Reflections on the Concrete Application of Principles of Internet Governance and the Networked Information Society in the European Union Institutionalization Process of Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods

The evolution of alternative dispute resolution and online dispute resolution in the European Un

“…A Directive does not resolve its adoption challenges, and it is unreasonable to believe that expanding from national borders to regional jurisdictions will guarantee a substantial automatic change in the sector of out of court dispute resolution. ADR culture varies significantly in the EU, with some countries lingering behind the adoption, awareness, and commitment to self-regulation and ADR competences (Solarte-Vasquez, 2014). Countries such as Estonia, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, and Slovakia, if to consider what has been reported, did not gain as much as expected by just passing the legislation on mediation, conciliation and formally developing the legal framework for ADR and ODR schemes.…”

“…Already in 2009, the Financial Ombudsman service administered 160,000 cases; this reflects preparedness of the DRS to adapt, and the pre-existence of a local ADR culture, at least to the degree that responded to the government regulatory efforts. These actions show that the state is truly committed to the institutionalization of a broad spectrum of dispute resolution methods (Solarte-Vasquez, 2014…”

“…The literature characterizes the contemporary ADR methods and procedures as more efficient and constructive to manage conflicts and to resolve disputes than the traditional schemes (Fiadjoe, 2004;Solarte-Vasquez, 2014;Cortes, 2017). ADR helps preserve relationships by helping the parties collaborate by reducing animosity and diminishing competitive incentives during its processes (Coltri, 2004).…”

“…This paper speaks of ADR culture referring to communities that are aware, willing and competent on extrajudicial processes to solve and settle disputes and respect them along with the traditional adjudicative institutions. Estonia, among others, has been said to possess a much weaker ADR culture (Solarte-Vasquez, 2014). Some studies have addressed the efficacy of the DRSs proposals within the EU and denounced the uneven adoption and dissimilar development of the use of ADR and ODR capabilities in the region (Rule, 2002;Solarte-Vasquez, 2014;Cortes 2011;and, Page and Bonnyman, 2016), but in the absence of conclusive solutions, discussing the effectiveness of the ADR regulation in the EU and at the Member States levels is still justified.…”

Perceptions on self-regulation and transaction friendliness relevant to smart contracting

“…The study at hand complements a larger project on the characterization and operationalization of the SC-concept. [3] The SC relational approach narrows down the grand topic of collaborative governance (Solarte-Vasquez, 2014; Marx et al , 2012) to smaller constituents such as consumer contracts and legally relevant transactions and digital interactions. Solarte-Vasquez et al (2016) referred to proactive contracting processes as smart, meaning clever, resourceful, qualified and ingenious, rather than merely digital, computational or automated.…”