Daniel Rainey (eds), Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice. A Treatise on
Technology and Dispute Resolution (Eleven International Publishing 2012) 25.
46 Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler and Thomas Schultz, Online Dispute Resolution: Challenges for Contemporary Justice (Kluwer Law International 2004); 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).
47 Hörnle (n 7) 217–219.
48 Cortés (n 7) 191–206.
49 Susan Schiavetta, ‘Electronic Alternative Dispute Resolution - Increasing Access to
Justice Via Procedural Protections’ (University of Oslo 2008); See also Susan Schiavetta, ‘The Relationship Between E-ADR and Article 6 of the European Convention
of Human Rights Pursuant to the Caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights’
(2004) 2004 Journal of Information, Law & Technology, available at https://www2.
warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2004_1/schiavetta/ (accessed 16 June 2018).
50 Tapio Puurunen, ‘Dispute Resolution in International Electronic Commerce’ (University
of Helsinki 2005).
51 Cortés (n 7) 82, 204.
52 Thornburg (n 26) 106.
53 Kaufmann-Kohler and Schultz (n 46) 223–233.
54 ibid 168.
55 Andreas Fischer-Lescano and Gunther Teubner, Regime-Kollisionen. Zur Fragmentierung
Des Globalen Rechts (Suhrkamp Verlag 2006); Gunther Teubner and Andreas FischerLescano, ‘Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of
Global Law’ (2004) 25 Michigan Journal of International Law 999.
56 Gralf-Peter Calliess, ‘Reflexive Transnational Law: The Privatisation of Civil Law and
the Civilisation of Private Law’ (2002) 23 Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 185; GralfPeter Calliess, ‘Online Dispute Resolution: Consumer Redress in a Global Market
Place’ (2006) 7 German Law Journal 647; Gralf-Peter Calliess, Jörg Freiling and
Moritz Renner, ‘Law, the State, and Private Ordering: Evolutionary Explanations of
Institutional Change’ (2008) 9 German Law Journal 397; Gralf-Peter Calliess and
Moritz Renner, ‘Between Law and Social Norms: The Evolution of Global Governance’ (2009) 22 Ratio Juris 260.
57 Gélinas and others (n 33) 105.
58 For regulating cyberspace and sovereignty, see e.g. Lastowka (n 1) 226; Lawrence Lessig,
Code Version 2.0 (Basic Books 2006) 27, available at http://codev2.cc/download
+remix/ (accessed 16 June 2018). It should be noted, however, that the problematic
issue of governance of virtual worlds and the need to find other means of governance than
national legal systems and multilateral Conventions originate from the same emergence of
technology and online activity as the challenge of justifying increasingly privatised
enforcement. Technological change creates new unique challenges for most normative
systems where it is applied. In terms of procedural law, the examination is focused on civil
and commercial cases, in which parties are given more extensive contractual freedom. In
the Finnish context this means that only dispositive civil cases are examined and noncontentious cases that are initiated according to Ch.8 of the Finnish Code of Judicial
Procedure (4/1734) are excluded. Thus, cases where the parties can find redress only
through the public court system (e.g. family cases and criminal cases) will not be discussed.
26 Theoretical implications of dispute resolution technology
Technology and Dispute Resolution (Eleven International Publishing 2012) 25.
46 Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler and Thomas Schultz, Online Dispute Resolution: Challenges for Contemporary Justice (Kluwer Law International 2004); 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).
47 Hörnle (n 7) 217–219.
48 Cortés (n 7) 191–206.
49 Susan Schiavetta, ‘Electronic Alternative Dispute Resolution - Increasing Access to
Justice Via Procedural Protections’ (University of Oslo 2008); See also Susan Schiavetta, ‘The Relationship Between E-ADR and Article 6 of the European Convention
of Human Rights Pursuant to the Caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights’
(2004) 2004 Journal of Information, Law & Technology, available at https://www2.
warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2004_1/schiavetta/ (accessed 16 June 2018).
50 Tapio Puurunen, ‘Dispute Resolution in International Electronic Commerce’ (University
of Helsinki 2005).
51 Cortés (n 7) 82, 204.
52 Thornburg (n 26) 106.
53 Kaufmann-Kohler and Schultz (n 46) 223–233.
54 ibid 168.
55 Andreas Fischer-Lescano and Gunther Teubner, Regime-Kollisionen. Zur Fragmentierung
Des Globalen Rechts (Suhrkamp Verlag 2006); Gunther Teubner and Andreas FischerLescano, ‘Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of
Global Law’ (2004) 25 Michigan Journal of International Law 999.
56 Gralf-Peter Calliess, ‘Reflexive Transnational Law: The Privatisation of Civil Law and
the Civilisation of Private Law’ (2002) 23 Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 185; GralfPeter Calliess, ‘Online Dispute Resolution: Consumer Redress in a Global Market
Place’ (2006) 7 German Law Journal 647; Gralf-Peter Calliess, Jörg Freiling and
Moritz Renner, ‘Law, the State, and Private Ordering: Evolutionary Explanations of
Institutional Change’ (2008) 9 German Law Journal 397; Gralf-Peter Calliess and
Moritz Renner, ‘Between Law and Social Norms: The Evolution of Global Governance’ (2009) 22 Ratio Juris 260.
57 Gélinas and others (n 33) 105.
58 For regulating cyberspace and sovereignty, see e.g. Lastowka (n 1) 226; Lawrence Lessig,
Code Version 2.0 (Basic Books 2006) 27, available at http://codev2.cc/download
+remix/ (accessed 16 June 2018). It should be noted, however, that the problematic
issue of governance of virtual worlds and the need to find other means of governance than
national legal systems and multilateral Conventions originate from the same emergence of
technology and online activity as the challenge of justifying increasingly privatised
enforcement. Technological change creates new unique challenges for most normative
systems where it is applied. In terms of procedural law, the examination is focused on civil
and commercial cases, in which parties are given more extensive contractual freedom. In
the Finnish context this means that only dispositive civil cases are examined and noncontentious cases that are initiated according to Ch.8 of the Finnish Code of Judicial
Procedure (4/1734) are excluded. Thus, cases where the parties can find redress only
through the public court system (e.g. family cases and criminal cases) will not be discussed.
26 Theoretical implications of dispute resolution technology