Skip to main content

Using BATNAs and WATNAs in Online Dispute Resolution

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (JSAI-isAI 2009)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 6284))

Included in the following conference series:

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.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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 978-1-60750-082-7

    Google Scholar 

  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. Fernandes, A.M.: Direito de Trabalho, Almedina (2005) (in Portuguese)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fisher, R., Ury, W.: Getting To Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1981) ISBN 0-395-31757-6

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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. Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., Minton, J.: Zone of Potential Agreement. In: Negotiation, 3rd edn. Irwin-McGraw Hill, Burr Ridge (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  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. Notini, J.: Effective Alternatives Analysis In Mediation: “BATNA/WATNA” Analysis Demystified (2005), http://www.mediate.com/articles/notini1.cfm (Accessed July 24, 2009)

  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. 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: 978-0-387-73797-3

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pimenta, J.C.: A Lógica da Sentença, Livraria Petrony (2003) (in Portuguese)

    Google Scholar 

  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. Steenbergen, W.: Rationalizing Dispute Resolution: From best alternative to the most likely one. In: Proceedings 3rd ODR workshop, Brussels (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Zweigert, K., Kötz, H.: An Introduction to Comparative Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Lodder, A., Zeleznikow, J.: Enhanced Dispute Resolution through the use of Information Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Black, H.C.: Black’s Law Dictionary. West Publishing Company, St. Paul (1990)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Andrade, F., Novais, P., Carneiro, D., Zeleznikow, J., Neves, J. (2010). Using BATNAs and WATNAs in Online Dispute Resolution. In: Nakakoji, K., Murakami, Y., McCready, E. (eds) New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. JSAI-isAI 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6284. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14888-0_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14888-0_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-14887-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-14888-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics