InternetBar.Org Discussion forum

Jeff Aresty of InternetBar.Org has begun a discussion forum related to online justice systems. The first two posts (his and mine) are included below. To see or join the forum as it unfolds, go to www.InternetBar.org and click on the "forums" tab.

-----------

Jeff's Opening Post:

In 2007, Ethan Katsh and I wrote an op-ed piece for the Boston Globe on the use of online dispute resolution technologies in the small claims setting. http://www.boston.co..._claims_courts/

In this piece, we advocated the creation of a high tech small claims court: we asked what a "high-tech small claims court more in tune with the times look like? In such a court one can "travel to the courthouse" with the click of a mouse and gain access to filing forms via the Web. One need not take time off from work to have one's case heard, engage in endless dialogue with court clerks or wait for the return of self-addressed envelopes to obtain a complaint form."

Recently, Marta Poblet of Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, edited a book, "Mobile Technologies for Conflict Management" http://www.springer....8-94-007-1383-3, that offers a vision of mobile justice systems. Can a private justice small claims system emerge that is accessible through cell phones? Could it really come into being? What would have to happen for such a vision to become real?

So, one discussion thread I'd like to kick off in this ODR and e-government forum for IBO, is how can we come up with a plan to build a global small claims court that lets parties resolve disputes using technology and law? What disputes could it handle? Would enough people use it?


By approaching the topic in this way, I'm taking an activist approach. There are enough examples and research articles out there to demonstrate that (1) the existing justice institutions of the world, which are found in jurisdictionally based legal systems, are not providing access to justice in huge numbers, neither proportionately nor in the aggregate; (2) in contradistinction, ODR-based systems in private markets are hugely successful and let millions of people avoid conflict and keep disputes out of physical courts; and, finally, (3) there is enough research which shows the way to come up with a plan to resolve small claims cases globally.


Initially, I am asking Darin Thompson, of the BC Ministry of Attorney General and Daniel Rainey, Chief of Staff of the National Mediation Board, to be the first Discussants on the topic and then let's open it up from there.

Jeff Aresty



My initial reply:


My comments are not going to be groundbreaking, but I think they are fundamental to the issue of an online justice system, whether in a small claims court context or in a broader context.

The two issues that jump immediately to mind are accessibility and enforceability.

As you note, accessibility is becoming less an issue with the proliferation of Internet-capable mobile phones and hand held computers. Even in areas where one would think access might be an issue, rural Afghanistan, for example, it is common for most individuals to either have access to the web, or to be near someone who does. At one time, when I did polls of ODR students to see what they thought might be the most significant barriers to online dispute resolution, access to the Internet routinely came up as a significant barrier. That is much less the case now - most now acknowledge that, in terms of raw access, the game has changed significantly over the past few years. The other side of access, however, presents cultural/personal issues, not technical issues. While many people may have technical access to the web, justice systems in and of themselves have traditionally been opaque, and not open to those with less education or monetary resources. Why does that change just because the person is holding an amazing little gadget that gets them access to the Internet? It seems to me that for any online justice system to work, there must be some level of education done for those who will, potentially, use it, and the system must be inviting enough to be distinct from the profoundly uninviting justice systems with which they will be used to dealing.

Once you have built it and they have come, the issue of enforceability becomes important. I won't go on about this because it is an obvious problem. The UNCITRAL work that is going on now regarding international commercial disputes is approaching the issue as one of voluntary participation, with a "naming and shaming" sanction for those who don't abide by outcomes. I don't have any great ideas about this that others have not already discussed, but if I can get the individual who doesn't trust justice systems to tap into an online system there has to be a way to ensure that justice pronounced is justice delivered.

Daniel Rainey