Smell test: sphere transgressions and counter-transgressions in legal dispute resolution

References

• Ahmed, M. (2021). Alternative dispute resolution during the Covid-19 crisis and beyond. King’s Law Journal, 32(1), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1886651
   Google Scholar
• Aresty, J. R., & Daniel Cormie, J. (2013). State courts and the transformation to virtual courts. Litig., 39, 50.
   Google Scholar
• Baldwin, J. M., Eassey, J. M., & Brooke, E. J. (2020). Court operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 743–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09553-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balzer, B., & Schneider, J. (2021). Managing a conflict: Optimal alternative dispute resolution. The RAND Journal of Economics, 52(2), 415–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-2171.12374
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barendrecht, M. (2017). Rechtwijzer: Why online supported dispute resolution is hard to implement. International Legal Aid Group Conference, 20 June.
   Google Scholar
• Bartels, L. (2004). The separation of powers in the WTO: How to avoid judicial activism. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 53(4), 861–895. https://doi.org/10.1093/iclq/53.4.861
   Google Scholar
• Bell, G. F. (2018). The new international commercial courts - competing with arbitration - The example of the Singapore International Commercial Court. Contemp. Asia Arb. J., 11, 193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Björkdahl, J., & Kronblad, C. (2021). Getting on track for digital work: Digital transformation in an administrative court before and during COVID-19. Journal of Professions and Organization, 8(3), 374–393. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joab015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (1986). La force du droit. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 64(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.3406/arss.1986.2332
   Google Scholar
• Breast cancer symptoms and nudity, (Oversight Board). (2020). https://oversightboard.com/decision/IG-7THR3SI1/
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, G., Güth, W., & Kliemt, H. (2003). Trust in the shadow of the courts. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) / Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 159(1), 16–36. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40752367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs, M. (2020). 135C7The civil online court in England. In principles, procedure, and justice: Essays in honour of Adrian Zuckerman. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198850410.003.0007
   Google Scholar
• Bulinski, M. A., & Prescott, J. J. (2021). Designing legal experiences: Online communication and resolution in courts. In D. M. Katz, M. J. Bommarito, & R. Dolin (Eds.), Legal informatics (pp. 430–448). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316529683.030
   Google Scholar
• Busch, C. (2022). Regulating the expanding content moderation universe: A European perspective on infrastructure moderation. UCLA JL & Tech, 27(2), 32–79.
   Google Scholar
• Cartwright, M. J., & Greiling, D. (2018). Court-connected online dispute resolution part I: Courts and ODR. IJODR, 5(1-2), 4–8.
   Google Scholar
• Chase, O. G. (2005). Law, culture, and ritual: Disputing systems in cross-cultural context. NYU Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, A. J. (2009). Revisiting against settlement: Some reflections on dispute resolution and public values. Fordham L. Rev., 78(3), 1143–1170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortés, P. (2010). Online dispute resolution for consumers in the European Union. Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Cowls, J., Darius, P., Santistevan, D., & Schramm, M. (2022). Constitutional metaphors: Facebook’s “supreme court” and the legitimation of platform governance. New Media & Society, 146144482210855. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221085559
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dori, A. (2015). The EU Justice Scoreboard-Judicial Evaluation as a New Governance Tool. MPI Luxembourg Working Paper Series, 2.
   Google Scholar
• Douek, E. (2019). Facebook’s oversight board: Move fast with stable infrastructure and humility. NCJL & Tech., 21(1), 1–78.
   Google Scholar
• Douek, E. (2020). What kind of oversight board have you given us? University of Chicago Law Review Online, 1.
   Google Scholar
• Douek, E. (2022). Content moderation as systems thinking. Harvard Law Review, 136(2), 526–607.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncanson, K., & Henderson, E. M. (2022). Courthouse architecture, design, and social justice. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Ebner, N. G., & Elayne, E. (2020). Strengthening online dispute resolution justice New directions in domestic and international dispute resolution. Wash. U. J. L. & Pol’y, 63(1), 65–117.
   Google Scholar
• ECtHR. (2022). Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Right to a fair trial (civil limb). https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_eng.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Fabri, M. (2021). Will COVID-19 accelerate implementation of ICT in courts? The COVID-19 crisis - lessons for the courts: Academic article. International Journal for Court Administration, 12(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.392
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, N. (2018). A Supreme Court for Facebook. https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/oversight-Board-consultation-report-appendix.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Fiss, O. M. (1983). Against settlement. The Yale Law Journal, 93(6), 1073–1090. https://doi.org/10.2307/796205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flaga-Gieruszyńska, K. (2019). Mandatory representation by an attorney or legal counsel and access to the courts in civil cases. Studia Iuridica, 81(1), 247–266.
   Google Scholar
• Former President Trump’s suspension, (Oversight Board). (2021). https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-691QAMHJ
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, J. (2001). Legal positivism: 5 1/2 myths. The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 46(1), 199–227. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajj/46.1.199
   Google Scholar
• Gillespie, T. (2020). Content moderation, AI, and the question of scale. Big Data & Society, 7(2), 2053951720943234. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720943234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gradoni, L. (2021a). Chasing Global Legal Particles: Some Guesswork about the Nature of Meta’s Oversight Board. EJIL: Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org/chasing-global-legal-particles-some-guesswork-about-the-nature-of-metas-oversight-board/
   Google Scholar
• Gradoni, L. (2021b). Constitutional Review via Facebook’s Oversight Board: How platform governance had its Marbury v Madison. Verfassungsblog. https://verfassungsblog.de/fob-marbury-v-madison/
   Google Scholar
• Gradoni, L. (2021c). Constitutional review via Facebook’s oversight board: how platform governance had its Marbury v Madison [Blog]. https://verfassungsblog.de/fob-marbury-v-madison/
   Google Scholar
• Gradoni, L., & Pasquet, L. (2019). Dialogue concerning legal Un-certainty and other prodigies. European Journal of International Law, 30(1), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chz011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang, M. (2015). Commercial courts and international arbitration—competitors or partners? Arbitration International, 31(2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiv038
   Google Scholar
• Jakab, A., & Kirchmair, L. (2021). How to develop the EU justice scoreboard into a rule of Law index: Using an existing tool in the EU rule of law crisis in a more efficient Way. German Law Journal, 22(6), 936–955. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.46
   Google Scholar
• Kadri, T. E. (2022). Juridical discourse for platforms. Harvard Law Review Forum, 136(1), 163–204.
   Google Scholar
• Katsh, E. (2001). Online dispute resolution: The next phase edition speciale cyber justice. Lex Electronica, 7(2), 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Keller, D., & Leerssen, P. (2020). Facts and where to find them: Empirical research on internet platforms and content moderation. In J. A. Tucker, & N. Persily (Eds.), Social media and democracy: The state of the field, prospects for reform (pp. 220–251). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, D. (1997). A critique of adjudication [fin de Siècle]. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klonick, K. (2019). Does Facebook’s oversight board finally solve the problem of online speech? Models for Platform Governance, 51.
   Google Scholar
• Klonick, K. (2020). The Facebook oversight board: Creating an independent institution to adjudicate online free expression. Yale Law Journal, 129(1), 2418.
   Google Scholar
• Koh, H. H. (2021). The “gants principles” for online dispute resolution: Realizing the chief justice’s vision for courts in the cloud symposium in honor of chief justice ralph D. Gants: Contributions and legacy regarding equity and the legal profession. B.C. L. Rev., 62(1), 2768.
   Google Scholar
• Kroeper, K. M., Quintanilla, V. D., Frisby, M., Yel, N., Applegate, A. G., Sherman, S. J., & Murphy, M. C. (2020). Underestimating the unrepresented: Cognitive biases disadvantage pro se litigants in family law cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(2), 198–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000229
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lillo Lobos, R. (2022). The European Court of Human Rights Case Law on Due Process Over Civil Matters. In Ricardo Lillo Lobos (Ed.), Understanding due process in non-criminal matters. Ius Gentium: Comparative perspectives on law and justice (pp. 109–155). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95534-2_7
   Google Scholar
• Mulcahy, L. (2007). Architects of justice: The politics of courtroom design. Social & Legal Studies, 16(3), 383–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663907079765
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulcahy, L. (2010). Legal architecture: Justice, due process and the place of law. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mulcahy, L., & Rowden, E. (2019). The democratic courthouse: A modern history of design, due process and dignity. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ortolani, P. (2016). The three challenges of stateless justice. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 7(3), 596–627. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idw004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ortolani, P. (2022). The Use of technology at international commercial courts. In G. Dimitropoulos, & S. Brekoulakis (Eds.), International commercial courts: The future of transnational adjudication (pp. 335–360). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009023122.017
   Google Scholar
• Oversight Board Charter. https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/oversight_board_charter.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Puddister, K., & Small, T. A. (2020). Trial by Zoom? The response to COVID-19 by Canada’s courts. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 373–377. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423920000505
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberge, J.-F., & Veronique, F. (2019). Access to commercial justice: A roadmap for online dispute resolution (ODR) design for small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) disputes. Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol., 35(1), 1–61.
   Google Scholar
• Roussel, V. (2007). Le droit et ses formes. Éléments de discussion de la sociologie du droit de pierre bourdieu. Droit et Société, 1(1), 41–55.
   Google Scholar
• Rule, C. (2020). Online courts and the future of justice book review. International Journal for Court Administration, 11(2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.346
   Google Scholar
• Schmitz, A. J. (2018). There’s an app for that: Developing online dispute resolution to empower economic development. Notre Dame JL Ethics & Pub. Pol’y, 32(1), 1–45.
   Google Scholar
• Schmitz, A. J. (2019). Measuring” access to justice” in the rush to digitize. Fordham L. Rev., 88(1), 2381–2406.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz, T. (2005). Réguler Le Commerce Électronique Par La Résolution Des Litiges En Ligne (Regulating E-Commerce Through Online Dispute Resolution). Brussels, Bruylant.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz, T. (2007). Private legal systems: What cyberspace might teach legal theorists. Yale JL & Tech., 10(1), 151–193.
   Google Scholar
• Sharon, T. (2021a). Blind-sided by privacy? Digital contact tracing, the Apple/Google API and big tech’s newfound role as global health policy makers. Ethics and Information Technology, 23(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09547-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharon, T. (2021b). From hostile worlds to multiple spheres: Towards a normative pragmatics of justice for the googlization of health. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 24(3), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-021-10006-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strang, L. J. (2016). How big data can increase originalism’s methodological rigor: Using corpus linguistics to reveal original language conventions. UCDL Rev., 50(1), 1181–1241.
   Google Scholar
• Susskind, R. (2019). Online courts and the future of justice. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198838364.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Van den Bergh, R. (2013). Private enforcement of European competition law and the persisting collective action problem. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 20(1), 12–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X1302000102
   Google Scholar
• van Gelder, E. (2019). The European approach to consumer ODR. International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, 2019(2), 219–226. https://doi.org/10.5553/IJODR/235250022019006002015
   Google Scholar
• Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Wong, D., & Floridi, L. (2022). Meta’s oversight board: A review and critical assessment. Minds and Machines, 33(1), 1–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zuckerberg, M. (2021). Facebook's commitment to the Oversight Board. https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/letter-from-mark-zuckerberg-on-oversight-board-charter.pdf
   Google Scholar