David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (2):207-232 (2005)
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.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Brian Z. Tamanaha (2001). A General Jurisprudence of Law and Society. Oxford University Press.
Laurens Mommers (2002). Applied Legal Epistemology: Building a Knowledge-Based Ontology of the Legal Domain. L. Mommers.
Thomas F. Gordon (1995). The Pleadings Games: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Springer.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Carrie J. Menkel-Meadow (2010). Dispute Resolution. In Peter Cane & Herbert M. Kritzer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research. Oxford University Press
Paul M. Smith (2006). The Application of Critical Discourse Analysis in Environmental Dispute Resolution. Ethics, Place and Environment 9 (1):79 – 100.
Douglas Walton & David Godden (2005). Persuasion Dialogue in Online Dispute Resolution. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (2):273-295.
Timothy Bays (2001). On Putnam and His Models. Journal of Philosophy 98 (7):331-350.
Jonathan Crowe & Rachael Field (2008). The Problem of Legitimacy in Mediation. Contemporary Issues in Law 9:48-60.
Nguyen Duy Hung, Phan Minh Thang & Phan Minh Dung (2011). Modular Argumentation for Modelling Legal Doctrines of Performance Relief. Argument and Computation 1 (1):47-69.
Paul M. Smith1 (2006). The Application of Critical Discourse Analysis in Environmental Dispute Resolution. Ethics, Place and Environment 9 (1):79-100.
Stephanie H. Bol (2003). Ethan Katsh and Janet Rifkin, Online Dispute Resolution, Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (1):69-75.
Colin Rule & Larry Friedberg (2005). The Appropriate Role of Dispute Resolution in Building Trust Online. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (2):193-205.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads15 ( #226,753 of 1,789,994 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #318,432 of 1,789,994 )
How can I increase my downloads?