Advertisement

Using BATNAs and WATNAs in Online Dispute Resolution

  • Francisco Andrade
  • Paulo Novais
  • Davide Carneiro
  • John Zeleznikow
  • José Neves
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6284)

Abstract

When contracting through software agents, disputes will inevitably arise. Thus there is an urgent need to find alternatives to litigation for resolving conflicts. Methods of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) need to be considered to resolve such disputes. Having agents understanding what the dispute is about, managing all interaction between the parties and even formulating proposed solutions is an important innovation. Hence it is of the utmost relevance that the agents may be able to recognise and evaluate the facts, the position of the parties and understand all the relevant data. In many circumstances, risk management and avoidance will be a crucial point to be considered. In this sense we analyze the usefulness of a parallel concept to BATNA – Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement, that of a WATNA – Worst Alternative to Negotiated Agreement, allowing the software agents to consider the space between BATNA and WATNA as a useful element to be taken into account when making or accepting a proposal. These software agents embodied with intelligent techniques are integrated in an architecture designed to provide support to the ODR in a system we have developed for the resolution of labour disputes - UMCourt. In this context software agents are used to compute and provide the parties with the best and worst alternative to a negotiated agreement.

Keywords

On-Line Dispute Resolution Negotiation BATNA WATNA 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aamodt, A., Plaza, E.: Case-based reasoning: Foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Communications 7(1), 39–59 (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abrahams, B., Zeleznikow, J.: A multi-agent architecture for online dispute resolution services. Expanding the horizons of ODR. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR Workshop 2008), Firenze, Italy, pp. 51–61 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bellucci, E., Lodder, A., Zeleznikow, J.: Integrating artificial intelligence, argumentation and game theory to develop an online dispute resolution environment. In: ICTAI 2004 - 16th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pp. 749–754 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brazier, F., Kubbe, O., Oskamp, A., Wijngaards, N.: Are Law abiding agents realistic? In: Proceedings of the workshop on the Law of Electronic Agents (LEA 2002), CIRSFID, pp. 151–155. University of Bologna (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carneiro, D., Novais, P., Andrade, F., Zeleznikow, J., Neves, J.: The Legal Precedent in Online Dispute Resolution, in Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. In: Governatori, G. (ed.) Proceedings of the Jurix 2009 - the 22nd International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 47–52. IOS press, Amsterdam (2009) ISBN 978-1-60750-082-7Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Vries, B.R., Leenes, R., Zeleznikow, J.: Fundamentals of providing negotiation support online: the need for developping BATNAs. In: Proceedings of the Second International ODR Workshop, Tilburg, pp. 59–67. Wolf Legal Publishers (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fernandes, A.M.: Direito de Trabalho, Almedina (2005) (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fisher, R., Ury, W.: Getting To Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1981) ISBN 0-395-31757-6Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldberg, S.B., Sander, F.E., Rogers, N., Cole, S.R.: Dispute Resolution: negotiation, mediation and other processes. Aspen Publishers, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goodman, J.W.: The pros and cons of online dispute resolution: an assessment of cyber-mediation websites. Duke Law and Technology Review (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Katsh, E., Rifkin, J.: Online dispute resolution – resolving conflicts in cyberspace. Jossey-Bass Wiley Company, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klaming, L., Van Veenen, J., Leenes, R.: I want the opposite of what you want: summary of a study on the reduction of fixed-pie perceptions in online negotiations. In: Expanding the horizons of ODR, Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR Workshop 2008), Firenze, Italy, pp. 84–94 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., Minton, J.: Zone of Potential Agreement. In: Negotiation, 3rd edn. Irwin-McGraw Hill, Burr Ridge (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muecke, N., Stranieri, A., Miller, C.: The integration of online dispute resolution and decision support systems. In: Expanding the horizons of ODR, Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR Workshop 2008), Firenze, Italy, pp. 62–72 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Notini, J.: Effective Alternatives Analysis In Mediation: “BATNA/WATNA” Analysis Demystified (2005), http://www.mediate.com/articles/notini1.cfm (Accessed July 24, 2009)
  16. 16.
    Peruginelli, G., Chiti, G.: Artificial Intelligence in alternative dispute resolution. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on the law of electronic agents – LEA (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Picard, W.: Support for Power in adaptation of social Protocols for Professional Virtual Communities. In: Camarinha-Matos, L., Afsarmanesh, H., Novais, P., Analide, C. (eds.) Establishing the Foundation of Collaborative Networks. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, pp. 363–370. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) ISBN: 978-0-387-73797-3Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pimenta, J.C.: A Lógica da Sentença, Livraria Petrony (2003) (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Raiffa, H.: The art and science of negotiation: how to resolve conflicts and get the best out of bargaining. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Steenbergen, W.: Rationalizing Dispute Resolution: From best alternative to the most likely one. In: Proceedings 3rd ODR workshop, Brussels (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ury, W., Brett, J.M., Goldberg, S.B.: Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to Cut the Costs of Conflict. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco (1988)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R., Kinny. D.: The Gaia Methodology for Agent-Oriented Analysis and Design. In: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 3 (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zeleznikow, J., Abrahams, B.: Incorporating issues of fairness into development of a multi-agent negotiation support system. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 177–184. ACM, Barcelona (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zweigert, K., Kötz, H.: An Introduction to Comparative Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Waterman, D.A., Peterson, M.: Rule-based models of legal expertise. In: The Proceedings of the First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Stanford University, Stanford (1980)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cáceres, E.: EXPERTIUS: A Mexican Judicial Decision-Support System in the Field of Family law. In: Francesconi, E.B.E., Sartor, G., Tiscornia, D. (eds.) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, pp. 78–87. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kersten, G., Noronha, S.: Negotiation via the World Wide Web: A Cross-cultural Study of Decision Making. Group Decision and Negotiation 8, 251–279 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thiessen, E.M.: ICANS: An Interactive Computer-Assisted Multi-party Negotiation Support System. PhD Dissertation, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (1993)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zeleznikow, J., Bellucci, E.: 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 (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lodder, A., Zeleznikow, J.: Enhanced Dispute Resolution through the use of Information Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Black, H.C.: Black’s Law Dictionary. West Publishing Company, St. Paul (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisco Andrade
    • 1
  • Paulo Novais
    • 2
  • Davide Carneiro
    • 2
  • John Zeleznikow
    • 3
  • José Neves
    • 2
  1. 1.Escola de DireitoUniversidade do MinhoBragaPortugal
  2. 2.DI-CCTCUniversidade do MinhoBragaPortugal
  3. 3.School of Management and Information SystemsVictoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations