3 See K Benyekhlef, E Amar and V Callipel, ‘ICT-Driven Strategies for Reforming
Access to Justice Mechanisms in Developing Countries’ (2015) 6 World Bank Legal
Review 325.
4 Esmée A Bickel, Marian A van Dijk and Ellen Giebels, Online Legal Advice and
Conflict Support: A Dutch Experience (Department of Psychology of Conflict, Risk &
Safety, University of Twente 2015) 5.
5 ibid 37.
6 Marko Loisa, ‘AIPA - The Project for the Digitalisation of the General Courts and
Prosecution Offices in Finland’ in Riikka Koulu and Jenni Hakkarainen (eds), Law and
Digitalisation: Rethinking Legal Services (University of Helsinki Legal Tech Lab
2018).
7 Ministry of Justice, ‘AIPA-hanke’ (26 October 2017) available at https://oikeus.fi/fi/
index/ajankohtaista/aipa-hanke.html.(accessed 18 June 2018).
8 Shannon Salter and Darin Thompson, ‘Public-Centred Civil Justice Redesign: A Case
Study of the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal’ 3 McGill Journal of Dispute
Resolution 113.
9 Jane Bailey, ‘Working Paper on Digitization of Court Processes in Canada’ (Laboratoire de Cyberjustice, Université de Montréal 2012) available at http://www.cyber
justice.ca/files/sites/102/WP002_CanadaDigitizationOfCourtProcesses20121023.
pdf (accessed 18 June 2018); see also, ‘Let’s Try Settling Traffic Ticket Disputes
Online instead of in Court: Editorial’ The Star (Toronto, Ontario, 9 March 2015)
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2015/03/09/lets-try-settling-trafficticket-disputes-online-instead-of-in-court-editorial.html (accessed 18 June 2018).
10 Jeff Larson and others, ‘How We Analyzed the COMPAS Recidivism Algorithm’
ProPublica (23 May 2016) https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-analyzedthe-compas-recidivism-algorithm (accessed 18 June 2018)
11 State of Wisconsin v Eric L Loomis [2016].
12 ‘ROSS Intelligence’ http://www.rossintelligence.com/ (accessed 18 June 2018).
13 European Commission, ‘Online Dispute Resolution. Reports and Statistics’ https://
ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/index.cfm?event=main.statistics.show (accessed
18 June 2018).
14 European Commission, ‘The European Single Market’, https://ec.europa.eu/
growth/single-market_en, (accessed 18 June 2018).
15 E Katsh, ‘ODR: A Look at History – Few Thoughts About the Present and Some
Speculation About the Future’ 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) 2.
16 See, Pompeu Casanovas and Giovanni Sartor, ‘Foreword: What LGTS Intends to Be’
in Giovanni Sartor and others (eds), Approaches to Legal Ontologies. Theories, Domains,
Methodologies (Springer International Publishing 2011).
17 Some scholars argue for a more comprehensive approach to conflict management. For
example, the American Professor Richard Reuben calls for a unitary theory of dispute
resolution by depicting how ADR schemes are often promoted by state action and
thus some constitutional due process standards apply. Instead of focusing on ADR as
privatisation of dispute resolution, Reuben promotes an expansion of our understanding of public civil justice. Richard C Reuben, ‘Constitutional Gravity: A Unitary
Theory of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Public Civil Justice’ (2000) 47 UCLA
Law Review 949. Within ODR theory, Lodder and Zeleznikow consider the adoption
of a joint approach, including both courtroom technology and private ADR-based
ODR, to be useful for future dispute resolution. See AR Lodder and J Zeleznikow,
Enhanced Dispute Resolution Through the Use of Information Technology (Cambridge
University Press 2010) 170. Also Cortés as well as Benyekhlef and Vermeys consider
court-annexed ODR the next logical step. See Benyekhlef and Vermeys, ‘ODR and the
Emerging crisis 81
Access to Justice Mechanisms in Developing Countries’ (2015) 6 World Bank Legal
Review 325.
4 Esmée A Bickel, Marian A van Dijk and Ellen Giebels, Online Legal Advice and
Conflict Support: A Dutch Experience (Department of Psychology of Conflict, Risk &
Safety, University of Twente 2015) 5.
5 ibid 37.
6 Marko Loisa, ‘AIPA - The Project for the Digitalisation of the General Courts and
Prosecution Offices in Finland’ in Riikka Koulu and Jenni Hakkarainen (eds), Law and
Digitalisation: Rethinking Legal Services (University of Helsinki Legal Tech Lab
2018).
7 Ministry of Justice, ‘AIPA-hanke’ (26 October 2017) available at https://oikeus.fi/fi/
index/ajankohtaista/aipa-hanke.html.(accessed 18 June 2018).
8 Shannon Salter and Darin Thompson, ‘Public-Centred Civil Justice Redesign: A Case
Study of the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal’ 3 McGill Journal of Dispute
Resolution 113.
9 Jane Bailey, ‘Working Paper on Digitization of Court Processes in Canada’ (Laboratoire de Cyberjustice, Université de Montréal 2012) available at http://www.cyber
justice.ca/files/sites/102/WP002_CanadaDigitizationOfCourtProcesses20121023.
pdf (accessed 18 June 2018); see also, ‘Let’s Try Settling Traffic Ticket Disputes
Online instead of in Court: Editorial’ The Star (Toronto, Ontario, 9 March 2015)
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2015/03/09/lets-try-settling-trafficticket-disputes-online-instead-of-in-court-editorial.html (accessed 18 June 2018).
10 Jeff Larson and others, ‘How We Analyzed the COMPAS Recidivism Algorithm’
ProPublica (23 May 2016) https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-analyzedthe-compas-recidivism-algorithm (accessed 18 June 2018)
11 State of Wisconsin v Eric L Loomis [2016].
12 ‘ROSS Intelligence’ http://www.rossintelligence.com/ (accessed 18 June 2018).
13 European Commission, ‘Online Dispute Resolution. Reports and Statistics’ https://
ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/index.cfm?event=main.statistics.show (accessed
18 June 2018).
14 European Commission, ‘The European Single Market’, https://ec.europa.eu/
growth/single-market_en, (accessed 18 June 2018).
15 E Katsh, ‘ODR: A Look at History – Few Thoughts About the Present and Some
Speculation About the Future’ 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) 2.
16 See, Pompeu Casanovas and Giovanni Sartor, ‘Foreword: What LGTS Intends to Be’
in Giovanni Sartor and others (eds), Approaches to Legal Ontologies. Theories, Domains,
Methodologies (Springer International Publishing 2011).
17 Some scholars argue for a more comprehensive approach to conflict management. For
example, the American Professor Richard Reuben calls for a unitary theory of dispute
resolution by depicting how ADR schemes are often promoted by state action and
thus some constitutional due process standards apply. Instead of focusing on ADR as
privatisation of dispute resolution, Reuben promotes an expansion of our understanding of public civil justice. Richard C Reuben, ‘Constitutional Gravity: A Unitary
Theory of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Public Civil Justice’ (2000) 47 UCLA
Law Review 949. Within ODR theory, Lodder and Zeleznikow consider the adoption
of a joint approach, including both courtroom technology and private ADR-based
ODR, to be useful for future dispute resolution. See AR Lodder and J Zeleznikow,
Enhanced Dispute Resolution Through the Use of Information Technology (Cambridge
University Press 2010) 170. Also Cortés as well as Benyekhlef and Vermeys consider
court-annexed ODR the next logical step. See Benyekhlef and Vermeys, ‘ODR and the
Emerging crisis 81