Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) built in the blockchain are quietly revolutionizing ideas around digital assets despite their questionable status under current law. The smart contracts that control many NFTs are disrupting the way deals are done. At the same time, disputes regarding NFTs and smart contracts are inevitable and parties will need means for dealing with these highly technical issues. The chapter tackles this challenge and proposes that parties turn to online dispute resolution (ODR) to resolve NFT and smart contract disputes efficiently and fairly. Furthermore, the chapter acknowledges the benefits and challenges of current means for addressing blockchain issues and proposes ideas for how designers could address those challenges and incorporate ODR to provide efficient and fair resolutions.

To litigate or not to litigate, that is the question any Chinese companies operating in the United States long enough must contemplate. For American companies, litigation is nothing but an unavoidable business risk and often a vital competition strategy, routinely dealt with by legal and managerial professionals applying monetarized cost–benefit analysis. Such analysis typically incorporates attorney fees and other litigation expenses, potential reputational damage, time and human resource consumption, and the present value of expected litigation gains or losses. By contrast, litigation in China carries complex social meanings and is often avoided to preserve long-term cooperative relationships or to signal desirable attributes to uninformed third parties. When lawsuits do occur, they are often handled by stakeholders without professional legal assistance. Disputants consider a wide range of material and nonmaterial interests that are shaped by both formal institutions undergoing significant transformation and complex, entrenched social norms governing dispute resolution. Chinese companies immersed in these two disparate institutional environments approach legal disputes in the United States.

This chapter takes a psychological perspective on tort law decision-making, drawing on psychological theory, empirical research, and legal practices in tort litigation to assess the state of knowledge about decision-making in tort cases. It examines how plaintiffs decide to bring a lawsuit, how defendants respond, and the process of dispute resolution in tort cases. Most tort cases do not go to trial, but trial decisions remain significant as a framework for negotiations. The chapter also draws on psychological theory and research to describe how the judge and the jury as decision-makers resolve legal issues and reach liability verdicts and damage awards in tort cases. Psychological heuristics, biases, and other psychological phenomena affect decision-making in intentional tort, negligence, and strict liability cases, and judgments about liability and damages. The chapter closes with suggestions for further investigations of understudied topics in tort law decision-making.

The law of the sea, one of the oldest areas of international law, is now substantially codified in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (‘UNCLOS’), the ‘constitution for the oceans’. UNCLOS ushered in the modern law of the sea, providing a comprehensive regime for maritime zones, navigational rights and freedoms, fishing and other uses of the world’s oceans that cover approximately 70% of the Earth’s surface. As an island country with extensive maritime zones, Australia has a major stake in the law of the sea and has been actively involved in its development and implementation. Australia was one of the original signatories to UNCLOS and ratified it in 1994, the year it entered into force generally. The central issues of concern for the law of the sea have traditionally been the extent of maritime jurisdiction and navigational rights. However, a much broader range of matters is addressed in contemporary law and practice, from sustainable fisheries management through to mining of the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction. There are also major new challenges on the horizon – none more so than climate change.

This chapter examines the perceptions of communities and participants where Fambul Tok works. The program was designed to provide people with ritual spaces to discuss war-related experiences, but I suggest that the vast majority of participants neither desired nor enjoyed hearing about wartime experiences. The confessions at these organization-sponsored ceremonies were performances that sought to stimulate further development opportunities. The space did, however, provide an opportunity to address other, more contemporary issues. This is exemplified through the story of a heated chieftaincy conflict. The organization’s presence and the ceremony provided a forum through which this conflict played out, exemplifying how existing social structures play a critical role in shaping local transitional justice programs. I explore how pre-existing hierarchies, social status and individual agency influenced how different people engaged with the program. This exemplifies the diversity of needs and priorities in communities and how people engage with these mechanisms for different reasons. It provides a comprehensive analysis of how local transitional justice programs shape and are shaped by the various actors at play (both staff and participants), which has implications not only for TJ mechanisms but development programs more broadly.

This chapter examines the institutional context of the Court. It focuses first on the Court’s function as a court, i.e. as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It then considers the Court’s relations with States, as an international court. Finally, he considers the Court’s institutional grounding as an organ of the United Nations, and examines its relationship with the United Nations. Professor Ginsburg argues that there is a gap between the Court’s formal institutional structures and its actual operation in practice, and emphasises in particular the way in which the Court has taken a central role in the development of international law.

This chapter provides important background on legal reform and social change in Vietnam since the economic reform of đổi mới. It examines various accounts of the role of law in shaping state and society relationships in Vietnam, covering issues such as constitutional amendments, economic governance, dispute resolution, and rights mobilization. It also draws upon some important and useful insights relating to the operations of law in daily life from the anthropology literature. It can be seen from existing literature that law has had a limited role and legitimacy in the regulation of social life, which is predominantly shaped by informal practices and morality.

This chapter investigates how ‘society at large’ interacts with the world of international arbitration, now and for the foreseeable future. This broad topic can be made more manageable by breaking down the interaction through four focus groups within society: the media, academia, arbitration ‘clubs’, and civil society NGOs. These groups provide services to the world of international arbitration but are mostly instead what Emmanuel Gaillard terms ‘value providers’ – seeking to influence its normative structure. This chapter also touches on international and professional organisations, which are also significant value providers.

One key question is whether and how international arbitration may be expanding or at least becoming more visible through the four focus groups. A second is whether it may be becoming more diverse and indeed polarised. The chapter presents empirical evidence of ongoing ‘lawyerisation’, hence renewed concern about costs and delays. It also considers the impact of burgeoning investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases and coverage, especially in the general media. Analysis of newspapers in Australia and the United Kingdom as well as social media reports confirms that views about ISDS remain overwhelmingly negative – a new development that could increasingly shape the overall perceptions of international arbitration held within society at large.

This chapter presents a descriptive account of legal pluralism in contemporary Chechnya. It describes the actors in charge of dispute resolution – the elders and religious authorities, as well as judges, prosecutors, and lawyers – and the most common disputes, and their forms of resolution. This chapter shows that an alternative legal system has evolved into a hybrid legal order, one characterized by judges in state courts sometimes implementing customary and religious norms, while imams and elders participate in state court hearings as witnesses or experts. Relying on original survey evidence, the chapter explores the factors that drive individual preferences for alternative legal systems. This analysis uncovers the role of gender, generational divides, education and social class, and ethnic and religious identities. Finally, the chapter outlines the political topography of Chechnya: uneven patterns of the use of state law across cleavages between urban and rural areas, the Russified northern region and mountainous areas in the south, and finally between the eastern region, which constitutes the core of Kadyrov’s regime, and the less tightly controlled western Chechnya.

Many of the formulas dealing with conflict highlight formal courts and judicial processes. Others represent extrajudicial settlements. In this respect they match, though in an entirely lay context, the picture of early medieval dispute settlement visible in other sources. They make particularly clear, however, that judicial and extrajudicial settlements were points on a complex and intertwined continuum. They also tell us that people – both litigants and authority figures – could manipulate and abuse judicial processes for their own purposes. The formulas are particularly interested in interpersonal violence. We find men assaulting each other on the road and taking each other’s property. We find men killing others for a variety of reasons. Those who committed homicide not only negotiated the payment of the required blood price, but actually paid it – and had their payment recorded in a security that protected them from any further trouble. Women too are accused of homicide, sometimes by poison or sorcery but sometimes by more active means. In the end, the formulas suggest that a culture assuming a right to personal violence was alive and well in the Carolingian period, despite strenuous efforts especially by Charlemagne and Louis the Pious to regulate it.

The formulas describe unfree men and women with terms that are fluid and overlapping, and that encompass everything from what we would call chattel slavery to loose patronage. The unfree most often appear as the passive objects of the power and interests of their betters. They are not a closed group, however. Free people submitted themselves to servitude either voluntarily or by force of circumstance, in exchange for money or to make amends for some wrong. Unfree were freed or bought their own freedom. The unfree also display a significant amount of agency. They ran away. They sought help against their own lords from other powerful people. Sometimes they stole things, including marriage partners. They contested their status, often with success. Some even owned other unfree. In short, the formulas tell us that status at the interface between free and unfree was fluid, and that while they spent much of their lives as the passive objects of power, the unfree in this world had the capacity to act in their own interests, were fully aware of how power flowed, and could work the social and political system to their own advantage.

Chapter 3 examines the various regulatory activities in which transnational regulatory regimes commonly engage. These include standard setting, dispute resolution, technical assistance, humanitarian aid, and transnational deliberation. It also explores how each of these particular activities can be devoted to one of two distinct regulatory ‘function’. One such function looks to promote ‘efficacy’ – the regime’s ability to achieve its desired regulatory outcomes. The other looks to promote ‘interest balancing’ – balancing the competing interests of different stakeholders in a way that nevertheless retains the allegiance of all stakeholders despite their disagreements. A regime’s choice as to whether to focus on efficacy or on interest balancing effects how its regulatory activities are structured and implemented. In addition, a regime’s regulatory function can be a matter of contestation, which gives rise to issues of what this volume calls ‘operational legitimacy’ – the degree to which the regime’s stakeholders support the particular regulatory function that regime seeks to promote.

Norms and regulations within the Greek polis provided a legal framework not only for the different markets and the support of economic activities, but also for the resolution of disputes arising between the private persons as well as magistrates. Whenever humans interacted within the economical sphere, conflicts could easily arise . Be they over the ownership of land or products, the transaction of goods and labour, or levies and taxes, in order to maintain good order they had to be resolved peacefully and without personal violence. Thus, the judicial structures and procedural principles of dispute resolution in the economic sphere of the Greek city as conveyed in literary, epigraphic, and papyrological sources are represented.

This chapter proposes a theory of legal instrumentalism – contextually, a more explanatory framework than either Marxist or Confucian legal theories – to explain the function and role of law in Chinese society. This kind of instrumentalism, which differs from the debate over this theory in the Anglo-American tradition, is situated in China’s authoritarian regime, where a primary concern is the maintenance of political stability through strengthening authoritarian legality for the ruler. On this premise, economic development, as well as other social goals – such as efficiency of the government – for which the law can undoubtedly be placed in an instrumental position may become a priority in the ruler’s political agenda. When it comes to dispute resolution, the primary matter of concern is not the achievement of the formalist justice of Western tradition via either a formal or informal process but rather the settlement of disputes for which the law primarily plays a facilitative role as a tool, regardless of what strategies it may use. Instrumentalism of this kind, which is suitable for Chinese society both culturally and historically, shows that law is visible and does matter in China, although it cannot be completely understood through the lens of other legal traditions.