Advertisement

Reflections on the Concrete Application of Principles of Internet Governance and the Networked Information Society in the European Union Institutionalization Process of Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods

  • Maria Claudia Solarte-Vasquez
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter represents an effort to link concepts that appear to be and are commonly placed in distant theoretical areas but belong much closer together in practical terms: the principles of internet governance, and the networked information society converging in rules on one hand; and self-regulation competences required for collaborative and alternative conflict management on the other. They condense the public and the private roles in compatible regulatory models that could match sociability, economics and technologies of the times. It is an essay on competences, public policies that are not preceded by standards and principles that do not seem to have been captured by the laws. The institutionalization strategy on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) for cross-border consumer redress in the European Union will be the reference to assess regulatory impact and argue for consistency. Legislating ADR and ODR aims at supporting electronic commerce as an essential component of the digital agenda; the flagship initiative that establishes the digital single market according to the European 2020 Strategy. Questions must be raised considering the marked emphasis placed on promoting social changes merely by passing new laws. The importance of understanding that the European Union is not capable of supplanting its members in turning institutional formulas into operational strategies is underlined, as well as a reflection on the need to support the social and economic transformations that have followed the remarkable developments in telecommunications and other digital technologies. Conceiving a European dispute resolution culture, enabled and mediatized by technological solutions is a viable solution to prevent more of the perceived shortcomings of public actions, and a truly innovative ODR systems design, could support the transition. This text invites the integration of concepts, disciplines and practices, respect for principles and their consistent application to solutions that could improve human transactions for a sustainable digital economy where empowered private actors can efficiently contribute to the ongoing collective transformations of the global governance.

Keywords

Supra Note Dispute Resolution Information Society Conflict Management Alternative Dispute Resolution 
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.

References

  1. Alan, W. (2001). Regulations and Standards for Online Dispute Resolution: A Primer for Policymakers and Stakeholders. ODR News, February 15, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, N. (2005). Mobile mediation: How technology is driving the globalization of ADR. Hamline Journal of Public Law & Policy, 27, 243.Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin, R., Cave, M., & Lodge, M. (2011). Understanding regulation: Theory, strategy, and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Banisar, D. (2011). The right to information and privacy: Balancing rights and managing conflicts. World Bank Institute Governance Working Paper.Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, R. E. (2014). The structure of liberty: Justice and the rule of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bellucci, E., & Zeleznikow, J. (2005). Developing negotiation decision support systems that support mediators: A case study of the Family_Winner system. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 13(2), 233–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett, C. J., & Howlett, M. (1992). The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy Sciences, 25, 275–294.Google Scholar
  8. Black, J. (2001). Decentring regulation: Understanding the role of regulation and self-regulation in a “post-regulatory” world. Current Legal Problems, 54, 103–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Black, J., Lodge, M., & Thatcher, M. (Eds.) (2005). Regulatory Innovation: A Comparative Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Civic Consulting (2011) Consumer market study on the functioning of e-commerce and internet marketing and selling techniques in the retail of goods. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_research/market_studies/e_commerce_study_en.htm
  10. Bradley, G. (2006). Social informatics—from theory to actions for the good ict society. In Social Informatics: An Information Society for all? In Remembrance of Rob Kling (pp. 383–394). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Bradley, G. (2010). The Convergence Theory on ICT, Society, and Human Beings: Towards the Good ICT Society. Information and Communication Technologies, Society and Human Beings: Theory and Framework, 30, 30–48.Google Scholar
  12. Brannigan, C. (2004). Beyond e-commerce: Expanding the potential of online dispute resolution. Interaction, 16, 15–17.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, L. M. (1956). The Law Office. A Preventive Law Laboratory (pp. 940–953). University of Pennsylvania Law Review.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, L. M., & Brown, H. A. (1975). What counsels the counselor-the code of professional responsibility’s ethical considerations-a preventive law analysis. Val. UL Rev., 10, 453.Google Scholar
  15. Capurro, R., & Hjørland, B. (2003). The concept of information. Annual review of information science and technology, 37(1), 343–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Castells, M. (2008). The new public sphere: global civil society, communication networks, and global governance. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 78–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Castells, M. (2011). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society, and culture (Vol. 1). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Cutler, A. C., Haufler, V., & Porter, T. (Eds.). (1999). Private authority and international affairs. Albany: Suny Press.Google Scholar
  19. Da Silva, J. S. (2007). Future internet research: The EU framework. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 37(2), 85–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Overview of self-determination theory. The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation.Google Scholar
  21. DeNardis, Dr. Laura, The Emerging Field of Internet Governance (September 17, 2010). Yale Information Society Project Working Paper Series. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1678343
  22. Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T., & Marcus, E. C. (Eds.). (2011). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Epstein, R. A. (2009). Principles for a free society: Reconciling individual liberty with the common good. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  24. Eurobarometer. (2011) Special report on Consumer empowerment. Report nr 342. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_empowerment/docs/report_eurobarometer_342_en.pdf
  25. European Commission. (2000) Directive on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce), Directive 2000/31/EC of 8 June 2000. Available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0031:EN:HTML.
  26. European Commission. (2011). Communication from the Commission “Towards Single Market Act”, COM(2010) 608. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/smact/docs/single-marketact_en.pdf
  27. European Commission. (2012) Communication “A coherent framework to build trust in the Digital single market for e-commerce and online services”. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/ecommerce/communication_2012_en.htm
  28. Fuchs, C. (2007). Internet and society: Social theory in the information age. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Fuchs, C. (2010). Theoretical foundations of defining the participatory, co-operative, sustainable information society. Information, Communication & Society, 13(1), 23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fuchs, C., Hofkirchner, W., Schafranek, M., Raffl, C., Sandoval, M., & Bichler, R. (2010). Theoretical foundations of the web: cognition, communication, and co-operation. Towards an understanding of Web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0. Future Internet, 2(1), 41–59.Google Scholar
  31. Gelfand, M. J., Fulmer, C. A., & Severance, L. (2011). The psychology of negotiation and mediation.Google Scholar
  32. Gibbons, L. J. (1996). No regulation, government regulation, or self-regulation: social enforcement or social contracting for governance in cyberspace. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 6, 475.Google Scholar
  33. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis (Vol. 241). Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  34. Giddens, A. (2013). Social theory and modern sociology. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Gruber, T. (2008). Collective knowledge systems: Where the social web meets the semantic web. Web semantics: science, services and agents on the World Wide Web, 6(1), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Habermas, J. (1987). The philosophical discourse of modernity. Twelve lectures.Google Scholar
  37. Habermas, J. (1996). Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hilbert, M., & López, P. (2011). The world’s technological capacity to store, communicate, and compute information. Science, 332(6025), 60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hofkirchner, Wolfgang. (2007). A critical social systems view of the internet. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 37(4), 471–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Julio, C. B. (2012). Libertad de Contratación, Orden Público y sus repercusiones en el marco de la Arbitrabilidad. Indret: Revista para el Análisis del Derecho, 2, 1–31.Google Scholar
  41. Levi-Faur, D. (2011). Regulation and regulatory governance. Handbook on the Politics of Regulation, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
  42. Martens, B., & Turlea, G. (2012). The drivers and impediments for online cross-border trade in goods in the EU. Digital Economy Working Paper 2012/1.Google Scholar
  43. Menkel-Meadow, C. (2000). Mothers and fathers of invention: The intellectual founders of ADR. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 16, p 1.Google Scholar
  44. Mill, J. S. (1859). 1975, on liberty in three essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Misztal, B. (2013). Trust in modern societies: The search for the bases of social order. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. Mitchell, W. J. (2004). Me++: The cyborg self and the networked city. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Mueller, Milton L. (2002). Ruling the root: Internet governance and the taming of cyberspace. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Nierenberg, I. G. (1968). The art of negotiating, psychological strategies for gaining advantageous bargains. USA: Hawthorn Book a Division of Elsevier-Dutton, New York Press.Google Scholar
  49. Perillo, J. M. (2004). Robert J. Pothier’s influence on the common law of contract. Texas Wesleyan Law Review, 11, 267.Google Scholar
  50. Planiol, M., & Ripert, G. (1959). Treatise on the civil law (pp. 153–55). Eagan: West Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  51. Poblet, M. (2011). Mobile technologies for conflict management. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Pothier, R. J., Le Trosne, M., & Aguesseau, H. F. (1839). A treatise on the law of obligations, or contracts: 2 (Vol. 2). Robert H. Small.Google Scholar
  53. Rawls, John. (1971). A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Ross, L., & Stittinger, C. (1991). Barriers to conflict resolution. Negotiation Journal, 7(4), 389–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Russell, S. (2012). O. El contrato normativo: análisis de una categoría. Crónica del acto de defensa de tesis doctoral hispano-francesa (UCM, 3.7. 2013).Google Scholar
  56. Schultz, T. (2011). The roles of dispute settlement and ODR (pp. 135–155). Berlin: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  57. Solarte-Vasquez, M. C. (2013). Regulatory patterns of the internet development: Expanding the role of private Stakeholders through Mediatized “Self-regulation”. Baltic Journal of European Studies, 3(1), 84–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Solum, L. B., & Chung, M. (2003). Layers principle: Internet achitecture and the law. The Notre Dame Law Review, 79, 815.Google Scholar
  59. Thompson, L. (1990). Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological bulletin, 108(3), 515.Google Scholar
  60. Tiilikka, P. (2013). Access to information as a human right in the case law of the European court of human rights. Journal of Media Law, 5(1), 79–103.Google Scholar
  61. Trubek, D., & Trubek, L. G. (2007). New governance and legal regulation: complementarity, rivalry, and transformation. Columbia Journal of European Law, 13(3), 539–564.Google Scholar
  62. Utterback, J. M. (1996). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  63. Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C.P., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: an historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. In T.C. Urdan, & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.) The Decade Ahead: Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation and Achievement (Advances in Motivation and Achievement (Vol. 16, pp. 105–165), Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  64. Solarte Vasquez, M. C. (2014). The institutionalization process of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in the european union. L’Europe Unie/United Europe: The Estonian Legal Developments Experience.Google Scholar
  65. Voss, J. P., Bauknecht, D., & Kemp, R. (Eds.). (2006). Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  66. Wall, J. A., & Dunne, T. C. (2012). Mediation research: A current review. Negotiation Journal, 28(2), 217–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wall, J., & Kressel, K. (2012). Research on mediator style: A summary and some research suggestions. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 5(4), 403–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Weatherill, S. (2013). EU consumer law and policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  69. Woodley, A. E. (2012). Resolving the world’s commercial disputes: An integrated model for e-learning and ODR. International Journal of Technology Policy and Law, 1(2), 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. World Bank. (2012) Governance indicators, database available at http://data.worldbank.org/datacatalog/worldwide-governance-indicators
  71. Castells, M. (1996). The information age: Economy, society and culture (Vol. I): The rise of the network society. Cambridge MA/Oxford UK: Blackwell Publishers ISBN: 1-55786-616-3 / 1-55786-617-1 (pbk)Google Scholar
  72. Castells, M. (1997). The information age: Economy, society and culture Vol. II: The power of identity. Malden MA/Oxford UK: Blackwell Publishers ISBN: 1-55786-873-5/ 1-55786-874-3 (pbk)Google Scholar
  73. Castells, M. (1998). The information age: Economy, society and culture Vol.III: End of millennium. Malden MA/Oxford UK: Blackwell Publishers ISBN: 1-55786-871-9 (alk.paper)/ 1-55786-872-7 (alk. paper)Google Scholar
  74. Castells, M. (2004). 1. Informationalism, networks, and the network society: a theoretical blueprint. The Network Society, 3, 3–45Google Scholar
  75. Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. London: PenguinGoogle Scholar
  76. Gelbstein, E., & Kurbalija, J. (2005). Internet governance: issues, actors and divides. Diplo FoundationGoogle Scholar
  77. Haufler, V. (2013). A public role for the private sector: Industry self-regulation in a global economy. Carnegie EndowmentGoogle Scholar
  78. Hendriks, C. M., & Grin, J. (2007). Contextualizing reflexive governance: the politics of Dutch transitions to sustainability. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9(3–4), 333–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Jessop, B. (2003). Governance and meta-governance: On reflexivity, requisite variety and requisite irony. Governance as Social and Political Communication, 142–172. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Kessler, F., & Fine, E. (1963). Culpa in contrahendo, bargaining in good faith, and freedom of contract: A comparative study. Harvard Law Review, 77, 401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Marx, K. (2012). Economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844. Mineola: Courier Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  82. Mensch, B. (1981). Freedom of contract as ideology. Stanford Law Review, 33, 753–772Google Scholar
  83. Mueller, M., & McKnight, L. (2004). The post-.COM internet: toward regular and objective procedures for internet governance. Telecommunications Policy, 28(7), 487–502Google Scholar
  84. Ourliac, P., & de Malafosse, J. (1969). Histoire du Droit privé (2ème ed., p. 114). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  85. Pound, R. (1909). Liberty of contract. Yale Law Journal, 18, 454–487Google Scholar
  86. Ramsbotham, O., Miall, H., & Woodhouse, T. (2011). Contemporary conflict resolution. In Polity, M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. Hoboken: WileyGoogle Scholar
  87. Reichman, J. H., & Franklin, J. A. (1999). Privately legislated intellectual property rights: Reconciling freedom of contract with public good uses of information. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 147, 875–970Google Scholar
  88. Schlechtriem, P. (1988). Borderland of tort and contract-opening a new frontier, The. Cornell Int’l LJ, 21, 467.Google Scholar
  89. Schneider, A. K. (2013). Beyond theory: Roger Fisher’s lessons on work and life. Negotiation Journal, 29(2), 171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sørensen, E., Torfing, J., Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (2012). Interactive governance: Advancing the paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Sorsa, K. (2009). The proactive law approach: A further step towards better regulation. Tala, J. & Pakarinen A.(Eds.), Changing Forms of Legal and Non-Legal Institutions and New Challenges for the Legislator-International Conference on Legislative Studies in Helsinki. National Research Institute of Legal Policy. Research Communications 97, 35–70Google Scholar
  92. Tolsada, M. Y. (2001). Sistema de responsabilidad civil, contractual y extracontractual. Dykinson.Google Scholar
  93. Webster, F. (2002). Theories of the information society. International Library of Sociology.Google Scholar
  94. Yu, L. (2007). Introduction to the semantic web and semantic web services. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tallinn Law SchoolTallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations