digitalisierung’ in Markus Hartung, Micha-Manuel Bues and Gernot Halbleib (eds),
Legal Tech. Die Digitalisierung des Rechtmarkts (Verlag CH Beck 2018).
16 In their 2014 article, McGinnis and Pearce discuss the impact machine intelligence will
have on the legal profession and the practice of law, arguing that data-driven legal
technologies will increase process automation and contribute to the disintegration of
lawyers’ monopoly on legal service production. John O McGinnis and Russell G
Pearce, ‘The Great Disruption: How Machine Intelligence Will Transform the Role
of Lawyers in the Delivery of Legal Services’ (2014) 82 Fordham Law Review 3041.
17 Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April
2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights 2004.
18 Avinash K Dixit, Lawlessness and Economics: Alternative Modes of Governance (Princeton
University Press 2004) 1–4.
19 As Cortés points out, ‘consumer protection in e-commerce is meaningless unless
effective enforcement mechanisms are provided’. Cortés (n 7) 35.
20 The complexity, cost and time of cross-border court proceedings might prevent
consumers, especially, from pursuing their rights, which has been acknowledged by
the EU. These difficulties of public redress mechanisms are partly the reason behind
the EU’s regulatory project on ODR. The objective is to provide more efficient means
for redress through non-binding ADR and the ODR platform. See ‘Executive Summary of the Impact Assessment on Directive on Consumer ADR and Regulation on
Consumer ODR’ (European Commission 2011) SEC (2011) 1409 final 1; See also
Immaculada Barral-Viñals, ‘Consumer Trust and Business Benefits with ODR’ in
Colin Adamson (ed), Online Dispute Resolution: An International Business Approach
to Solving Consumer Complaints (Author House 2015).
21 The success of the New York Convention has also been emphasised within the EU.
Because of this success and worries from stakeholders, provisions regarding arbitration
22 Theoretical implications of dispute resolution technology