Enforcement, Recognition, and Compliance with OADR Outcome(s)

Abstract

Electronic commerce is important, and perhaps, inevitable. Thus to consider the legal implications of enforcement, recognition and compliance with online alternative dispute resolution (OADR) is essential. However, in analysing enforcement, recognition and compliance with OADR, one must contemplate primarily the value of fair process which OADR solutions are subject to, and the value of efficiency which OADR solutions are seen to achieve. without which the OADR outcome(s) will be cast in doubt.

Clearly, there is no point in discussing applicable remedies to internet disputes without promoting at the same time appropriate enforcement mechanisms. From this perspective, OADR could be viewed as an exercise in futility if there is no efficient mechanism in place to enforce the outcome(s). Indeed, access to justice is only meaningful where the outcome(s) of the OADR proceedings can be enforced.

Enforcement of OADR outcome(s) poses no problem when it is in the interest of both parties to fulfil their agreement. However, the enforcement difficulties associated with global networks may suggest that enforcement can be best achieved through technological measures. In fact, where small amounts of money are involved, as it is the case in most internet disputes, and where an e-business, most probably, will have no assets within the jurisdictional reach of the internet user, providing some other means to minimise the problem of enforceability, such as technological measures, becomes pressing. In advancing this issue, this article will find out whether the internet itself, without governmental back up effort, can be viewed as an effective enforcement tool in cyberspace. However, accountability in OADR may be based around institutional arrangements and not the medium, i.e., the internet. Consequently, where appropriate, this article will proceed to discuss the governmental role in OADR enforcement through its court system, since enforcement in OADR schemes might depend on having a contract or award that would be recognised by a court of law.

This article concludes that at present, enforceability of outcome(s) is the weakest point of OADR procedures. Thus, it is important to recognise that in the modernisation of the ADR procedures in the form of OADR, one must take care not to diminish its legality.

Notes

1. D Johnson and D Post ‘Law and borders: the rise of law in cyberspace’Stanford Law Review Vol 48, p 1367, 1996; B Klein and K Leffler ‘The role of market forces in assuring contractual performance’, Journal of Political Economy Vol 89, p 615, 1981.

2. C Hart ‘Online dispute resolution and avoidance in electronic commerce’, Paper presented at the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, 1 August 1999, available online at http://www.law.ualberta.ca/alri/ulc/current/hart.htm (accessed October 2005); M Wilikens, A Vahrenwald and P Morris ‘Out-of-court dispute settlement systems for e-commerce: report of an exploratory study’, available online at http://dsa-isis.jrc.it/ADR/report.html (accessed October 2005).

3. http://www.bbbonline.org.

4. http://squaretrade.com.

5. D Campbell ‘Reflexivity and welfarism in the modern law of contract’ Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Vol 20, p 485, 2000.

6. J Noll ‘European Community and e-commerce: fostering consumer confidence’ Electronic Communications Law Review Vol 9, p 212, 2002; J Rothchild ‘Protecting the digital consumer: the limits of cyberspace utopianism’ Indiana Law Journal Vol 74, p 927, 1999.

7. Article 16 of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on ‘Certain Legal Aspects of Information Society Service, in Particular Electronic Commerce, in the Internal Market’ (2000/31/EC) O.J.L. 178.

8. H Perritt ‘Dispute resolution in electronic network communities’ Villanova Law Review Vol 38, p 400, 1993.

9. E Katsh, J Rifkin and A Gaitenby ‘E-commerce, e-disputes, and e-dispute resolution: in the shadow of E-bay law’ Ohio State Journal of Dispute Resolution Vol 15, p 705, 2000.

10. Noll, op cit, note 6, p 213.

11. http://www.bbbonline.org.

12. H Perritt ‘Towards a hybrid regulatory scheme for the Internet’ University of Chicago Legal Forum p 237, 2001.

13. C Rule Online Dispute Resolution for Business: B2B, E-Commerce, Consumer, Employment, Insurance, and other Commercial Conflicts Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 2002, p 208.

14. Katsh et al, op cit, note 9.

15. M Burnstein ‘Conflicts on the Internet: choice of law in transnational cyberspace’ Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol 29, p 108, 1996; I Hardy ‘The proper legal regime for cyberspace’ University of Pittsburgh Law Review Vol 55, p 1019, 1994; M Garavaglia ‘In search of the proper law in transnational commercial disputes’ New York Law School Journal of International & Comparative Law Vol 12, p 29, 1991; J Reidenberg ‘Lex Informatica: the formulation of information policy rules through technology’ Texas Law Review Vol 76, p 553, 1998.

16. Johnson and Post, op cit, note 1.

17. Ibid, p 1371.

18. Ibid, p 1379.

19. R Bordone ‘Electronic online dispute resolution: approach, potential, problems and a proposal’ Harvard Negotiation Law Review Vol 3, p 206, 1998; R Dunne ‘Deterring unauthorised access to computers: controlling behaviour in cyberspace through a contractual law paradigm’ Jurimetrics Journal Vol 35, p 1, 1994.

20. http://www.vmag.org/.

21. WIPO ‘The management of Internet domain names and addresses: intellectual property issues. Final Report of the WIPO Internet domain name process’, 30 April 1999, available online at http://wipo2.wipo.int/process1/report/pdf/report.pdf (accessed October 2005).

22. E Katsh ‘Dispute resolution in cyberspace’ Connecticut Law Review Vol 28, p 961, 1996; L Davies and C Reed ‘The trouble with bits: first steps in Internet law’ Journal of Business Law p 428, 1996.

23. Article 3 (b) (xiv) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the ‘Rules’), as approved by ICANN on 24 October 1999, available online at http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-rules-24oct99.htm (accessed July 2007).

24. Article 6 of ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), as approved by ICANN on 24 October 1999, available online at http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/policy.htm (accessed July 2007).

25. Katsh, op cit, note 22.

26. Johnson and Post, op cit, note 1; M Froomkin ‘The essential role of trusted third parties in electronic commerce’ Oregon Law Review Vol 75, p 71, 1996.

27. Perritt, op cit, note 10, at p 359.

28. OECD, ‘Consumer protection in the electronic marketplace’, DSTI/CP (98) 13/Final, available online at http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/1998doc.nsf/4cf568b5b90dad994125671b004bed59/d3c8b98d999aea78c12566e2003ff7cb/$FILE/12E81082.DOC (accessed October 2005).

29. H Brown and A Marriott ADR Principles and Practice 2nd edn, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1999, pp 17–18.

30. Bordone, op cit, note 19, p 205.

31. E Katsh and J Rifkin Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 2001, p 114.

32. Ibid, 115.

33. R Goode Commercial Law 2nd edn, Penguin Books, London, 1995, p 1178.

34. Ibid.

35. The House of Commons, Parliamentary Debate, Sixth Series, Volume 276, 2 May 1996, The Stationery Office, London, 1996, p 1308.

36. 2000 1 Lloyd's Rep. 480.

37. 1999 2 Lioyd's Rep. 105.

38. A Redfern and M Hunter Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration 3rd edn, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1999, p 3.

39. B Harris, R Planterose and J Tecks The Arbitration Act 1996: A Commentary, Blackwell Science, Oxford, 1996, p 322.

40. M Mustill and S Boyd Commercial Arbitration 2nd edn, Butterworths, London, 1989, p 424.

41. Ibid, p 425.

42. D Sutton, J Kendall and J Gill Russell on Arbitration Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1997, p 402; R Merkin Arbitration Act 1996: An Annotated Guide LLP Limited, London, 1996, p 261.

43. Article VII (2) of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958.

44. Sutton et al, op cit, note 42, p 402.

45. Section 101 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

46. Merkin op cit, note 42, p 265.

47. Section 103 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

48. Article 4 (k) of ICANN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), op cit, note 24.

49. Article 18 of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, op cit, note 23.

50. Broad Bridge v Hypercd.com, 106 F. Supp. 2d 505, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS. 9516.

51. Katsh and Rifkin, op cit, note 31, p 108; B Davis, ‘The new thing: uniform domain name dispute resolution policy of the Internet Corporation for assigned names and numbers’ Journal of International Arbitration Vol 17, p 138, 2000; E Thornburg ‘Going private: technology, due process, and Internet dispute resolution’ University of California Law Review Vol 34, p 151, 2000.