for F2F are continuously developed. Cortés accentuates the role of technology,
especially in the absence of physical meeting place.
65 Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler
and Thomas Schultz place the discussions on similarities and lack of F2F in a
broader context. According to their analysis, two existing views diverge on the
issue of ODR’s uniqueness. One of these views maintains that ODR is only online
ADR and should replicate F2F communication as closely as possible, whereas the
other solution emphasises the new opportunities provided by technology and
consider ODR as a sui generis type of dispute resolution.
66
Professor Hörnle accentuates the ‘transformative power of technology’ in her
examination of different technologies used in online mediation and arbitration.
67
She recognises six characteristics of this transformative power: 1) overcoming
spatial and temporal distances through communication technologies; 2) empowering communication through visual aids and access to legal sources; 3) saving
human labour cost through artificial intelligence, such as automated translation
software, negotiation systems, and online forms; 4) the psychological effect of
technology, i.e. both the negative and positive consequences of the lack of F2F
communication; 5) overcoming the jurisdictional problems of cross-border disputes through the extra-judicial nature of ODR; and 6) faster information
processing enabled by technology.
68 Similarly to this, Professor Richard Susskind
has identified ODR as one of ‘disruptive technologies’ that fundamentally
challenge the existing status quo.
69
In summary, the disruptive qualities of dispute resolution technology have been
widely acknowledged but the specifics of this disruption in general are seldom
addressed. ODR technology is often addressed as supplementary, as the neutral
third’s assisting tools, which might result from the relative lack of successful
applications, as legal technology has only recently started gaining momentum.
However, the transformative power of technology and the role of technology as a
set of new tools provide very different, even contradictory perspectives into dispute
resolution technology. If we are to look for the implications of dispute resolution
technology, we cannot focus on how well technological tools perform their task,
but instead we need to evaluate how they reflect disruption of the ritualistic
features of dispute resolution processes.
70
2.4.2 Different approaches to technology
Dispute resolution technology includes a multitude of different tools, the implications of which can only be properly assessed contextually. For example,
videoconferencing and document cameras have relatively few disruptive ramifications in comparison with algorithmic decision-making tools. Before discussing
such examples in further detail, it is necessary to ask what is meant by technology,
to demystify the disruptive force of dispute resolution technology by asking what
exactly causes a given technology to become disruptive in the first place. It is
important to bear in mind that in 1995 Bower and Christensen used the term
‘disruptive technology’ to describe shifting power balances in markets resulting
from innovation.
71 In this meaning the specifics of technological innovation are
Understanding law and technology 43
especially in the absence of physical meeting place.
65 Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler
and Thomas Schultz place the discussions on similarities and lack of F2F in a
broader context. According to their analysis, two existing views diverge on the
issue of ODR’s uniqueness. One of these views maintains that ODR is only online
ADR and should replicate F2F communication as closely as possible, whereas the
other solution emphasises the new opportunities provided by technology and
consider ODR as a sui generis type of dispute resolution.
66
Professor Hörnle accentuates the ‘transformative power of technology’ in her
examination of different technologies used in online mediation and arbitration.
67
She recognises six characteristics of this transformative power: 1) overcoming
spatial and temporal distances through communication technologies; 2) empowering communication through visual aids and access to legal sources; 3) saving
human labour cost through artificial intelligence, such as automated translation
software, negotiation systems, and online forms; 4) the psychological effect of
technology, i.e. both the negative and positive consequences of the lack of F2F
communication; 5) overcoming the jurisdictional problems of cross-border disputes through the extra-judicial nature of ODR; and 6) faster information
processing enabled by technology.
68 Similarly to this, Professor Richard Susskind
has identified ODR as one of ‘disruptive technologies’ that fundamentally
challenge the existing status quo.
69
In summary, the disruptive qualities of dispute resolution technology have been
widely acknowledged but the specifics of this disruption in general are seldom
addressed. ODR technology is often addressed as supplementary, as the neutral
third’s assisting tools, which might result from the relative lack of successful
applications, as legal technology has only recently started gaining momentum.
However, the transformative power of technology and the role of technology as a
set of new tools provide very different, even contradictory perspectives into dispute
resolution technology. If we are to look for the implications of dispute resolution
technology, we cannot focus on how well technological tools perform their task,
but instead we need to evaluate how they reflect disruption of the ritualistic
features of dispute resolution processes.
70
2.4.2 Different approaches to technology
Dispute resolution technology includes a multitude of different tools, the implications of which can only be properly assessed contextually. For example,
videoconferencing and document cameras have relatively few disruptive ramifications in comparison with algorithmic decision-making tools. Before discussing
such examples in further detail, it is necessary to ask what is meant by technology,
to demystify the disruptive force of dispute resolution technology by asking what
exactly causes a given technology to become disruptive in the first place. It is
important to bear in mind that in 1995 Bower and Christensen used the term
‘disruptive technology’ to describe shifting power balances in markets resulting
from innovation.
71 In this meaning the specifics of technological innovation are
Understanding law and technology 43