Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Online dispute resolution: an artificial intelligence perspective

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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and characteristics of the new disputes, mostly arising out of electronic contracting, courts are becoming slower and outdated.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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aamodt A, Plaza E (1994) Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches.. AI Commun 7(1): 39–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleven V (1997) Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh

  • 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 42–52

  • Ashley KD (1991) Modeling legal arguments: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Jurídicas

  • Beer M, d’Inverno M, Jennings NR, Luck M, Preist C, Schroeder M (1999) Negotiation in multi-agent systems. Knowl Eng Rev 14(3): 285–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellucci E, Zeleznikow J (2001) Representations of decision-making support in negotiation. J Decis Syst 10(3–4): 449–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamins RV, Casanovas P, Breuker J, Gangemi A (2005) Law and the semantic web: legal ontologies, methodologies, legal information retrieval, and applications. Springer

  • Bennett SC (2002) Arbitration: essential concepts. ALM, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonczek RH, Holsapple CW, Whinston AB (1981) Foundations of decision support systems. Academic Press, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Brachman R, Levesque H (2004) Knowledge representation and reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, Massachusetts

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Brams SJ, Taylor AD (1996) Fair division: from cake cutting to dispute resolution. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Brown H, Marriott A (1999) ADR principles and practice. Sweet and Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 234–242

  • Buchanan B, Headrick T (1970) Some speculation about artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. Stanf Law Rev 23(1): 40–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 78–87

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 142–157

  • 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 59–67

  • Forsyth R (1986) The anatomy of expert systems. In: Yazdani M (eds) Artificial intelligence: principles and applications, ch. 8. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 186–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Greinke A (1994) Legal expert systems—a humanistic critique of mechanical legal inference. Murdoch Univ Electron J Law 1(4)

  • Gruber TR (1993) A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowl Acquis 5(2): 199–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guasco MP, Robinson PR (2007) Principles of negotiation. Entrepreneur Press, Newburgh, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmon P, King D (1985) Expert systems: artificial intelligence in business. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes-Roth F, Waterman DA, Lenat DB (1983) Building expert systems. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson P (1990) Introduction to expert systems. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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: 705

    Google Scholar 

  • Katsh E, Rifkin J (2001) Online dispute resolution—resolving conflicts in cyberspace. Jossey-Bass Wiley Company, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner JL (1992) An introduction to case-based reasoning. Artif Intell Rev 6(1): 3–34. doi:10.1007/BF00155578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner JL (1993) Case-based reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Landes WM, Posner RA (1976) Legal precedent: a theoretical and empirical analysis. J Law Econ 19: 249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, UK

  • 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): 143–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodder AR, Zeleznikow J (2010) Enhanced dispute resolution through the use of information technology. Cambridge Unversity Press, Cambridge, UK

  • Matthijssen L (1995) An intelligent interface for legal databases. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law. ACM, New York

  • 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 Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Olson GM, Malone TW, Smith JB (eds) (2001) Coordination theory and collaboration technology. Erlbaum, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Oskamp A, Tragter M, Groendijk C (1995) AI and law: what about the future?. Artif Intell Law 3(3): 209–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parunak HVD (1997) Go to the ant: engineering principles from natural multi-agent systems. Ann Oper Res 75: 69–102

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Peruginelli G, Chiti G (2002) Artificial intelligence in alternative dispute resolution. In: Proceedings of the workshop on the law of electronic agents–LEA 2002

  • Popple J (1991) Legal expert systems: the inadequacy of a rule-based approach. Australian Comput J 23(1): 11–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Popple J (1996) A pragmatic legal expert system. Applied legal philosophy series. Ashgate, Dartmouth

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahwan, I, Simari, G (eds) (2009) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa H (2002) The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, Harvard, USA

  • Salton G, Wong A, Yang CS (1975) A vector space model for automatic indexing. Commun ACM 18(11): 613–620

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Searle JR (1980) Minds, brains and programs. Behav Brain Sci 3(3): 417–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sowa JF (2000) Knowledge representation: logical, philosophical, and computational foundations. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 76–81

  • Steinbach, M, Tan, PN, Kumar, V (eds) (2005) Introduction to data mining. Pearson Addison Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind R (1987) Expert systems in law: a jurisprudential inquiry. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sycara K (1993) Machine learning for intelligent support of conflict resolution. Decis Support Syst 10: 121–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiessen EM (1993) ICANS: An interactive computer-assisted multi-party negotiation support system. PhD Dissertation, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

  • Thiessen EM, Fraser K (2003) Mobile ODR with SmartSettle. In: Proceedings of the UNECE forum on ODR

  • Turban E (1993) Decision support and expert systems: management support systems. Prentice Hall, NJ

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Turing AM (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59: 433–460

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Pacific

  • Velasquez JD (1997) Modeling emotions and other motivations in synthetic agents. In: Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence. Wiley, pp 10–15

  • Visser PRS, Bench-Capon TJM (1998) A comparison of four ontologies for the design of legal knowledge systems. Artif Intell Law 6(1): 27–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waterman DA, Peterson M (1980) Rule-based models of legal expertise. In: The proceedings of the first national conference on artificial intelligence. Stanford University

  • Watson I (1997) Applying case-based reasoning: techniques for enterprise systems. Morgan Kaufmann, CA

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Walton PRE, McKersie RB (1991) A behavioral theory of labor negotiations. Cornell University Press

  • Wooldridge M (2002) An introduction to multiagent systems. Wiley

  • Wooldridge M, Jennings NR (1995) Intelligent agents: theory and practice. Knowl Eng Rev 10(2): 115–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleznikow J, Hunter D (1994) Building intelligent legal information systems: representation and reasoning in law. Kluwer Computer/Law Series, Deventer-Boston, pp 230–237

  • 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 185–194

  • 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 21–30

  • 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 systems

  • Zweigert K, Kötz H (1998) An introduction to comparative law, 3rd edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics, Universidade do Minho, Campus of Gualtar, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal

    Davide Carneiro, Paulo Novais & José Neves

  2. Law School, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal

    Francisco Andrade

  3. School of Management and Information Systems, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia

    John Zeleznikow

Authors
  1. Davide Carneiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paulo Novais
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francisco Andrade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John Zeleznikow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. José Neves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paulo Novais.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carneiro, D., Novais, P., Andrade, F. et al. Online dispute resolution: an artificial intelligence perspective. Artif Intell Rev 41, 211–240 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-011-9305-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-011-9305-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation