Courts’, Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice. A Treatise on Technology and
Dispute Resolution (Eleven International Publishing 2012) 295; P. Cortés, Online
Dispute Resolution for Consumers in the European Union (Routledge 2011) 223. As
ADR and now also ODR is often advocated by the courts we can should ask whether
the doctrinal distinction has been able to reflect the complexity and overlap between
different processes.
18 J Hörnle, Cross-Border Internet Dispute Resolution (Cambridge University Press
2009) 217.
19 For more in-depth analysis see e.g., Riikka Koulu, ‘Domstolsrättegångar och alternativ
tvistelösning – innebär användning av nutida teknologi i tvistelösning en upplösning av
separata paradigm?’ (2013) 2013 Retfaerd: Nordisk juridisk tidskrift 60.
20 Robert A Wilson, ‘Computer Retrieval of Case Law’ [1962] Southwestern Law
Journal 409.
21 EM Katsh and J Rifkin, Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace
(Jossey Bass 2001) 45–70.
22 See e.g., Koulu, ‘Blockchains and Online Dispute Resolution: Smart Contracts as an
Alternative to Enforcement’ (2016) 13 SCRIPTed 40; Pietro Ortolani, ‘Self-Enforcing
Online Dispute Resolution: Lessons from Bitcoin’ [2015] Oxford Journal of Legal
Studies 1.
23 On the universality of conflict management triad, see Aubert, ‘Competition and
Dissensus: Two Types of Conflict and Conflict Resolution’(1963) 7 Journal of
Conflict Resolution 26.
24 Katsh and Rifkin (n 21) 15–16.
25 ibid 21–22.
26 M Lister and others, New Media: A Critical Introduction (2nd edn, Routledge 2009)
88–89.
27 ‘. . . the unregulability of the Internet was a product of design: that the failure to
identify who someone is, what they’re doing, and where they’re from meant that it
would be particularly difficult to enforce rules upon individuals using the network.’ L
Lessig, Code Version 2.0 (Basic Books 2006) available at http://codev2.cc/download
+remix/ (accessed 19 June 2018) 59.
28 Lodder and Zeleznikow (n 17) 79; see also AE Vilalta, ‘ODR and E-Commerce’ 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) 114.
29 Thomas Schultz, ‘Private Legal Systems: What Cyberspace Might Teach Legal Theorists’
(2008) 10 Yale Journal of Law and Technology 151, 166.
30 Teubner has also approached themes of nation-state and transnational law from the
viewpoint of new types of corporate actors formulated as networks. Teubner describes
such systems as ‘hybrid law’. See Günther Teubner, ‘Hybrid Laws: Constitutionalizing
Private Governance Networks’ in Robert Kagan, Martin Krygier and Kenneth Winston
(eds), Legality and Community: On the Intellectual Legacy of Philip Selznick (Berkeley
Public Policy Press 2002) 312. Teubner claims that organisational theory has been
unable to form a workable understanding of private hybrid networks which are
obscuring the limits of formal institutions. Instead of describing these hybrid networks
as contacts or highlighting communal norms embedded in transactions, Teubner
introduces a clear distinction between networks and hybrids, concluding with the
demand for private law to develop constitutional rules for a new private regime beyond
contract and association.
31 See Teubner, ‘Global Bukowina: Legal Pluralism in the World Society’ in Günther
Teubner (ed), Global Law Without a State (Dartmouth 1997) 7.
32 ibid 16.
33 ibid 5.
82 Theoretical implications of dispute resolution technology
Dispute Resolution (Eleven International Publishing 2012) 295; P. Cortés, Online
Dispute Resolution for Consumers in the European Union (Routledge 2011) 223. As
ADR and now also ODR is often advocated by the courts we can should ask whether
the doctrinal distinction has been able to reflect the complexity and overlap between
different processes.
18 J Hörnle, Cross-Border Internet Dispute Resolution (Cambridge University Press
2009) 217.
19 For more in-depth analysis see e.g., Riikka Koulu, ‘Domstolsrättegångar och alternativ
tvistelösning – innebär användning av nutida teknologi i tvistelösning en upplösning av
separata paradigm?’ (2013) 2013 Retfaerd: Nordisk juridisk tidskrift 60.
20 Robert A Wilson, ‘Computer Retrieval of Case Law’ [1962] Southwestern Law
Journal 409.
21 EM Katsh and J Rifkin, Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace
(Jossey Bass 2001) 45–70.
22 See e.g., Koulu, ‘Blockchains and Online Dispute Resolution: Smart Contracts as an
Alternative to Enforcement’ (2016) 13 SCRIPTed 40; Pietro Ortolani, ‘Self-Enforcing
Online Dispute Resolution: Lessons from Bitcoin’ [2015] Oxford Journal of Legal
Studies 1.
23 On the universality of conflict management triad, see Aubert, ‘Competition and
Dissensus: Two Types of Conflict and Conflict Resolution’(1963) 7 Journal of
Conflict Resolution 26.
24 Katsh and Rifkin (n 21) 15–16.
25 ibid 21–22.
26 M Lister and others, New Media: A Critical Introduction (2nd edn, Routledge 2009)
88–89.
27 ‘. . . the unregulability of the Internet was a product of design: that the failure to
identify who someone is, what they’re doing, and where they’re from meant that it
would be particularly difficult to enforce rules upon individuals using the network.’ L
Lessig, Code Version 2.0 (Basic Books 2006) available at http://codev2.cc/download
+remix/ (accessed 19 June 2018) 59.
28 Lodder and Zeleznikow (n 17) 79; see also AE Vilalta, ‘ODR and E-Commerce’ 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) 114.
29 Thomas Schultz, ‘Private Legal Systems: What Cyberspace Might Teach Legal Theorists’
(2008) 10 Yale Journal of Law and Technology 151, 166.
30 Teubner has also approached themes of nation-state and transnational law from the
viewpoint of new types of corporate actors formulated as networks. Teubner describes
such systems as ‘hybrid law’. See Günther Teubner, ‘Hybrid Laws: Constitutionalizing
Private Governance Networks’ in Robert Kagan, Martin Krygier and Kenneth Winston
(eds), Legality and Community: On the Intellectual Legacy of Philip Selznick (Berkeley
Public Policy Press 2002) 312. Teubner claims that organisational theory has been
unable to form a workable understanding of private hybrid networks which are
obscuring the limits of formal institutions. Instead of describing these hybrid networks
as contacts or highlighting communal norms embedded in transactions, Teubner
introduces a clear distinction between networks and hybrids, concluding with the
demand for private law to develop constitutional rules for a new private regime beyond
contract and association.
31 See Teubner, ‘Global Bukowina: Legal Pluralism in the World Society’ in Günther
Teubner (ed), Global Law Without a State (Dartmouth 1997) 7.
32 ibid 16.
33 ibid 5.
82 Theoretical implications of dispute resolution technology