Online Dispute Resolution Services: Justice, Concepts and Challenges

  • Ofir Turel
  • Yufei Yuan
Part of the Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation book series (AGDN, volume 4)


Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) services are e-justice service conduits that utilize Electronic Negotiation Systems (see the chapter by Kersten and Lai, this volume). They are a key mechanism that may provide a viable solution to the flood of e-disputes. Justice is important in negotiation processes (see the chapter by Albin and Druckman, this volume).It is therefore suggested that ODR services are a viable means to serve justice on the web.In this chapter we describe the state of e-justice and introduce the need for online dispute resolution services. We then present the concept of ODR, its different forms, and its association with Negotiation Support Systems. To this end we portray a classification of ODR services, give examples of different types of services, and specifically discuss one of the promising types, namely Principle-Based Dispute Resolution Services. The chapter concludes with an overview of the challenges associated with the introduction of ODR services, and specifically with their adoption by users; an issue that is echoed in several other chapters as well (see chapters by Etezadi, and Kersten and Lai, this volume)


Dispute Resolution Alternative Dispute Resolution Online Consumer Negotiation Support System Online Market 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bergling S Alternative dispute resolution for consumer transactions in the borderless online marketplace. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Waldorf, Maryland, USA, pp 1–216Google Scholar
  2. Bichler M, Kersten G, Strecker S (2003) Towards a structured design of electronic negotiations. Group Decis Negot 12(4):311–335Google Scholar
  3. Bonnet V, Boudaoud K, Gagnebin M, Harms J, Schultz T (2002) Online dispute resolution systems as web services, Proceedings Hewlett-Packard Open View University Association Workshop Held on videoconference, workshop on June 11–13 2002, Available via online
  4. Bunnell D, Luecke R (2000) The eBay phenomenon, 1st edn. Wiley, New York, NY, pp 61–62Google Scholar
  5. Burger WE (1977) Our vicious spiral. Judges J 22(1):49Google Scholar
  6. Chen C (2004) United States and European Union approaches to internet jurisdiction and their impact on e-commerce. Univ Pa J Int Econ Law 25(1):423–454Google Scholar
  7. de Figueiredo JM (2000) Finding sustainable profitability in electronic commerce. Sloan Manage Rev 41(4):41–52Google Scholar
  8. Dehning B, Richardson VJ, Urbaczewski A, Wells JD (2004) Reexamining the value relevance of e-commerce initiatives. J Manage Inf Syst 21(1):55–82Google Scholar
  9. DOJ (1992) US department of justice statistics, Report to Congress on the state of litigation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Doong HS, Lai HC (2008) Exploring usage continuance of e-negotiation systems: expectation and disconfirmation approach. Group Decis Negotiation 17(2):111–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. European Commission (2001) Commission recommendation 2001/310/EC on the principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual resolution of consumer disputes, published in OJ L109/56, 19 April 2001Google Scholar
  12. Fisher R (1983) Negotiating power: getting and using influence. Am Behav Sci 27(2):149–166Google Scholar
  13. Fisher R, Ury W, Patton B (1991) Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in, 2nd edn. Penguin Books, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  14. Friedman RA, Currall SC (2003). Conflict escalation: dispute exacerbating elements of e-mail communication. Hum Relations 56(11):1325–1347Google Scholar
  15. Friedman RA, Currall SC (2003) Conflict escalation: dispute exacerbating elements of e-mail communication. Hum Relat 56(11):1325–1347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gefen D, Karahanna E, Straub DW (2003) Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Q 27(1):51–90Google Scholar
  17. Gonzalez AG (2003) eBay law: the legal implications of the C2C electronic commerce model. Comput Law Secur Rep 19(6):468–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hasan AS, Serguievskaia I (2006) A framework for developing experience based e-negotiation system. J Comput Sci 2(2):180–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hornle J (2003) Online dispute resolution: the emperor’s new clothes? Benefits and pitfalls of online dispute resolution and its application to commercial arbitration. Int Rev Law Comput Technol 17(1):27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Javalgi R, Ramsey R (2001) Strategic issues of e-commerce as an alternative global distribution system. Int Mark Rev 18(4):376–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones R (1999) Legal pluralism and the adjudication of internet disputes. Int Rev Law Comput Technol 13(1):49–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Katsh E (1994) Digital lawyers – orienting the legal profession to cyberspace. Univ Pittsburgh Law Rev 55(4):1141–1175Google Scholar
  23. Katsh E, Rifkin J (2001) Online dispute resolution, 1st edn. Jossey – Bass, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  24. Katsh E, Rifkin J, Gaitenby A (2000) E-commerce, e-disputes and e-dispute resolution: in the shadow of ebay law. Ohio State J Dispute Res 15(3):705–734Google Scholar
  25. Kersten GE (2003) The science and engineering of e-negotiation: an introduction, 36th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS'03), Hawaii, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. Kersten GE (2004) E-negotiation systems: interaction of people and technologies to resolve conflicts, InterNeg international seminar: markets, negotiations and dispute resolution in new economy, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  27. Kiesler S (1997) Preface. In: Kiesler S (ed) Culture of the internet. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  28. Lai HC, Doong HS, Kao CC, Kersten GE (2006) Negotiators’ communication, perception of their counterparts, and performance in dyadic e-negotiations. Group Decis Negotiation 15(5):429–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Landry EM (2000) Scrolling around the new organization: the potential for conflict in the on-line environment. Negotiation J 16(2):133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee KC, Kang I, Kim JS (2007) Exploring the user interface of negotiation support systems from the user acceptance perspective. Comput Hum Behav 23(1):220–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewicki RJ, Saunders DM, Minton JW (1999) Negotiation (companion volume to Negotiation: reading, exercises and cases), 3rd edn. Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  32. Lewis LF, Spich RS (1996) Principled negotiation, evolutionary systems design, and group support systems: a suggested integration of three approaches to improving negotiations. In: Proceedings of the 29th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Hawaii, USA, 3, pp 238–250Google Scholar
  33. Lim J (2003) A conceptual framework on the adoption of negotiation support systems. Inf Softw Technol 45(8):469–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lim J, Gan B, Chang T-T (2002) A survey on NSS adoption intention, 35th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, IEEE, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  35. Maiese M (2003) Negotiation. Avilable via Accessed 28 April 2010
  36. Maynes ES (1979) Consumer protection: The issues, Journal of Consumer Policy 3:97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mediate com. (2006) The world’s dispute resolution channel, Negotiation power, Available via Accessed 28 April 2010
  38. Merriam Webster Online (2006) <>. Accessed 28 April 2010
  39. Moore DA, Kurtzberg TR, Thompson LL, Morris MW (1999) Long and short routes to success in electronically mediated negotiations: group affiliations and good vibrations. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 77(s):22–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nadler J (2001) Electronically-mediated dispute resolution and e-commerce. Negotiation J 17(4):333–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. NCL (2001) Online auctions, 2001 Survey. National Consumers League (NCL), Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  42. Pacini C, Andrews C, Hillison W (2002) To agree not to agree: legal issues in online contracting. Bus Horiz 45(1):43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Parlade CV (2006) Online dispute resolution and quality of justice. Available via Accessed 28 April 2010
  44. Ramsay DCI (1981) Consumer redress mechanisms for poor-quality and defective products. Univ Tor Law J 31(2): 117–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rawls J (1999) A theory of justice. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  46. Rule C (2002) Online dispute resolution for business, 1st edn. Jossey-Bass (A Wiley Imprint), San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  47. Sawada T (2005) Potentiality of private ADR in EC market: results and value achieved through the ADR pilot project. Electronic Commerce Promotion Council of Japan (ECOM), Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  48. Schoop M, Jertila A, List T (2003) Negoisst: a negotiation support system for electronic business-to-business negotiations in e-commerce. Data Knowl Eng 47(3):371–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Selis P, Ramasastry A, Wright CS (2002) Bidder beware: towards a fraud-free marketplace – best practices for the online auction industry. Washington State Attorney General’s office and the Center for Law Commerce and Technology at the University of Washington Law School, Washington, DC, 1–58Google Scholar
  50. Thiessen EM, Soberg A (2003) Smartsettle described with the Montreal taxonomy. Group Decis Negotiation 12(2): 165–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thiessen EM, Loucks DP, Stedinger JR (1998) Computer-assisted negotiations of water resources conflicts. Group Decis Negotiation 7(2):109–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Turel O (2006) Predictors of disputants’ intentions to use online dispute resolution services: the roles of justice and trust. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  53. Turel O (2010) Interdependence issues in analyzing negotiation data. Group Decis Negot 19(2):111–125Google Scholar
  54. Turel O, Yuan Y (2005) Online negotiation services: benefits and challenges of users and service providers. J Altern Dispute Res, October issue, 62–77Google Scholar
  55. Turel O, Yuan Y (2006) Trajectories for driving the diffusion of e-negotiation service providers in supply chains: an action research approach. J Internet Commerce 5(4):125–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Turel O, Yuan Y (2007a) Online dispute resolution services for electronic markets: a user centric research agenda. Int J e-Business 5(6):590–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Turel O, Yuan Y (2007b) User acceptance of web-based negotiation support systems: the role of perceived intention of the negotiating partner to negotiate online. Group Decis Negotiation 16(5):451–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Turel O, Yuan Y (2007c) You can’t shake hands with clenched fists: potential effects of trust assessments on the adoption of e-negotiation services. Group Decis Negotiation 17(2):141–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Turel O, Yuan YF, Connelly CE (2008) In justice we trust: predicting user acceptance of e-customer services. J Manage Inf Syst 24(4):123–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Turel O, Yuan Y, Rose J (2007) Antecedents of attitude towards online mediation. Group Decis Negotiation 16(6):539–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vetschera R, Kersten G, Koeszegi S (2006) User assessment of internet-based negotiation support systems: an exploratory study. J Organ Comput Electron Commerce 16(2):123–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vice JW (2006) Neutrality, justice, and fairness, Loyola University Chicago. Available via Accessed 29 April 2010
  63. Watson WE, Kumar K, Michaelsen LK (1993) Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Acad Manage J 36(5):590–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wood CM (2004) Marketing and e-commerce as tools of development in the Asia-Pacific region: a dual path. Int Mark Rev 21(3):301–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Xu Z, Yuan Y (2009) Principle-based dispute resolution for consumer protection. Knowl-Based Syst 22:18–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yuan Y, Turel O (2007) E-negotiations: bridging the practical divide—introduction to the special issue. Group Decis Negotiation 17(2):107–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.California State UniversityFullertonUSA
  2. 2.McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations