The Court’s Secretary General emphasized the importance of the anticipated information technology system upgrade, which would allow the Secretariat to keep track in real time of the status of each case, this is part of an entire review of priorities and procedures internally and externally with a view to delivering a quality service.

The ICC International Court of Arbitration‘s work load continues to increase at a fast pace. The number of cases registered jumped to 663 last year from 599 in 2007. In addition 407 awards were rendered in 2008, compared with 349 in 2007, while there were 1,317 cases pending compared with 1,285 at the end of the previous year. The new Hong Kong office of the Court was up and running, with some 100 cases already registered.

With the enactment of Information Technology Act, 2000, e-commerce and e-governance have been given a formal and legal recognition. Even the traditional arbitration law of India has been reformulated and ‘Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996′ was enacted, he said.

In mediation, the practitioner has no advisory role, instead, a mediator renders help to parties to develop a shared understanding of the conflict and to work towards building a practical and lasting solution, he said.

He also emphasised the need for creating awareness on mediation among the general public.

“Unless the general public was aware of the goodness in the process of mediation, all our efforts would turn out to be a futile exercise”, he added. The litigant public, who look to the court for redressal of their grievance, should have an idea about this process, he said.

The most interesting issue is that e-Justice Centre, is a mediation and arbitration centre, in the 3D virtual world of Second Life.

Picture of the virtual ODR centre e-Justice:

Housed inside the building is the mediation and arbitration centre and all of the infrastructure needed to ensure its functioning. Besides this, the building has a further 3 rooms which can be used to hold conferences and the simulation of decisions and arbitration sessions, which will be the responsibility of the Lisbon New University’s Faculty of Law.

Through this initiative, the Ministry of Justice aims to promote the use of alternative means of dispute resolution as swift, informal and easy-to-use solutions via a channel accessible on a planetary scale, as well as emphasise the importance placed by the Portuguese government and the Presidency of the European Union on these resolution processes.

The initiative will also be an experiment into the use of methods of dispute resolution in an entirely informal and virtual manner, which could have future applications in real disputes.

It should be noted that in Second Life alone the number of resident avatars already exceeds 8 million, thereby representing a sufficient community of users to justify the creation of a dispute resolution centre.

Through this initiative, Portugal has become the first country to provide a means of dispute resolution in Second Life. Any Second Life resident with a dispute with any other resident related to a contract established in Second Life can use the Arbitration Centre provided by the eJustice Centre to settle the conflict.

The process is started by submitting a request for ADR to the eJustice Centre. The other party will then be notified and asked to accept settling the dispute using the eJustice Centre.

If they agree, both parties will then pay a fee for using the eJustice Centre (1% of the value under dispute) as well as deposit an escrow with the eJustice Centre up to 5% of the value under dispute (as a guarantee that they will submit to the decision made through mediation or arbitration). [Note: currently the fee is waived]

Both parties are then notified to present themselves to a mediation session. Mediation is an informal and flexible procedure where a third party — the mediator — will help both to enter an agreement to solve the dispute.

If during mediation, an agreement is found, the process finishes; if not, the arbitration phase begins.

Arbitration is presided by a panel of one to three arbitration judges, who will make an arbitration trial on the dispute, and, at the end, will emit a final decision.

If one party does not follow the decisions of the eJustice Centre, or does not follow the agreement established through mediation, the money held in escrow is given to the other party,

The mediation and arbitration provided by the eJustice Centre are overseen by the RAL Lab of the New University of Lisbon’s Law School.

More information about e-Justice Centre:
- Second Life
- e-Justice Centre

Kieran Flatt asks Alan Connarty, director of operations at the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, why his organisation is championing the cause of electronic dispute resolution in some cases.

In many of these disputes, the opposing parties may have very little to do with the UK. Alan Connarty, director of operations at the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb), says that England and Wales and specifically, London gets the business for three reasons: the efficiency of the process, trust in the local law and trust in the local law firms. But has he not heard the frequently voiced assertions that London risks losing business to more modern or dynamic jurisdictions Is this overstatement or fact

“It is a bit of both,” Connarty says. “Some of what is said on the subject is wild rumour. In the Far East technology is marching steadily onwards but I would hesitate to say that London is dragging its heels. It is true that some countries have modernised very rapidly and they are now going out to promote their jurisdiction as a convenient venue for both online and regular types of arbitration.”

So does CIArb disapprove of this behaviour No, Connarty says: “We encourage it very strongly. While we recognise the value of London we also support the sensible use of IT.”

In arbitration centres such as London, Rotterdam and Hamburg, CIArb would like to see more use of video conferencing and more commitment to electronic document management as a means of supporting mediation and arbitration.

Only in the past 12 months has CIArb begun to see the use of video conferencing for commercial disputes in London. “Video conferencing provides an opportunity for witness statements,” he says. “It enables an understanding by both parties of exactly what a witness has said.”

CIArb would also like to see the introduction of virtual courtrooms and is enthused by the work carried out by Court 21, a Leeds-based project linked to the citys university. Connarty describes the project as “very promising indeed”. Some of Court 21s work is expected to bear fruit in the next six months, with real, live dispute resolution systems on the market. Connarty expresses the hope that Court 21 will provide an integrated, end-to-end solution that can realistically be used for online mediation.

He also commends Lloyds for putting some of its open form shipping disputes into online resolution systems to cut costs and improve procedures. “This sort of dispute lends itself well to online resolution,” Connarty says. The American Arbitration Association (www.adr.org) has also gone online, setting up an office in Dublin for maritime arbitration, which uses an online procedure. Connarty says that even its detractors have to admit that the move “has provoked people to start thinking” more seriously about online dispute resolution.

In the US itself, there are several online technologies and video conferencing solutions used for arbitration and mediation. Taking these from a regional to a national level will be the next step forward for them, Connarty says. He adds that business in the US seems far more e-enabled than in Europe. “Traditionalists, and there are many in London, say they have not seen any demand for online arbitration,” he adds. “However, online dispute resolution is viable in the UK and most legal aspects can be addressed in English law.”

According to Connarty, online is shorthand for “cheaper and quicker”. “When law firms are talking to their clients, they should be offering them a variety of different forms of ADR,” he says. CIArb has estimated that in about 10% of cases, where it has been offered, clients have favoured the online option. Business, quite surprisingly, has been rather reluctant to use it.

Connarty sees the real challenge as persuading the parties to be more active in their use of modern facilities. “We are seeing a mix of participation,” he says. “For law firms and their clients, the challenge is to start using the internet as a communication tool for resolving disputes. Their concerns should be: is it confidential and private; is it secure I have seen no evidence to suggest that it is not.”

Source: Legal IT – online IT magazine”