Constructing Computer Assisted Dispute Resolution Systems by Developing a Generic Language to Analyse Information Exchange in Conflict Discourse

Abstract

Online dispute resolution (ODR) may be described as an attempt to use the internet to mainstream alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The question how conflict resolution and information technology interact at a fundamental level has received little attention. Improving information exchange about the substantive issues in a conflict prevents escalation of conflict and assists in resolution. Dispute resolution always involves separation of substantive and emotional issues. This is achieved by means of the process and/or by the involvement of the neutral. Creating ODR systems thus involves the question how this ‘separation’ may be automated. This paper reports on a project of which the ultimate goal is to create a generic Computer Assisted Dispute Resolution (CADR) system by analysing the structure of conflict and the role of information exchange in it.

Notes

1 See also B Zondag ‘The structure of civil conflict, a first step to computer assisted dispute resolution’ Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand, 2005.

2 Eg E Katsh and J Rifkin Online Dispute Resolution: Conflict Resolution in Cyberspace Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 2001.

3 Eg C Rule Online Dispute Resolution for Business: B2B. Ecommerce, Consumer, Employment, Insurance and other Commercial Conflict Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 2002.

4 Eg A R Lodder and J Zeleznikow ‘Developing an online dispute resolution environment: dialogue tools and negotiation support systems in a three step model’ Harvard Negotiation Law Journal Vol 10, pp 287–338, 2005, A R Lodder and G A W Vreeswijk ‘Online arbitration services at a turning point’ (French version: ‘Les services d'arbtrage en ligne’) ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin pp 35–42, 2004; C Rule Online Dispute Resolution for Businesses Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 2002.

5 Quoting a classic text that remains of interest for those studying conflict; see K von Clausewitz On War Trubner, London, 1873.

6 As reported in: District Court Claims Sub-committee ‘Consultation paper 23 August 2004’ http://www.justice.govt.nz/rulescommittee/discussionpapers.htm (last accessed 16 October 2005); District Court Claims Sub-committee ‘Response of District Court Claims Sub-Committee on submissions on rules committee consultation paper issued 23 August 2004’ http://www.justice.govt.nz/rulescommittee/discussionpapers.htm (last accessed 16 October 2005).

7 For an example of a government assisted effort to come to a standardisation of ADR terminology see NADRAC ‘Dispute resolution terms’ http://www.nadrac.gov.au (last accessed August 2005).

8 An interesting characterisation of mediation professionals is included in the following quote: ‘In the stormy ocean of conflict, mediation is proving to be a fragile vessel with a hardy crew’. See L Boulle, J Jones and V Goldblatt Mediation: Principles, Process, Practice New Zealand edn, Butterworths, Wellington, NZ, 1998.

9 Research in New Zealand found that ADR practitioners have by far the highest confidence in the value of ADR, as compared to lawyers (who considered lawyer achieved settlements more successful), the judiciary (who considered judicial settlement conferences the preferred option) and litigants (who seem generally not impressed with any of the above). See K Saville-Smith ‘Alternative dispute resolution: general civil cases/prepared for the Ministry of Justice by K. Saville-Smith and R. Fraser’ Ministry of Justice, Wellington, NZ, 2004.

10 Although efforts are being made to develop a more sound academic basis for ADR. A good example in the Australian context is the work of NADRAC. NADRAC ‘ADR research, a resource paper’ www.nadrac.gov.au (last accessed December 2004).

11 Many different definitions of conflict exist. The one used here is based on the work of Wilmot and Hocker, see W W Wilmot and J L Hocker Interpersonal Conflict 5th edn, McGraw-Hill, Boston, 1998.

12 Or in positions, rather than in interests. See R Fisher, W L Ury and B Patton Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In 2nd edn, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1991.

13 See for instance J P Folger, M S Poole and R K Stutman Working Through Conflict: Strategies for Relationships, Groups and Organizations 5th edn, Pearson, New York, 2005.

14 See op cit, note 9. This study surveyed the impact of ADR on ‘traditional’ litigation, and analyzed both quantitative and qualitative data. It was observed that especially lawyers had the experience that the best point in time to attempt ADR in a procedure that has been filed is after the discovery process is completed, ie at the point in time were the parties have been informed of the factual basis of the dispute.

15 F Sligo, S C Olsson and C M Wallace Perspectives in Business Communication: Theory and Practice Software Technology New Zealand: Palmerston North, NZ, 1997.

16 If conflict resolution professionals would embrace the use of such a language to describe individual conflicts, using the methodology that is provided, a theoretical basis to exchange conflict information may develop, which would also make it possible to apply more ‘scientific’ methods to ADR research.

17 Zondag, op cit, note 1.

18 The proposed new District Court rules for New Zealand provide a parallel in the form of ‘information capsules’, which are essentially a collection of evidential and descriptive material, which the parties are obliged to exchange in the period leading up to a compulsory ‘consensual’ settlement conference. See op cit, note 6.

19 This process may be compared with the use of privilege in formal resolution processes.

20 Interesting research in this area used a simple electronic instrument to record and compare two parties' (bivalent) opinions about a statement. Each party was asked to give the opinion from its own, but also from the other's perspective and the results were compared. See P A J Brabers and J Kooistra J ‘De Agograaf’ Tijdschrift voor Agologie 5, 1975. For an introduction to the technique of priority ranking, and the use of such rankings in negotiation, see G Kennedy (Kennedy on Negotiation Aldershot, Hants, Gower Publishing, 1998).

21 Fisher et al, op cit, note 12.

22 Research is currently conducted which approaches that type of functionality for liability disputes. See http://cedire.org/, the ‘BEST-project’, which stands for Batna Establishment using Semantic Web Technology (http://best-project.nl). The aim of that project is to use semantic analysis to find case law that is relevant to a specific fact situation. An advanced system as alluded to in this article would require that the structures and concepts of law are reduced to a formal language, with a hierarchical syntax, and extensive database of terms, each connected with ‘ordinary’ words for these terms, in a thesaurus-like structure. This may be less complicated as it seems, especially when it is considered that the vast majority of disputes revolve around relatively simply legal situations, made complicated by the emotional issues.