Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Alternative Dispute Resolution in Virtual Organizations

  • Conference paper
Engineering Societies in the Agents World VIII (ESAW 2007)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 4995))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Networked systems are the driving force of modern business and commerce, underpinned by ideas such as agile enterprises, holonic manufacturing, and dynamic real-time supply chains. On occasions, the system operation will be sub-optimal or non-ideal, and disputes will occur between independent partners. It may be undesirable to resolve such disputes by recourse to law; preferably, the parties in dispute would settle the matter by themselves. Therefore, we develop an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) system for virtual organizations as a way of settling disputes internally. We provide a norm-governed specification of an ADR protocol which is, effectively, an intelligent agent-based autonomic system. We develop this specification in two ways: concretely, through description of the mechanisms underlying protocol operation; and abstractly, by considering how the specification addresses principles for jury trials.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
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.

References

  1. Brafman, O., Beckstrom, R.: The Starfish And The Spider. Penguin (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mařík, V., William Brennan, R., Pěchouček, M. (eds.): HoloMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3593. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Boyson, S., Corsi, T.: Managing the real-time supply chain. In: HICSS 2002, Washington, DC, USA. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pitt, J., Mamdani, A., Charlton, P.: The open agent society and its enemies: a position statement and research programme. Telematics and Informatics 18(1), 67–87 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Pitt, J.: The open agent society as a platform for the user-friendly information society. AI Soc. 19(2), 123–158 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Artikis, A., Sergot, M., Pitt, J.: Specifying norm-governed computational societies. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cevenini, C.: Legal considerations on the use of software agents in virtual enterprises. In: Bing, J., Sartor, G. (eds.) The Law of Electronic Agents, vol. 4, pp. 133–146. Unipubskriftserier, Oslo (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Makinson, D.: On the formal representation of rights relations. Journal of Philosophical Logic 15, 403–425 (1986)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Jones, A., Sergot, M.: A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. Journal of the IGPL 4(3), 429–445 (1996)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Schultz, T., Kaufmann-Kohler, G., Langer, D., Bonnet, V.: Online dispute resolution: The state of the art and the issues. Technical report, Report of the E-Com / E-Law Research Project of the University of Geneva (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Slate II, W.: Online dispute resolution: Click here to settle your dispute. Dispute Resolution Journal 8 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  12. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center: Dispute resolution for the 21st century (2007), http://arbiter.wipo.int

  13. United Nations. In: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development — E-commerce and development report, ch.7, New York, Geneva, vol. UNCTAD/SIDTE/ECB/2003/, pp. 177–203 (2003), http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecdr2003ch7_en.pdf

  14. Kowalchyk, A.W.: Resolving intellectual property disputes outside of court: Using ADR to take control of your case. Dispute Resolution Journal 61(2), 28–37 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  15. OECD: OECD workshop on dispute resolution and redress in the global marketplace: Report of the workshop. Technical Report DSTI/CP(2005)9, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ware, S.J.: Principles of Alternative Dispute Resolution. West Group (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  17. American Arbitration Association (2007), http://www.adr.org/drs

  18. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center: Guide to WIPO Arbitration (2007), http://arbiter.wipo.int

  19. ALIS: Deliverable D3.1: Formal characteristics of legal and regulatory reasoning from the computational logic point of view. Available from ISN Group, EEE Dept., Imperial College London (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  20. ALIS: Deliverable D3.2: ALIS ADR-S: The ALIS alternative dispute resolution service. Available from ISN Group, EEE Dept., Imperial College London (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.: A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Computing 4(1), 67–96 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ramirez-Cano, D., Pitt, J.: Follow the leader: Profiling agents in an opinion formation model of dynamic confidence and individual mind-sets. In: IAT, pp. 660–667 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Devine, D.J., Clayton, L.D., Dunford, B.B., Seying, R., Pryce, J.: Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 7(3), 622–727 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pennington, N., Hastie, R.: Juror decision-making models: The generalization gap. Psychological Bulletin 89(2), 246–287 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bennett, W.L.: Storytelling in criminal trials: A model of social judgment. Quarterly Journal of Speech 64(1), 1–22 (1978)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 619–641 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Chesñevar, C.I., Maguitman, A.G., Loui, R.P.: Logical models of argument. ACM Comput. Surv. 32(4), 337–383 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Walker, G.B., Daniels, S.E.: Argument and alternative dispute resolution systems. Argumentation 9, 693–704 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sartor, G.: A formal model of legal argumentation. Ratio Juris 7(2), 177–211 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4(3-4), 331–368 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Artikis, A., Sergot, M., Pitt, J.: An executable specification of a formal argumentation protocol. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 776–804 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Pitt, J., Kamara, L., Sergot, M., Artikis, A.: Voting in Multi-Agent Systems. The Computer Journal 49(2), 156–170 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. American Bar Association: Principles for juries and jury trials (2005), http://www.abanet.org/juryprojectstandards/principles.pdf

  34. Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N., Turner, H.: Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artif. Intell. 153(1-2), 49–104 (2004)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Kaponis, D., Pitt, J.: Dynamic specifications in normative computational societies. In: O’Hare, G.M.P., Ricci, A., O’Grady, M.J., Dikenelli, O. (eds.) ESAW 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4457, pp. 265–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Surowiecki, J.: The wisdom of crowds. Doubleday (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Reynolds, C., Picard, R.: Affective sensors, privacy, and ethical contracts. In: CHI 2004: extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 1103–1106. ACM Press, New York (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Rawls, J.: A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press (1999)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Intelligent Systems & Networks Group, Dept. of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, Imperial College London, SW7 2BT, UK

    Jeremy Pitt, Daniel Ramirez-Cano, Lloyd Kamara & Brendan Neville

Authors
  1. Jeremy Pitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Ramirez-Cano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lloyd Kamara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brendan Neville
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Alexander Artikis Gregory M. P. O’Hare Kostas Stathis George Vouros

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Pitt, J., Ramirez-Cano, D., Kamara, L., Neville, B. (2008). Alternative Dispute Resolution in Virtual Organizations. In: Artikis, A., O’Hare, G.M.P., Stathis, K., Vouros, G. (eds) Engineering Societies in the Agents World VIII. ESAW 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4995. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87654-0_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87654-0_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-87653-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-87654-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation