Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence Review

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 211–240 | Cite as

Online dispute resolution: an artificial intelligence perspective

  • Davide Carneiro
  • Paulo NovaisEmail author
  • Francisco Andrade
  • John Zeleznikow
  • José Neves
Article

Abstract

Litigation in court is still the main dispute resolution mode. However, given the amount and characteristics of the new disputes, mostly arising out of electronic contracting, courts are becoming slower and outdated. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) recently emerged as a set of tools and techniques, supported by technology, aimed at facilitating conflict resolution. In this paper we present a critical evaluation on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) based techniques in ODR. In order to fulfill this goal, we analyze a set of commercial providers (in this case twenty four) and some research projects (in this circumstance six). Supported by the results so far achieved, a new approach to deal with the problem of ODR is proposed, in which we take on some of the problems identified in the current state of the art in linking ODR and AI.

Keywords

Alternative dispute resolution Online dispute resolution Artificial intelligence 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aamodt A, Plaza E (1994) Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches.. AI Commun 7(1): 39–59Google Scholar
  2. Aleven V (1997) Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples. PhD thesis, University of PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashley KD, Aleven V (1991) Toward an intelligent tutoring system for teaching law students to argue with cases. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and Law. ACM, New York, pp 42–52Google Scholar
  4. Ashley KD (1991) Modeling legal arguments: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashley KD (2004) Case-based models of legal reasoning in a civil law context. International Congress of Comparative Cultures and Legal Systems of the Instituto de Investigaciones JurídicasGoogle Scholar
  6. Beer M, d’Inverno M, Jennings NR, Luck M, Preist C, Schroeder M (1999) Negotiation in multi-agent systems. Knowl Eng Rev 14(3): 285–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bellucci E, Zeleznikow J (2001) Representations of decision-making support in negotiation. J Decis Syst 10(3–4): 449–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benjamins RV, Casanovas P, Breuker J, Gangemi A (2005) Law and the semantic web: legal ontologies, methodologies, legal information retrieval, and applications. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  9. Bennett SC (2002) Arbitration: essential concepts. ALM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonczek RH, Holsapple CW, Whinston AB (1981) Foundations of decision support systems. Academic Press, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Brachman R, Levesque H (2004) Knowledge representation and reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, MassachusettszbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Brams SJ, Taylor AD (1996) Fair division: from cake cutting to dispute resolution. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown H, Marriott A (1999) ADR principles and practice. Sweet and Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Bruninghaus S, Ashley KD (2003) Predicting the outcome of case-based legal arguments. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ICAIL, pp 234–242Google Scholar
  15. Buchanan B, Headrick T (1970) Some speculation about artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. Stanf Law Rev 23(1): 40–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cáceres E (2008) EXPERTIUS: a mexican judicial decision-support system in the field of family law. In: Francesconi EBE, Sartor G, Tiscornia D (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 78–87Google Scholar
  17. Corcho O, Fernández-lópez M, Gómez-pérez A, López A (2005) Building legal ontologies with METHONTOLOGY and WebODE. In: Law and the semantic web: legal ontologies, methodologies, legal information retrieval, and applications. Springer, pp 142–157Google Scholar
  18. De Vries BR, Leenes R, Zeleznikow J (2005) Fundamentals of providing negotiation support online: the need for developing BATNAs. In: Proceedings of the second international ODR workshop. Wolf Legal, Tilburg, pp 59–67Google Scholar
  19. Forsyth R (1986) The anatomy of expert systems. In: Yazdani M (eds) Artificial intelligence: principles and applications, ch. 8. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 186–187Google Scholar
  20. Greinke A (1994) Legal expert systems—a humanistic critique of mechanical legal inference. Murdoch Univ Electron J Law 1(4)Google Scholar
  21. Gruber TR (1993) A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowl Acquis 5(2): 199–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guasco MP, Robinson PR (2007) Principles of negotiation. Entrepreneur Press, Newburgh, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Harmon P, King D (1985) Expert systems: artificial intelligence in business. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Hayes-Roth F, Waterman DA, Lenat DB (1983) Building expert systems. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  25. Jackson P (1990) Introduction to expert systems. Addison-Wesley, BostonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Katsh E, Rifkin J, Gaitenby A (1999) E-commerce, E-disputes, and E-dispute resolution: in the shadow of eBay law. Ohio State J Disput Resolut 15: 705Google Scholar
  27. Katsh E, Rifkin J (2001) Online dispute resolution—resolving conflicts in cyberspace. Jossey-Bass Wiley Company, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  28. Kolodner JL (1992) An introduction to case-based reasoning. Artif Intell Rev 6(1): 3–34. doi: 10.1007/BF00155578 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kolodner JL (1993) Case-based reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Landes WM, Posner RA (1976) Legal precedent: a theoretical and empirical analysis. J Law Econ 19: 249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lodder A, Thiessen E (2003) The role of artificial intelligence in online dispute resolution. In workshop on online dispute resolution at the international conference on artificial intelligence and law. Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
  32. Lodder AR (2006) The third party and beyond. An analysis of the different parties, in particular the fifth, involved in online dispute resolution. Inf Commun Technol Law 15(2): 143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lodder AR, Zeleznikow J (2010) Enhanced dispute resolution through the use of information technology. Cambridge Unversity Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  34. Matthijssen L (1995) An intelligent interface for legal databases. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law. ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Matthijssen L (1999) Interfacing between lawyers and computers: an architecture for knowledge-based interfaces to legal databases (law and electronic commerce). Kluwer Law International, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  36. Notini J (2005) Effective alternatives analysis in mediation: “BATNA/WATNA” analysis demystified. Available at http://www.mediate.com/articles/notini1.cfm . Accessed in 05/2005
  37. Olson GM, Malone TW, Smith JB (eds) (2001) Coordination theory and collaboration technology. Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  38. Oskamp A, Tragter M, Groendijk C (1995) AI and law: what about the future?. Artif Intell Law 3(3): 209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Parunak HVD (1997) Go to the ant: engineering principles from natural multi-agent systems. Ann Oper Res 75: 69–102CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Peruginelli G, Chiti G (2002) Artificial intelligence in alternative dispute resolution. In: Proceedings of the workshop on the law of electronic agents–LEA 2002Google Scholar
  41. Popple J (1991) Legal expert systems: the inadequacy of a rule-based approach. Australian Comput J 23(1): 11–16Google Scholar
  42. Popple J (1996) A pragmatic legal expert system. Applied legal philosophy series. Ashgate, DartmouthGoogle Scholar
  43. Rahwan, I, Simari, G (eds) (2009) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  44. Raiffa H (2002) The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, Harvard, USAGoogle Scholar
  45. Salton G, Wong A, Yang CS (1975) A vector space model for automatic indexing. Commun ACM 18(11): 613–620CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Searle JR (1980) Minds, brains and programs. Behav Brain Sci 3(3): 417–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sowa JF (2000) Knowledge representation: logical, philosophical, and computational foundations. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. Span G (1993) LITES, an intelligent tutoring system for legal problem solving in the domain of Dutch civil law. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and Law. ACM, New York, pp 76–81Google Scholar
  49. Steinbach, M, Tan, PN, Kumar, V (eds) (2005) Introduction to data mining. Pearson Addison Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  50. Susskind R (1987) Expert systems in law: a jurisprudential inquiry. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  51. Sycara K (1993) Machine learning for intelligent support of conflict resolution. Decis Support Syst 10: 121–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thiessen EM (1993) ICANS: An interactive computer-assisted multi-party negotiation support system. PhD Dissertation, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  53. Thiessen EM, Fraser K (2003) Mobile ODR with SmartSettle. In: Proceedings of the UNECE forum on ODRGoogle Scholar
  54. Turban E (1993) Decision support and expert systems: management support systems. Prentice Hall, NJzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. Turing AM (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59: 433–460MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tyler C (2005) 115 and counting: the state of ODR 2004. In: Conley Tyler M, Katsh E, Choi D (eds) Proceedings of the third annual forum on online dispute resolution. International conflict resolution centre, University of Melbourne in collaboration with the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the PacificGoogle Scholar
  57. Velasquez JD (1997) Modeling emotions and other motivations in synthetic agents. In: Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence. Wiley, pp 10–15Google Scholar
  58. Visser PRS, Bench-Capon TJM (1998) A comparison of four ontologies for the design of legal knowledge systems. Artif Intell Law 6(1): 27–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Waterman DA, Peterson M (1980) Rule-based models of legal expertise. In: The proceedings of the first national conference on artificial intelligence. Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  60. Watson I (1997) Applying case-based reasoning: techniques for enterprise systems. Morgan Kaufmann, CAzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. Walton PRE, McKersie RB (1991) A behavioral theory of labor negotiations. Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar
  62. Wooldridge M (2002) An introduction to multiagent systems. WileyGoogle Scholar
  63. Wooldridge M, Jennings NR (1995) Intelligent agents: theory and practice. Knowl Eng Rev 10(2): 115–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zeleznikow J, Hunter D (1994) Building intelligent legal information systems: representation and reasoning in law. Kluwer Computer/Law Series, Deventer-Boston, pp 230–237Google Scholar
  65. Zeleznikow J, Stranieri A (1995) The split-up system: integrating neural networks and rule-based reasoning in the legal domain. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. pp 185–194Google Scholar
  66. Zeleznikow J, Bellucci E (2003) Family_Winner: integrating game theory and heuristics to provide negotiation support. In: Proceedings of sixteenth international conference on legal knowledge based system, pp 21–30Google Scholar
  67. Zeleznikow J, Bellucci E (2004) Building negotiation decision support systems by integrating game theory and heuristics. In: Proceedings of the IFIP international conference on decision support systemsGoogle Scholar
  68. Zweigert K, Kötz H (1998) An introduction to comparative law, 3rd edn. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davide Carneiro
    • 1
  • Paulo Novais
    • 1
    Email author
  • Francisco Andrade
    • 2
  • John Zeleznikow
    • 3
  • José Neves
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversidade do MinhoBragaPortugal
  2. 2.Law SchoolUniversidade do MinhoBragaPortugal
  3. 3.School of Management and Information SystemsVictoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations