Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legitimacy and the Virtualization of Dispute Resolution

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For any type of institutionalized dispute resolution, legitimacy is a crucial characteristic, as legitimate dispute resolution promotes, for instance, general trust in state institutions and participation in economic activity. A lack of legitimacy will prevent the acceptance of dispute resolution, and thereby its use. Although many textbook definitions limit the meaning of legitimacy to legality, in its every-day use legitimacy is in fact a much broader concept. It encompasses different criteria relating to the nature of dispute resolution: is a form of dispute resolution properly embedded in a reliable institutional environment?, and: are its outcomes properly underpinned? Virtualization concerns the ways in which information and communication technologies affect administration, communication, accessibility and assessment. As an example of virtualization in dispute resolution, a scenario about on-line feedback is scrutinized. This scenario comprises the implementation of a feedback system to enable participants in an instance of dispute resolution to comment on various aspects of the dispute resolving process.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Eshuis, R.J.J., ter Voort, M. (2003)., De onafhankelijkheid en onpartijdigheid van rechters. Van insiders- naar outsidersperspectief in: Justitiële Verkenningen 29(1): 74--0

    Google Scholar 

  • Franken H. (2001). ‘Juridisch theoretische achtergronden’. In: Franken H., Kaspersen, de Wild A.H. (eds), Recht en computer. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon T.F. (1995). The Pleadings Game – An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Groothuis M.M. (2004). Beschikken en digitaliseren: over normering van de elektronische overheid. Sdu Uitgevers, Den Haag

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost J.T., Major B. (eds) (2001). The Psychology of Legitimacy Emerging perpectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodder, A.R. (1998). Dialaw – on legal justification and dialog games, Universiteit Maastricht: Ph.D. thesis

  • Luhmann N. (1969). Legitimation durch Verfahren. Hermann Luchterhand Verlag, Neuwied am Rhein und Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Mommers, L. (2002). Applied legal epistemology: building a knowledge-based ontology of the legal domain, Leiden: Ph.D. thesis

  • Mommers, L. (2003). Application of a knowledge-based ontology of the legal domain in collaborative workspaces, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Edinburgh, UK, 2003, pp. 70--6

  • Nieuwenhuis, J.H. (1976). Legimatie en heuristiek van het rechterlijk oordeel. Rechtsgeleerd Magazijn Themis 1976(6): 494--15

  • Pessers, D.W.J.M. (1999). Liefde, solidariteit en recht. Een interdisciplinair onderzoek naar het wederkerigheidsbeginsel. Ph.D. thesis: Universiteit van Amsterdam

  • Project Kwaliteit (2002). Project Kwaliteit. Kwaliteitssysteem voor het rechterlijk functioneren, Den Haag: Raad voor de Rechtspraak

  • Reiling, D. (2003). Rechtspraak in de digitale delta. Nederlands Juristenblad 78(44): 2286--291

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiavetta, S. (2004). The Relationship Between e-ADR and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights pursuant to the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights. JILT (Journal of Information, Law and Technology) 2004(1)

  • Shapiro M. (1981). Courts. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamanaha, B.Z. (2001). A General Jurisprudence of Law and Society. Oxford University Press

  • Verheij, H.B. (1996). Rules, Reasons, Arguments. Formal studies of argumentation and defeat. Ph.D. thesis: Universiteit Maastricht

  • Verheij, H.B. (2003). Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 150(1): 291--24

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwenne G.-J. (1998). Belastingheffing en informatieplichten. Sdu, Den Haag

    Google Scholar 

  • eBay: http://www.ebay.com

  • Feedback Forum: http://pages.ebay.com/services/forum/feedback.html

  • SquareTrade: http://www.squaretrade.com

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. eLaw@Leiden, centre for law in the information society, P.O. Box 9520 , 2300 RA, Leiden, Netherlands

    Laurens Mommers

Authors
  1. Laurens Mommers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laurens Mommers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mommers, L. Legitimacy and the Virtualization of Dispute Resolution. Artif Intell Law 13, 207–232 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-006-9012-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-006-9012-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation