Abstract
In Chapter 7, I question how we construct ideas of justice in ADR and ODR. The notion of an informal justice system is understood through the role the EU plays and the form of justice that ADR and ODR provide. Alongside this discussion, the concept of access to justice is revisited. I argue that there is no tangible system of informal justice in the EU. I explore how ADR as a model of justice can be meaningful and accepted throughout the EU if it is defined by its national implementation. I conclude that at present people are still negotiating the legitimacy of ADR/ODR and that the acceptance of ADR into everyday practice is far from visible.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Alternative Dispute Resolution and Online Dispute Resolution for EU consumers: Questions and Answers. Accessed on 18 November 2017. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-994_en.htm.
- 2.
TFEU. Accessed 15 November 2017. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012E288&from=EN.
- 3.
For example, the ADR directive leaves leeway to have an ADR body within a business provoking the question of impartiality. In this instance, France was a driving force for maintaining this option as it has a long-standing history of in-house mediateurs.
- 4.
The scope of the ODR legislation also includes business-to-consumer (b2-c) disputes, unlike the ADR directive that deals only with consumer-to-business (c2b) disputes. The platform has four steps to resolve a dispute: (1) submission of complaint online; (2) agreement on ADR entity; (3) case-handling by ADR entity; and (4) outcome and closure.
- 5.
Here, I would like to draw attention to a development occurring in parallel with ADR. It concerns a rapidly emerging and changing form of online justice: ODR. To be clear, I am not referring to the EU ODR platform, which is intended to function as a distribution portal for signposting existing ADR bodies. The ODR platform referred to here does not resolve disputes.
- 6.
I am also not talking here about court-annexed meditation, or other forms of ADR that typically happen in person (face-to-face).
- 7.
The scope of this volume does not allow to go into this point in more detail, however, with Chris Gill, I will be looking at this particular issue in a new project on Access to Justice, Alternative Dispute Resolution, and consumer Vulnerability in the European Energy Sector (2017–2020): ESRC grant reference ES/P010237/1. See https://esrcjustenergy.wordpress.com.
- 8.
See also ‘The case for online courts’ at UCL Judicial Institute, London, 17 February 2017. https://www.laws.ucl.ac.uk/event/the-case-for-online-courts/.
- 9.
In particular, the private and organizational ombudsmen that are not established as part of the administrative justice system.
- 10.
Social justice is generally equated with the notion of equality or equal opportunity in society. It can be seen as access to justice in this context.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Creutzfeldt, N. (2018). A European Informal Justice System?. In: Ombudsmen and ADR. Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78807-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78807-4_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78806-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78807-4
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)