Law, Technology and Dispute Resolution

Abstract

The use of new information and communication technologies both inside the courts and in private online dispute resolution services is quickly changing everyday conflict management. However, the implications of the increasingly disruptive role of technology in dispute resolution remain largely undiscussed. In this book, assistant professor of law and digitalisation Riikka Koulu examines the multifaceted phenomenon of dispute resolution technology, focusing specifically on private enforcement, which modern technology enables on an unforeseen scale. The increase in private enforcement confounds legal structures and challenges the nation-state's monopoly on violence. And, in this respect, the author argues that the technology-driven privatisation of enforcementfrom direct enforcement of e-commerce platforms to self-executing smart contracts in the blockchainbrings the ethics of law's coercive nature into the open. This development constitutes a new, and dangerous, grey area of conflict management, which calls for transparency and public debate on the ethical implications of dispute resolution technology. 1 Introduction 1.1 The past and future of law and technology? Between 1811 and 1816 in North of England owners of textile mills found themselves facing a Luddite uprising. The rioters borrowed their name from General Ned Ludd, who supposedly had broken stocking frames in anger in 1779 and was claimed to have led the riot from Sherwood forest. The frustrated textile workers saw no alternative to violent protest against the rapid changes in production mechanisms that had left them unable to provide for their families. As the situation grew worse and societal stability came under threat, legislation was harnessed to restrain the uprising by increasing the penalties for attacks against the manufacturing houses and equipment. According to the UK's Frame-Breaking Act of 1812 (officially The Destruction of Stocking Frames, etc.), all crimes against the machines were punishable by death:

Research agenda for algorithmic fairness studies: Access to justice lessons for interdisciplinary research

“…This requires adjustments to conflict management mechanisms that were traditionally built around people being physically present (on dispute resolution and technological change in general, see e.g. Koulu, 2019 ). For example, traditional redress mechanisms are not effortlessly suited to provide legal protection in novel types of conflicts, such as algorithmic discrimination.…”