Alternative Dispute Resolution in Virtual Organizations

  • Jeremy Pitt
  • Daniel Ramirez-Cano
  • Lloyd Kamara
  • Brendan Neville
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4995)


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.


Dispute Resolution Opinion Formation Virtual Organization Alternative Dispute Resolution Jury Trial 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Brafman, O., Beckstrom, R.: The Starfish And The Spider. Penguin (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mařík, V., William Brennan, R., Pěchouček, M. (eds.): HoloMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3593. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 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. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pitt, J.: The open agent society as a platform for the user-friendly information society. AI Soc. 19(2), 123–158 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Artikis, A., Sergot, M., Pitt, J.: Specifying norm-governed computational societies. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (to appear)Google Scholar
  7. 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. 8.
    Makinson, D.: On the formal representation of rights relations. Journal of Philosophical Logic 15, 403–425 (1986)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones, A., Sergot, M.: A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. Journal of the IGPL 4(3), 429–445 (1996)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. 11.
    Slate II, W.: Online dispute resolution: Click here to settle your dispute. Dispute Resolution Journal 8 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center: Dispute resolution for the 21st century (2007),
  13. 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),
  14. 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. 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. 16.
    Ware, S.J.: Principles of Alternative Dispute Resolution. West Group (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    American Arbitration Association (2007),
  18. 18.
    WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center: Guide to WIPO Arbitration (2007),
  19. 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. 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. 21.
    Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.: A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Computing 4(1), 67–96 (1986)Google Scholar
  22. 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. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pennington, N., Hastie, R.: Juror decision-making models: The generalization gap. Psychological Bulletin 89(2), 246–287 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bennett, W.L.: Storytelling in criminal trials: A model of social judgment. Quarterly Journal of Speech 64(1), 1–22 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 619–641 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chesñevar, C.I., Maguitman, A.G., Loui, R.P.: Logical models of argument. ACM Comput. Surv. 32(4), 337–383 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Walker, G.B., Daniels, S.E.: Argument and alternative dispute resolution systems. Argumentation 9, 693–704 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sartor, G.: A formal model of legal argumentation. Ratio Juris 7(2), 177–211 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Artikis, A., Sergot, M., Pitt, J.: An executable specification of a formal argumentation protocol. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 776–804 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pitt, J., Kamara, L., Sergot, M., Artikis, A.: Voting in Multi-Agent Systems. The Computer Journal 49(2), 156–170 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    American Bar Association: Principles for juries and jury trials (2005),
  34. 34.
    Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N., Turner, H.: Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artif. Intell. 153(1-2), 49–104 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Surowiecki, J.: The wisdom of crowds. Doubleday (2004)Google Scholar
  37. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rawls, J.: A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeremy Pitt
    • 1
  • Daniel Ramirez-Cano
    • 1
  • Lloyd Kamara
    • 1
  • Brendan Neville
    • 1
  1. 1.Intelligent Systems & Networks Group, Dept. of Electrical & Electronic EngineeringImperial College LondonUK

Personalised recommendations