Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 297–321 | Cite as

GearBi: Towards an online arbitration environment based on the design principles simplicity, awareness, orientation, and timeliness

Article

Abstract

Arbitration is a preferred method for the resolution of international business disputes. As of yet, most publications on online arbitration deal with legal issues. In this paper, we present an Online arbitration environment that we believe facilitates the participants in a meaningful way. Our assumption is that an ODR service should be easy to use (convenient), and at the same time provide meaningful support. More specifically we have paid attention to four criteria that we believe are important, viz. simplicity, awareness, orientation and timeliness. The online arbitration service is called GearBi.

Keywords

online arbitration dispute resolution usability engineering systems design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blanchard R. E. (1993). Situation awareness–transition from theory to practice. In: Proc. of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society: 32nd Annual Meeting. Santa Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Monica, CA, pp. 39–42.Google Scholar
  2. Carroll J. M., Neale D. C., Isenhour P. L., Rosson M. B., McCrickard D. S. (2003), Notification and Awareness: Synchronizing task-oriented collaborative activity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 58(5):605–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chi, E. H. P. and Pirolli, J. Pitkow (2000). The scent of a site: a system for analyzing and predicting information scent, usage, and usability of a Web site, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 161–168, April 01–06, 2000, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  4. Dufner, D., Kwon, O. and Hadidi, R. (1999). Web-CCAT: A collaborative learning environment for geographically distributed information technology students and working professionals. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 1, No.␣12, March 1999.Google Scholar
  5. E-Arbitration-T (2002). E-Arbitration-T Project: An Alternative Dispute Resolution for SMEs. World Arbitration Newsletter, Number 2, June 2002. Available at http://www. e-global.es/arbitration
  6. Endsley M. R. (1995). Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems. Human Factors 37(1):32–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grover, A. (2002). More Security is Needed For Online ADR Applications, 20 Alternatives to High Cost Litig. 135Google Scholar
  8. Gutwin, C. and Greenberg S. (1998). Effects of awareness support on groupware usability, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp.␣511–518, April 18–23, 1998, Los Angeles, California, United States.Google Scholar
  9. Hill, R. (1999), Online arbitration: Issues and Solutions, Arbitration International, April 1999 issue, <http://www.umass.edu/dispute/hill.htm>
  10. Hunt, A. and Thomas, D. (2000). The Pragmatic Programmer. Addison–Wesley.Google Scholar
  11. Katsh E., Rifkin J. (2001) Online Dispute Resolution: Conflict Resolution in Cyberspace. Jossey-Bass 2001, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaufmann-Kohler G., Schultz T.(2004) Online Dispute Resolution: Challenges for Contemporary Justice. Kluwer Law International, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  13. Lodder, A. R. and Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (2004). ‘Online Arbitration Services at a Turning Point: An Appraisal’, ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, Special Supplement ‘Using Technology to Resolve Business Dispute, pp. 35–42.Google Scholar
  14. Lodder, A. R. and Huygen, P. E. M. (2001). ‘eADR: A Simple Tool to Structure the Information Exchange Between Parties in Online Alternative Dispute Resolution’. In Verheij, B. et al. (eds.), JURIX 2001, IOS Press, pp. 117–129.Google Scholar
  15. Lodder A. R. (1999). DiaLaw. On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Lodder, A. R. (2004). ‘Information Security & Online Dispute Resolution’, Proceedings of Symposium Putting ICT into dispute resolution practice, London, September 6, 2004.Google Scholar
  17. Nakano R. (2001) Web Content Management: A Collaborative Approach. Addison–Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  18. Online Arbitration: What Technology can do for Arbitral Institutions. Introductory document for a January 20th 2003 one-day seminar organized by the E-Arbitration-T consortium.Google Scholar
  19. Oskamp, A., Lodder, A. R. and Apistola, M. (eds.) (2004). IT Support of the Judiciary: Australia, Singapore, Venezuela, Norway, The Netherlands and Italy, TMC Asser Press/Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Philippe, M. (2004). ‘NetCase: A New ICC Arbitration Facility’, ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, Special Supplement ‘Using Technology to Resolve Business Dispute’, pp. 53–58.Google Scholar
  21. Preece J., Rogers Y., Sharp H. (2002) Interaction Design: Beyond Human–Computer Interaction. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  22. Rule C. (2002) Online Dispute Resolution for Businesses. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco CaGoogle Scholar
  23. Schäfer, E. (2003). ‘Videoconferencing in arbitration’, ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring, pp. 35–45Google Scholar
  24. Schäfer, E. (2004). ‘IT in Arbitration: The Work of the ICC Task force’, ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, Special Supplement ‘Using Technology to Resolve Business Dispute, pp. 59–62.Google Scholar
  25. The Standards, Operating Standards for Using IT in International Arbitration (2004). ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, Special Supplement ‘Using Technology to Resolve Business Dispute, pp. 75–98.Google Scholar
  26. Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (1993). Studies in Defeasible Argumentation. PhD thesis, Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  27. Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (2003). ‘A Simple Scheme to Structure and Process the Information of Parties in Online Forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution’, ADR Online Monthly, October 2003.Google Scholar
  28. Wahab M. (2004) The Global Information Society and Online Dispute Resolution: A New Dawn for Dispute Resolution. Journal of International Arbitration 21(2):143–168Google Scholar
  29. Yu H., Motassem N (2003) Can Online Arbitration Exist Within the Traditional Arbitration Framework. Journal of International Arbitration 20(5):455–473Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Information and Computing Sciences (ICS)Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Centre of Electronic Dispute Resolution (CEDIRE), Computer/Law InstituteVrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations