• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2005

The meaning of Online ADR lies in the prompt and economical resolution of disputes by applying the information/communication element (Internet) to existing ADR. However, if the promptness and economical efficiency are overemphasized, the fairness and appropriateness of dispute resolution may be compromised and consequently Online ADR will be belittled and criticized as second-class trials. In addition, as communication is mostly made using texts in Online ADR it is difficult to investigate cases and to create atmosphere and induce dynamic feelings, which are possible in the process of dispute resolution through face-to-face contact. Despite such difficulties, Online ADR is expanding its area not only in online but also in offline due to its advantages such as promptness, low expenses and improved resolution methods, and is expected to develop rapidly as the electronic government decided to adopt it in the future. Accordingly, the following points must be focused on for the continuous First, in the legal and institutional aspects for the development of Online ADR, it is necessary to establish a framework law on ADR. A framework law on ADR comprehending existing mediation and arbitration should be established and it must include contents of Online ADR, which utilizes electronic communication means. However, it is too early to establish a separate law for Online ADR because Online ADR must develop based on the theoretical system of ADR. Second, although Online ADR is expanding rapidly, it may take time to be settled as a tool of dispute resolution. As discussed earlier, additionally, if the amount of money in dispute is large or the dispute is complicated, Online ADR may have a negative effect on the resolution of the dispute. Thus, it is necessary to apply Online ADR to trifle cases or domestic cases in the early stage, accumulating experiences and correcting errors. Moreover, in order to settle numerous disputes effectively, Online ADR cases should be analyzed systematically and cases should be classified by type so that similar disputes may be settled automatically. What is more, these requirements should reflected in developing Online ADR system. Third, the application of Online ADR is being expanded to consumer disputes, domain name disputes, commercial disputes, legal disputes, etc., millions of cases are settled through Online ADR, and 115 Online ADR sites are in operation throughout the world. Thus Online ADR requires not temporary but continuous attention, and mediators and arbitrators participating in Online ADR should be more intensively educated on negotiation and information technologies. In particular, government-led research projects should be promoted to establish Online ADR model and these projects should be supported by comprehensive researches on mediation, arbitration and Online ADR. Fourth, what is most important in the continuous development and expansion of Online ADR is to secure confidence in Online ADR and advertise Online ADR to users. For this, incentives and rewards should be given to specialists such as lawyers when they participate in Online ADR as mediators and arbitrators in order to improve their expertise. What is more, from the early stage, the government and public institutions should have initiative in promoting Online ADR so that parties involved in disputes recognize the substantial contribution of Online ADR to dispute resolution. Lastly, dispute resolution through Online ADR is performed by organizations such as Korea Institute for Electronic Commerce and Korea Consumer Protection Board and partially by Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. Online ADR is expected to expand its area to commercial disputes in offline in the future. In response to this, Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, which is an organization for commercial dispute resolution, needs to be restructured.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제6권2호
• /
• pp.23-41
• /
• 2004

Rapid development of computer and telecommunication technology brought out the expansion of electronic commerce which is the new type of business transaction. Offline transaction can lead to problems and disputes the same is for cyberspace transactions. However ADR is not meet for the online transaction for speed, cost and open network system, ODR methods to resolve electronic commerce conflicts is crucial for building confidence and permitting access to justice in an online business environment. And ADR refers to processes other than judicial determination in which an impartial person assists those in a dispute to resolve the issues between them. ODR refers to ADR processes assisted by information technology, particularly the internet. ODR has been available since 1996. Its development can be as passing through three broad stages : hobbyist, experimental, entrepreneurial, institutional phrase. Also, ODR has adapted a range of traditional ADR for use online, including arbitration. mediation. facilitated negotiation and case appraisal. Mediation and arbitration have been the most prevalent forms of ODR. ODR is the burgeoning field and has created a new issues. All such issues which have been debated in the ADR are composed with ODR. But these are not limited. Some of issues are further complicated by the nature of the online environment such as confidentiality and principle of parties. Finally electronic commerce now takes place on the Internet, it is inevitable that the commercial world wants access to dispute resolution process that best suits the new commercial environment. ODR methods are processing for development and legal issues are considered by both national and international authorities.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제8권2호
• /
• pp.101-117
• /
• 2006

"Online Alternative Dispute Resolution" can refer to the use of online methods of dispute resolution to resolve disputes arising either online or offline. The range of disputes covered by online ADR has been broad : from family law to internet domain name disputes : from small transaction to insurance disputes. Online and offline consumer disputes have been a major focus of online ADR sites. This article propsed that the mediator should explain the process and the mediator's role so as to forestall misunderstanding on that score. And mediators should consider including in either usual mediation agreements additional provisions applicable to communications by email. Online ADR sites should be designed 1) to provide a simple, easily understandable process, 2) to provide detailed information on process, cost and speed, 3) to enable users to move between online and offline processes, 4) to have authentication processes for parties and documents, 5) to have automatic translation system for language barriers. And Government should play an important role in assisting people to adapt technically and emotionally to new technology through information, training and ongoing support. The days of live online television-quality videoconferencing have not yet arrived. Until then, we must hone our skills with the written word.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권3호
• /
• pp.135-154
• /
• 2015

The European Union has adopted the ADR Directive and ODR Regulation in 2013 with the purpose to strengthen the e-commerce within the EU. Not covered by these legislations is the trade in the B2B sector. The author examines the question of whether online ADR under the currently applicable legal framework would be possible in Germany. At the center of his review is the possibility of an arbitration clause which refers exclusively to an online ADR scheme, may be included in the General Terms and Conditions of an online trader.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제19권
• /
• pp.191-223
• /
• 2003

Electronic commerce and the Internet offer unprecedented opportunities. The explosive expansion of the use of the Internet makes it possible for businesses to expand their markets and render services. Global transaction costs are easy to cut off using Internet and transaction speed is faster than before. Where cyberspace is not free from claims, Offline transaction can lead to problems and disputes the same is for cyberspace transactions. However ADR is not meet for the online transaction for speed, cost and open network system, ODR methods to resolve electronic commerce conflicts is crucial for building confidence and permitting access to justice in an online business environment. The use of the Internet and the network in dispute resolution has an impact on the types of communication implied in the relevant processes such as automated negotiation, online mediation and online arbitration and involves new technological issues such as the integrity and confidentiality of data and communication used to transmit and store data. Among the ODR systems Online Arbitration is currently binding both parties disputed and can achieve the aim of dispute award the same as the traditional arbitration. Arbitration is based on the New York Convention 1958, Arbitration Model law 1985 and national Arbitration Act that are founded on territorial area and rested on arbitration agreement, constitution of the arbitral tribunal, due process, final and binding award and enforcement of the arbitration award. To compare with this issues Online arbitration has unnecessarily legal unstability and risk. ODR is the burgeoning field and has created a new issues. All such issues which have been debated in the ADR are composed with ODR. But these are not limited Some of issues are further complicated by the nature of the online environment such as confidentiality and principle of parties. It is true that online arbitration should comply with legal provisions, but which is impossible to adhere of the law. Flexible translation and functional equivalence of legal provisions are needed for acceptance of electronic commerce disputes. Finally electronic commerce now takes place on the Internet, it is inevitable that the commercial world wants access to dispute resolution process that best suits the new commercial environment. ODR methods are processing for development and legal issues are considered by both national and international authorities. Introduction of new Conventions or amend Convention and Model law of ODR comes near.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.167-187
• /
• 2007

As Korea has reached a free trade agreement with the United States of America, it is required to provide an appropriate procedure to ".kr" domain name disputes based on the principles established in the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP). Currently, Internet address Dispute Resolution Committee(IDRC) established under Article 16 of the Act on Internet Address Resources provides the dispute resolution proceedings to resolve ".kr" domain name disputes. While the IDRC's proceeding is similar to the UDRP administrative proceeding in procedural aspects, the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy that is established by the IDRC and that applies to disputes involving ".kr" domain names is very different from the UDRP for generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) in substantial aspects. Under the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement(KORUS FTA), it is expected that either the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy to be amended to adopt the UDRP or the IDRC to examine the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy in order to harmonize it with the principles established in the UDRP. It is a common practice of cybersquatters to warehouse a number of domain names without any active use of these domain names after their registration. The Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides that the complainant may request to transfer or delete the registration of the disputed domain name if the registrant registered, holds or uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. This provision lifts the complainant's burden of proof to show the respondent's bad faith because the complainant is only required to prove one of the three bad faiths which are registration in bad faith, holding in bad faith, or use in bad faith. The aforementioned resolution procedure is different from the UDRP regime which requires the complainant, in compliance with paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP, to prove that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the complainant carries heavy burden of proof under the UDRP. The IDRC should deny the complaint if the respondent has legitimate rights or interests in the domain names. Under the UDRP, the complainant must show that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The UDRP sets out three illustrative circumstances, any one of which if proved by the respondent, shall be evidence of the respondent's rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name. As the Domain Name Dispute Mediation Policy provides only a general provision regarding the respondent's legitimate rights or interests, the respondent can be placed in a very week foundation to be protected under the Policy. It is therefore recommended for the IDRC to adopt the three UDRP circumstances to guide how the respondent can demonstrate his/her legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. In accordance with the KORUS FTA, the Korean Government is required to provide online publication to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain name registrants. Cybersquatters often provide inaccurate contact information or willfully conceal their identity to avoid objection by trademark owners. It may cause unnecessary and unwarranted delay of the administrative proceedings. The respondent may loss the opportunity to assert his/her rights or legitimate interests in the domain name due to inability to submit the response effectively and timely. The respondent could breach a registration agreement with a registrar which requires the registrant to submit and update accurate contact information. The respondent who is reluctant to disclose his/her contact information on the Internet citing for privacy rights and protection. This is however debatable as the respondent may use the proxy registration service provided by the registrar to protect the respondent's privacy.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.185-220
• /
• 2003

Korean Government is increasingly focusing on the Northeast Asia Business and Logistics Hub strategy to create a competitive advantage. A key element of this strategy is creating or leveraging distribution and logistics hubs that act as centres for distribution in Northeast Asia. A Northeast Asian e-Hub Policy is required for business hub and logistics hub in the Northeastern Asia. An e-Hub is an integrated, sophisticated set of e-Biz, information and e-trade facilities and services that provides access to a marketplace and exchangee the e-trade data. To study the e-Hub policy, Pan Asian e-Commerce Alliance, Korea-Japan e-Trade Hub project, and ASEM e-Trade project are considered. E-trade via cyberspace may need new methods of dispute resolution to reduce transaction costs for small value-related disputes and to erect structures that work well across national boundaries. Voluntary Mediation Councils and cyber tribunals should be encouraged by governmental sectors to continue developing private sector mechanisms to resolve e-trade disputes. Government-sponsored online cross-border dispute resolution systems may be also be useful to complement these private sector approaches. E-trade in Northeast Asia results in disputes owing to the incompleteness of e-trade law in the countries. These disputes contain disputes regarding e-trade model, central title registry, authentication body. To resolve these disputes in the Northeast Asia, a variety of electronic alternative dispute resolution bodies must be organized under cooperation of Korea, Japan, China. This study deals with the e-ADR construction in the Northeast Asia to resolve the disputes in the e-trade and to activate the e-trade in the Northeast Asia.