2 Understanding law and technology
The introduction discussed different interfaces between dispute resolution and
digital technologies and presented examples of how the use of technology is
increasing private enforcement. In this chapter, we pave the way for a more
nuanced approach to technology-enabled private enforcement by depicting law as
a system of legitimising coercion that interacts with the social uses of information
and communication technologies (ICT). This understanding of law by social
systems theory perceives law as a social subsystem of society, whereas the ongoing technological change is interpreted as the emergence of yet another social
system, namely the social system of the use of ICT.
This chapter explains the ontological and methodological choices adopted in
this study. This examination is divided into two parts, the first of which focuses
on understanding law and the second on understanding technology. Using social
systems theory as a starting point, the chapter describes how law renews itself
autonomously while simultaneously remaining open to influences from other
systems, including the system of ICT use.
2.1 Understanding law as legitimised coercion
This study examines how dispute resolution technology – and particularly the
shifts towards increasing privatisation it creates in enforcement – affect law.
Almost by definition any change from ways things have traditionally been done
forces us to decide how we should react to it and why. This means asking
whether there are good reasons for preserving the status quo or whether we
should embrace the change. In this study, technological innovation alters the
organisation of enforcement by enabling new forms of private coercion that
bypass and thus challenge the state’s perceived monopoly on violence. This
change gives rise to the question of how dispute resolution and enforcement is,
and should be, organised, by whom, and why. In short, how our current model
of state-governed enforcement is justified and whether increasingly privatised
enforcement could be justified to the same extent?
In order to accomplish the objective, we need to define the key concepts
involved. First, we need to understand what law and technology are, in order to
ask how technological innovation in the form of increased privatisation of
The introduction discussed different interfaces between dispute resolution and
digital technologies and presented examples of how the use of technology is
increasing private enforcement. In this chapter, we pave the way for a more
nuanced approach to technology-enabled private enforcement by depicting law as
a system of legitimising coercion that interacts with the social uses of information
and communication technologies (ICT). This understanding of law by social
systems theory perceives law as a social subsystem of society, whereas the ongoing technological change is interpreted as the emergence of yet another social
system, namely the social system of the use of ICT.
This chapter explains the ontological and methodological choices adopted in
this study. This examination is divided into two parts, the first of which focuses
on understanding law and the second on understanding technology. Using social
systems theory as a starting point, the chapter describes how law renews itself
autonomously while simultaneously remaining open to influences from other
systems, including the system of ICT use.
2.1 Understanding law as legitimised coercion
This study examines how dispute resolution technology – and particularly the
shifts towards increasing privatisation it creates in enforcement – affect law.
Almost by definition any change from ways things have traditionally been done
forces us to decide how we should react to it and why. This means asking
whether there are good reasons for preserving the status quo or whether we
should embrace the change. In this study, technological innovation alters the
organisation of enforcement by enabling new forms of private coercion that
bypass and thus challenge the state’s perceived monopoly on violence. This
change gives rise to the question of how dispute resolution and enforcement is,
and should be, organised, by whom, and why. In short, how our current model
of state-governed enforcement is justified and whether increasingly privatised
enforcement could be justified to the same extent?
In order to accomplish the objective, we need to define the key concepts
involved. First, we need to understand what law and technology are, in order to
ask how technological innovation in the form of increased privatisation of