Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2021
Abstract
The seven year effort of UNCITRAL Working Group III to prepare a global framework for online dispute resolution (ODR) never met its original expectations, and ended only with a set of Technical Notes. This failure was largely due to a direct conflict between the initial premise that access to courts is not always access to justice in an online world and the Working Group’s unwavering attachment to the concept that some parties would not have access to justice unless they never gave up the right to go to court. Thus, those who were to be protected by the right always to go to court would not be able to engage in an ODR system that necessitates binding pre-dispute agreement to that system. Regardless of this failure of the UNCITRAL Working Group III efforts on ODR, others have continued to work toward effective cross-border ODR systems. In this article I deal with the basic definition of ODR for cross-border purposes, review the UNCITRAL project and its results, and consider how others have picked up the pieces in a way that may offer UNCITRAL, and others, a way forward in the future.
Recommended Citation
Ronald A. Brand,
UNCITRAL, Access to Justice, and the Future of Online Dispute Resolution,
8
BCDR International Arbitration Review
87
(2021).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.pitt.edu/fac_articles/604
Included in
Civil Law Commons, Commercial Law Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Conflict of Laws Commons, Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons, International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Litigation Commons, Transnational Law Commons