Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Online Dispute Resolution Services: Justice, Concepts, and Challenges

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Book cover Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation

  • 131 Accesses

Abstract

Online dispute resolution (ODR) services are e-justice service conduits that utilize, implicitly or explicitly, electronic negotiation systems. They are a key mechanism that may provide a viable solution to the flood of e-disputes, and even for face-to-face disputes that can be resolved without being colocated (e.g., see how courts resolve cases during the COVID-19 pandemic). Justice is important in negotiation processes. It is therefore suggested that ODR services are a viable means to serve justice on the web. In this chapter, we describe the state of e-justice and introduce the need for ODR services. We then present the concept of ODR, its different forms, and its association with negotiation support systems. To this end, we portray a classification of ODR services, give examples of different types of services, and specifically discuss one of the promising types, namely, principle-based dispute resolution services. The chapter concludes with an overview of the challenges associated with the introduction of ODR services, and specifically with their adoption by users; an issue that is echoed in several other chapters as well.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.ebay.com/

References

  • Bergling S (2000) Alternative dispute resolution for consumer transactions in the borderless online marketplace. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Waldorf, pp 1216

    Google Scholar 

  • Bichler M, Kersten G, Strecker S (2003) Towards a Structured Design of Electronic Negotiations. GGroup Decis Negot 12(4):311–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnet V, Boudaoud K, Gagnebin M, Harms J, Schultz T (2002) Online dispute resolution systems as web services. In: Proceedings Hewlett-Packard OpenView University Association Workshop held on video conference, workshop on 11–13 June 2002. Available online: http://www.hpovua.org/publications/proceedings

  • Bunnell D, Luecke R (2000) The eBay phenomenon, 1st edn. Wiley, New York, pp 61–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger WE (1977) Our vicious spiral. Judges J 22(1):49

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen C (2004) United States and European Union approaches to Internet jurisdiction and their impact on E-commerce. Univ Pa J Int Econ Law 25(1):423–454

    Google Scholar 

  • DOJ (1992) US Department of Justice Statistics. Report to Congress on the state of litigation. Department of Justice, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Doong HS, Lai HC (2008) Exploring usage continuance of e-negotiation systems: expectation and disconfirmation approach. Group Decis Negot 17(2):111–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni A (2019) Cyber trust. J Bus Ethics 156(1):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2001) Commission recommendation 2001/310/EC on the principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual resolution of consumer disputes, published in OJ L109/56, 19 Apr 2001

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher R (1991) Negotiating power: getting and using influence. In: Breslin JW, Rubin JZ (eds) Negotiation theory and practice. Program on Negotiation Books, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher R, Ury W, Patton B (1991) Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in, 2nd edn. Penguin Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman RA, Currall SC (2003) Conflict escalation: dispute exacerbating elements of e-mail communication. Hum Relat 56(11):1325–1347

    Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D, Karahanna E, Straub DW (2003) Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Q 27(1):51–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez AG (2003) eBay law: the legal implications of the C2C electronic commerce model. Comput Law Secur Rep 19(6):468–473

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimmelmann J (2019) Continuity and change in internet law. Commun ACM 62(5):24–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasan AS, Serguievskaia IA (2006) Framework for developing experience based e-negotiation system. J Comput Sci 2(2):180–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornle J (2003) Online dispute resolution: the emperor’s new clothes? Benefits and pitfalls of online dispute resolution and its application to commercial arbitration. Int Rev Law Comput Technol 17(1):27–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones R (1999) Legal pluralism and the adjudication of Internet disputes. Int Rev Law Comput Technol 13(1):49–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Katsh E (1994) Digital lawyers – orienting the legal profession to cyberspace. Univ Pittsbg Law Rev 55(4):1141–1175

    Google Scholar 

  • Katsh E, Rifkin J (2001) Online dispute resolution, 1st edn. Jossey-Bass, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Katsh E, Rifkin J, Gaitenby A (2000) E-commerce, e-disputes and e-dispute resolution: in the shadow of eBay law. Ohio State J Disput Resolut 15(3):705–734

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten GE (2003) The science and engineering of e-negotiation: an introduction. In: 36th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS ’03), Hawaii

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten GE (2004) E-negotiation systems: interaction of people and technologies to resolve conflicts. InterNeg international seminar: markets, negotiations and dispute resolution in new economy, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler S (1997) Preface. In: Kiesler S (ed) Culture of the Internet. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai HC, Doong HS, Kao CC, Kersten GE (2006) Negotiators’ communication, perception of their counterparts, and performance in dyadic e-negotiations. Group Decis Negot 15(5):429–447

    Google Scholar 

  • Landry EM (2000) Scrolling around the new organization: the potential for conflict in the on-line environment. Negot J 16(2):133–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee KC, Kang I, Kim JS (2007) Exploring the user interface of negotiation support systems from the user acceptance perspective. Comput Hum Behav 23(1):220–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki RJ, Saunders DM, Minton JW (1999) Negotiation (companion volume to: Negotiation: reading, exercises and cases), 3rd edn. Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis LF, Spich RS (1996) Principled negotiation, evolutionary systems design, and group support systems: a suggested integration of three approaches to improving negotiations. In: Proceedings of the 29th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, vol 3, pp 238–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim J (2003) A conceptual framework on the adoption of negotiation support systems. Inf Softw Technol 45(8):469–477

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim J, Gan B, Chang T-T (2002) A survey on NSS adoption intention. In: 35th Hawaii international conference on system sciences. IEEE, Hawaii

    Google Scholar 

  • Maiese M (2003) Negotiation. http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/negotiation/?nid=1273

  • Maynes ES (1979) Consumer protection: the issues. J Consum Policy 3:97–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Mediate.com (2006) The world’s dispute resolution channel. Negotiation power. http://www.mediate.com/divorce/pg26.cfm

  • Merriam Webster Online (2006) http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/justice. Accessed 15 Dec 2006

  • Moore DA, Kurtzberg TR, Thompson LL, Morris MW (1999) Long and short routes to success in electronically mediated negotiations: group affiliations and good vibrations. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 77(1):22–43

    Google Scholar 

  • NCL (2001) Online auctions, 2001 survey. National Consumers League (NCL), Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacini C, Andrews C, Hillison W (2002) To agree not to agree: Legal issues in online contracting. Bus Horiz 45(1):43–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Parlade CV (2006) Online dispute resolution and quality of justice. Available at: http://www.odr.info/claro.doc

  • Pepper R, Jackman M (2019) A data driven approach to closing the Internet inclusion gap. In: Digital economies at global margins. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p 29

    Google Scholar 

  • Puddister K, Small TA (2020) Trial by zoom? The response to COVID-19 by Canada’s courts. Can J Polit Sci:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423920000505

  • Ramsay DCI (1981) Consumer redress mechanisms for poor-quality and defective products. Univ Tor Law J 31(2):117–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1999) A theory of justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rule C (2002) Online dispute resolution for business, 1st edn. Jossey-Bass (A Wiley Imprint), San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoop M, Jertila A, List T (2003) Negoisst: a negotiation support system for electronic business-to-business negotiations in e-commerce. Data Knowl Eng 47(3):371–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze Suedhoff U (2001) The protection of the online consumer through online dispute resolution and other models of redress (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia)

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah MH, Jones P, Choudrie J (2019) Cybercrimes prevention: promising organisational practices. Inf Technol People 32(5):1125–1129

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan M (2017) Anticipating the economic benefits of blockchain. Technol Innov Manag Rev 7(10):6–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiessen EM, Soberg A (2003) SmartSettle described with the Montreal taxonomy. Group Decis Negot 12(2):165–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiessen EM, Loucks DP, Stedinger JR (1998) Computer-assisted negotiations of water resources conflicts. Group Decis Negot 7(2):109–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Turel O (2006) Predictors of disputants’ intentions to use online dispute resolution services: the roles of justice and trust. McMaster University, Hamilton

    Google Scholar 

  • Turel O (2009) Interdependence issues in analyzing negotiation data. Group Decis Negot

    Google Scholar 

  • Turel O, Yuan Y (2005) Online negotiation services: benefits and challenges of users and service providers. J Altern Disput Resolut 52:62–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Turel O, Yuan Y (2006) Trajectories for driving the diffusion of e-negotiation service providers in supply chains: an action research approach. J Internet Commer 5(4):125–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Turel O, Yuan Y (2007a) Online dispute resolution services for electronic markets: a user centric research agenda. Int J e-Bus 5(6):590–603

    Google Scholar 

  • Turel O, Yuan Y (2007b) User acceptance of web-based negotiation support systems: the role of perceived intention of the negotiating partner to negotiate online. Group Decis Negot 16(5):451–468

    Google Scholar 

  • Turel O, Yuan Y (2007c) You can’t shake hands with clenched fists: potential effects of trust assessments on the adoption of e-negotiation services. Group Decis Negot 17(2):141–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Turel O, Yuan Y, Rose J (2007) Antecedents of attitude towards online mediation. Group Decis Negot 16(6):539–552

    Google Scholar 

  • Turel O, Yuan YF, Connelly CE (2008) In justice we trust: predicting user acceptance of e-customer services. J Manag Inf Syst 24(4):123–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Vetschera R, Kersten G, Koeszegi S (2006) User assessment of internet-based negotiation support systems: an exploratory study. J Organ Comput Electron Commer 16(2):123–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Vice JW (2006) Neutrality, justice, and fairness. Loyola University Chicago. Available at: http://www.ombuds.uci.edu/JOURNALS/1997/neutrality.html

  • Watson WE, Kumar K, Michaelsen LK (1993) Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Acad Manag J 36(5):590–602

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu Z, Yuan Y (2009) Principle-based dispute resolution for consumer protection. Knowl-Based Syst 22:18–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuan Y, Turel O (2007) E-negotiations: bridging the practical divide – introduction to the special issue. Group Decis Negot 17(2):107–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeng J, Mackay D (2019) The influence of managerial attention on the deployment of dynamic capability: a case study of Internet platform firms in China. Ind Corp Chang 28(5):1173–1192

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. California State University, Fullerton, CA, USA

    Ofir Turel

  2. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Yufei Yuan

Authors
  1. Ofir Turel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yufei Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ofir Turel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Wilfrid Laurier University Dept. Mathematics, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    D. Marc Kilgour

  2. University of Strathclyde Strathclyde Business School, Glasgow, UK

    Colin Eden

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Turel, O., Yuan, Y. (2020). Online Dispute Resolution Services: Justice, Concepts, and Challenges. In: Kilgour, D., Eden, C. (eds) Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_25-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_25-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12051-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12051-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation