The Need to Incorporate Justice into Negotiation Support Systems

  • John Zeleznikow
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 37)


Over the past twenty five years there has been a movement towards resolving legal disputes through mediation and negotiation rather than litigation. Perceived benefits of this move towards Alternative Dispute Resolution include disputants having more control of the dispute and potential solutions, reduced costs and speedier decision making. If Alternative Dispute Resolution becomes the norm for resolving legal disputes, then we must ensure that the negotiation support systems that we develop utilize legally fair paradigms. But how can we develop measures, or at the very least principles, for the development of legally just? Through an examination of bargaining in the shadow of the law and principled negotiation we suggest principles which when applied, will encourage fairness and justice in the development of negotiation support systems. Such principles include transparency, bargaining in the shadow of the law and the need for discovery. We also illustrate the pitfalls of using such principles.


Negotiation Support Systems Justice Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law BATNAs 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alexander, R.: Family mediation: Friend or Foe for Women. 10:1 Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 8(4), 255 (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bellucci, E., Zeleznikow, J.: Representations for decision making support in negotiation. Journal of Decision Support 10(3-4), 449–479 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bellucci, E., Zeleznikow, J.: Developing Negotiation Decision Support Systems that support mediators: a case study of the Family_Winner system. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law 13(2), 233–271 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bibas, S.: Transparency and Participation in Criminal Procedure. New York University Law Review 81, 911–966 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brams, S., Taylor, A.: Fair Division, from cake cutting to dispute resolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cooter, R., Marks, S., Mnookin, R.: Bargaining in the shadow of the law: a testable model of strategic behavior. The Journal of Legal Studies 11(2), 225–251 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooter, R., Rubinfeld, D.: An Economic Model of Legal Discovery. Journal of Legal Studies 23, 435–463 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Field, R.: A feminist Model of Mediation that centralizes the role of lawyers as advocates for participants who are victims of domestic violence. The Australian Feminist Law Journal 20, 65–91 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fisher, R., Ury, W.: Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving. Haughton Mifflin, Boston (1981)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Galanter, M.: The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in State and Federal Courts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 1(3), 459–570 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Honeyman, C.: Patterns of bias in mediation. Missouri Journal of Dispute Resolution, 141–150 (1985)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Katsh, E., Rifkin, J.: Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lodder, A., Zeleznikow, J.: Developing an Online Dispute Resolution Environment: Dialogue Tools and Negotiation Systems in a Three Step Model. The Harvard Negotiation Law Review 10, 287–338 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mackenzie, G., Vincent, A., Zeleznikow, J.: Negotiating about charges and pleas – balancing interests and justice. In: Climaco, J., Kersten, G., Costa, J.P. (eds.) Proceedings of Group Decision and Negotiation, Proceedings – Full Papers, INESC Coimbra, Portugal, pp. 167–180 (2008) ISBN: 978-989-95055-2-0Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McEwen, C., Rogers, N., Maiman, R.: Bring in the Lawyers: Challenging the Dominant Approaches to Ensuring Fairness in Divorce Mediation. Minnesota Law Review 79, 1317–1412 (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mnookin, R.: When Not to Negotiate. University of Colorado Law Review 74, 1077–1107 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mnookin, R., Kornhauser, L.: Bargaining in the shadow of the law: The case of divorce. Yale Law Journal 88, 950–997 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mnookin, R., Peppet, S., Tulumello, A.: Beyond Winning: Negotiating to Create Value in Deals and Disputes. The Belnap Press of Harvard University Press (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Phegan, R.: The Family Mediation System: An Art of Distributions McGill Law. Journal 40, 365 (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pierani, M.: ODR Developments under a consumer perspective: The Italian Case. In: Proceedings of Second International ODR Workshop, pp. 43–45. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Priest, G., Klein, B.: The Selection of Disputes for Litigation. Journal of Legal Studies 13, 1–55 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Raiffa, H.: The Art and Science of Negotiation: How to Resolve Conflicts and Get the Best Out of Bargaining. The Belknap Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Raiffa, H., Richardson, J., Metcalfe, D.: Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making. The Belknap Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shavell, S.: Economic Analysis Of Litigation And The Legal Process, Discussion Paper No. 404, John M. Olin Center For Law, Economics, And Business, Harvard University, Cambridge, Ma (2003) ISSN 1045-6333Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stranieri, A., Zeleznikow, J., Gawler, M., Lewis, B.: A hybrid—neural approach to the automation of legal reasoning in the discretionary domain of family law in Australia. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7(2-3), 153–183 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sycara, K.: Machine Learning for Intelligent Support of Conflict Resolution. Decision Support Systems 10, 121–136 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thompson, L.: Information Exchange in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 27, 161–179 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thiessen, E., McMahon, J.P.: Beyond Win-Win in Cyberspace. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 15, 643 (2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Walton, R., Mckersie, R.: A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations. McGraw-Hill, New York (1965)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wright, R., Miller, M.: The Screening/Bargaining Tradeoff. Stanford Law Review 55, 29–117 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zeleznikow, J., Bellucci, E.: Family_Winner: integrating game theory and heuristics to provide negotiation support. In: Proceedings of Sixteenth International Conference on Legal Knowledge Based System, pp. 21–30. IOS Publications, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zeleznikow, J., Bellucci, E., Vincent, A., Mackenzie, G.: Bargaining in the shadow of a trial: adding notions of fairness to interest-based negotiation in legal domains. In: Kersten, G., Rios, J., Chen, E. (eds.) Proceedings of Group Decision and Negotiation Meeting 2007, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada, vol. II, pp. 451–475 (2007)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zeleznikow, J., Stranieri, A.: Split Up: The use of an argument based knowledge representation to meet expectations of different users for discretionary decision making. In: Proceedings of IAAI 1998 — Tenth Annual Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1146–1151. AAAI/MIT Press (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Zeleznikow
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information SystemsVictoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations