I am currently taking Prof. Autea’s class on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). We are about to end the semester when I discovered this interesting concept called Online Dispute Resolution (ODR). How is this different from ADR? Well, thanks to google, I now know that ODR is simply ADR online.
Basically, in ODR, there are private organizations online offering dispute resolution services (principally, arbitration and mediation). According to a document from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), ODR was originally envisioned to solve disputes in electronic commerce (e-commerce) transactions. Parties to e-commerse agree to submit their disputes for resolution by an online ADR provider. Decisions of these online arbitrators, are final and binding as between the parties.
There is nothing however that would preclude the use of ODR in real world transactions. As Prof. Autea repeatedly tells us “the essence of ADR is party autonomy.” For as long as both parties agree to submit a dispute to a neutral third party online, the outcome of the arbitration (or a mediated settlement agreement in case of mediation) would be binding on them.
ODR presents an inexpensive alternative to what I would now label as “traditional” face-to-face arbitration. In Arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce Rules (ICC Rules), the required downpayment to set in motion international arbitration is 2500 US dollars. The $2500 does not include arbitrator’s fees which could go as high as $50,000.
The concept is not however recognized yet in the Philippines. There is no ODR Law yet. In fact the Special ADR Rules promulgated by the Supreme Court last September 2009 makes no reference to an online dispute resolution mechanism.
My imaginative mind however, tells me that no such ODR Law is needed. Basically, the difference between traditional ADR and ODR would merely be one of venue. One is online and one is offline. Physical location in my view should not be a legal obstacle to recognizing decisions made by real arbitrators and mediators albeit made online. This is simply within the concept of “party autonomy.”
If both parties agreed to submit their dispute to ODR, I see no reason why our courts should not give effect to the intent of the parties. To quote Prof. Autea again, the cornerstone of arbitration is an arbitration agreement.
Arbitration is contractual. Our E-Commerce Law even now recognizes contracts entered online. Our Statute of Frauds as we traditionally know it, has been altered by this law. So, why then must we distinguish between ADR OFFLINE and ADR online?
Bryan A. San Juan
Basically, in ODR, there are private organizations online offering dispute resolution services (principally, arbitration and mediation). According to a document from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), ODR was originally envisioned to solve disputes in electronic commerce (e-commerce) transactions. Parties to e-commerse agree to submit their disputes for resolution by an online ADR provider. Decisions of these online arbitrators, are final and binding as between the parties.
There is nothing however that would preclude the use of ODR in real world transactions. As Prof. Autea repeatedly tells us “the essence of ADR is party autonomy.” For as long as both parties agree to submit a dispute to a neutral third party online, the outcome of the arbitration (or a mediated settlement agreement in case of mediation) would be binding on them.
ODR presents an inexpensive alternative to what I would now label as “traditional” face-to-face arbitration. In Arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce Rules (ICC Rules), the required downpayment to set in motion international arbitration is 2500 US dollars. The $2500 does not include arbitrator’s fees which could go as high as $50,000.
The concept is not however recognized yet in the Philippines. There is no ODR Law yet. In fact the Special ADR Rules promulgated by the Supreme Court last September 2009 makes no reference to an online dispute resolution mechanism.
My imaginative mind however, tells me that no such ODR Law is needed. Basically, the difference between traditional ADR and ODR would merely be one of venue. One is online and one is offline. Physical location in my view should not be a legal obstacle to recognizing decisions made by real arbitrators and mediators albeit made online. This is simply within the concept of “party autonomy.”
If both parties agreed to submit their dispute to ODR, I see no reason why our courts should not give effect to the intent of the parties. To quote Prof. Autea again, the cornerstone of arbitration is an arbitration agreement.
Arbitration is contractual. Our E-Commerce Law even now recognizes contracts entered online. Our Statute of Frauds as we traditionally know it, has been altered by this law. So, why then must we distinguish between ADR OFFLINE and ADR online?
Bryan A. San Juan
Entry No. 17
No comments:
Post a Comment