David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
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
No references found.
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.
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.
Paul M. Smith1 (2006). The Application of Critical Discourse Analysis in Environmental Dispute Resolution. Ethics, Place and Environment 9 (1):79-100.
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.
Jonathan Crowe & Rachael Field (2008). The Problem of Legitimacy in Mediation. Contemporary Issues in Law 9:48-60.
Timothy Bays (2001). On Putnam and His Models. Journal of Philosophy 98 (7):331-350.
Douglas Walton & David M. Godden (2005). Persuasion Dialogue in Online Dispute Resolution. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (2):273-295.
Paul M. Smith (2006). The Application of Critical Discourse Analysis in Environmental Dispute Resolution. Ethics, Place and Environment 9 (1):79 – 100.
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 downloads5 ( #220,234 of 1,096,862 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #164,383 of 1,096,862 )
How can I increase my downloads?