No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2019
Electronic commerce is important, and perhaps, inevitable. Thus to consider the legal implications of the growth and development of electronic commerce is essential. However, the lack of suitable dispute resolution mechanisms in cyberspace will constitute a serious obstacle to the further development of electronic commerce. Bearing this in mind, this paper argues that when Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) moves to cyberspace, particularly arbitration and mediation as the main types of ADR, the form of online alternative dispute resolution (OADR) can maximise the growth of e-commerce.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and the internet are two very topical issues. Online alternative dispute resolution (OADR), or ADR online, refers to the use of internet technology, wholly or partially, as a medium by which to conduct the proceedings of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), in order to resolve commercial disputes which arise from the use of the internet. Those proceedings are operated by neutral private bodies under published rules of procedure.
Having said that, it is important to address mandatory OADR. This means that the parties are bound to adhere to the OADR process. Indeed, it is imperative to display what risks internet users should be willing to take with mandatory OADR schemes. This paper concludes that the issue of consent should be at the forefront of any contemplated OADR solutions. Clearly, it is unacceptable to impose mandatory OADR on internet users without their knowledge and consent Instead, a complainant who wishes to avoid the mandatory nature of OADR proceeding must be able to bring the action in any court that has a jurisdiction over the dispute. Bearing this in mind, there is a strong reason to believe that mandatory OADR schemes would not be enforceable in courts, and that the entire scheme of mandatory OADR might be unworkable.
1 For a full account on UK government's strategy in relation to the encouragement of e-commerce, see the office of the e-Envoy, available online at http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/e-envoy/index-content.htm, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar
2 Burk, D., “Trademarks along the Infobahn: A First Look at the Emerging Law of Cyber-Marks”, (1995) 1 Richmond Journal of Law & Technology 9.Google Scholar
3 Ghemawat, P., “Distance Still Matters”, (2001) 79 Harvard Business Review 137.Google Scholar
4 For an intensive discussion on this issue see Lord Woolf Report, “Access to Justice: Final Report”, (London, 1996), available online at http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/final/contents.htm, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar
5 WIPO, “The Management of Internet Domain Names and Addresses: Intellectual Property issues, Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process”, 30th of April 1999, available online at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/report-final1.pdf, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar
6 Edwards, H., “Alternative Dispute Resolution: Panacea or Anathema”, (1986) 99 Harvard Law Review 668 at 672.Google Scholar
7 Goode, R., Commercial Law, (2nd edition, Penguin Books Limited, London, 1995) 1177.Google Scholar
8 Bernstein, L., “Understanding the Limits of Court-Connected ADR: A Critique of Federal Court-Annexed Court Programs”, (1993) 141 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2169.Google Scholar
9 [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 503.Google Scholar
10 Tyler, M., and Bretherton, D., “Research into Online Alternative Dispute Resolution, an Exploration Report Prepared for the Department of Justice in Australia”, 21st of March 2003, available online at http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)∼0ch+6+amended+Maximising+performance+of+system.pdf/$file/0ch+6+amended+Maximising+performance+of+system.pdf, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar
11 WIPO, “The Management of Internet Domain Names and Addresses: Intellectual Property issues, Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process”, 30th of April 1999, available online at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/report-finall.pdf, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar
12 EU Commission, “Recommendations on the Principles Applicable to the Bodies Responsible for Out-of-Court Settlement of Consumer Disputes”, (98/257/EC) O.J.L. 115, available online at http://aei.pitt.edu/1179/01/consumer_justice_gp_follow_COM_1998_198.pdf, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar
13 McNeil, I., Federal Arbitration Law: Agreements, Awards, and Remedies Under the Federal Arbitration Act, (Little Brown & Co., Boston, 1999) 17–8.Google Scholar
14 WIPO, “The Management of Internet Domain Names and Addresses: Intellectual Property issues, Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process”, 30th of April 1999, available online at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/report-final1.pdf, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar
15 ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), as approved by ICANN on the 24th of October 1999, available online at http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/policy.htm, last visited on the 1st of October 2007. Before ICANN, in 1993, after a gradual increase in commercial internet activity, the National Science Foundation (NSF) subcontracted the job of registering domain names to a small company named “Network Solutions”. Network Solutions registered domain names on a first-come first-served basis, just as all the internet domain names had always been allocated. For an intensive discussion on this issue see Howitt, D., “War.com: Why the Battle Over Domain Names Will Never Cease”, (1997) 19 Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 719.Google Scholar
16 Article 4 (a) of ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), as approved by ICANN on the 24th of October 1999, available online at http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/policy.htm, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar
17 WIPO, “The Management of Internet Domain Names and Addresses: Intellectual Property issues, Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process”, 30th of April 1999, available online at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/report-finall.pdf, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar
18 Albert, G., “Right on the Mark: Defining the Nexus Between Trademarks and Internet Domain Names”, (1997) 15 John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law 277.Google Scholar
19 Katsh, E., and Rifkin, J., Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace, (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 2001) 64. Marcelo, H., and Ajay, N., “From International Treaties to Internet Norms: The Evolution of International Trademark Disputes in the Internet Age”, (2000) 21 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law 556.Google Scholar
20 Article 6 (b) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), as approved by ICANN on the 24th of October 1999, available online at http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-rules-24oct99.htm, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar
21 Katsh, E., and Rifkin, J., Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace, (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 2001) 111.Google Scholar
22 Heiskanen, V., “Dispute Resolution in International Electronic Commerce”, (1999) 16 Journal of International Arbitration 31.Google Scholar
23 Article 5 of the Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, (80/934/EC) O.J.L. 266.Google Scholar
24 EU Commission, “Recommendations on the Principles Applicable to the Bodies Responsible for Out-of-Court Settlement of Consumer Disputes”, (98/257/EC) O.J.L. 115, available online at http://aei.pitt.edu/1179/01/consumer_justice_gp_follow_COM_1998_198.pdf, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar
25 Article 3 of the European Council Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, (93/13/EC) O.J.L. 95.Google Scholar
26 De Zylva, M., “Effective Means of Resolving Distance Selling Disputes”, (2001) 67 Arbitration 236.Google Scholar
27 Thornburg, E., “Going Private: Technology, Due Process, and Internet Dispute Resolution”, (2000) 34 University of California Law Review 210.Google Scholar
28 Ibid.Google Scholar
29 Article 1 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce with Guide to Enactment (1996), available online at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/electronic_commerce/1996Model.html, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar
30 OECD, “Consumer Protection in the Electronic Marketplace”, DSTI/CP (98) 13/Final, available online at http://venus.icre.go.kr/metadata/12005_12E81082.pdf, last visited on the 1st of October 2007.Google Scholar
31 Perritt, H., “Dispute Resolution in Cyberspace: Demand for New Forms of ADR”, (2000) 15 Ohio State Journal of Dispute Resolution 698.Google Scholar
32 Bordone, R., “Electronic Online Dispute Resolution: Approach, Potential, Problems and a Proposal”, (1998) 3 Harvard Negotiation Law Review 203.Google Scholar
33 Thornburg, E., “Going Private: Technology, Due Process, and Internet Dispute Resolution”, (2000) 34 University of California Law Review 1179.Google Scholar
34 Rakoff, T., “Contracts of Adhesion: An Essay in Reconstruction”, (1984) 96 Harvard Law Review 1172. Griffiths, D, “Contracting on the Internet”, [1997] European Intellectual Property Review 4.Google Scholar