No Sheriff in Town: Governance for Online Dispute Resolution

Online dispute resolution (ODR), the practice of resolving disputes via the Internet or digital applications, has been developing since the mid‐1990s. As the field has grown and gained traction, it has increasingly received attention from professional associations and industry leaders in the world of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). More recently, it has begun to receive recognition from sources outside of this field — in both the public and private sectors. As the field develops and individual initiatives become widely adopted, the attention it receives from external sources will undoubtedly focus on questions of quality, ethics, practitioner training, service provider qualifications, and monitoring. These questions — already beginning to be heard from within the field — derive, in essence, from one shared overall question, that of appropriate governance for the ODR field. In this article, we will explain what we mean when we discuss a field's governance and suggest that the field itself should investigate issues of its own governance. We explore and explain the current “low‐to‐no” state of governance in ODR — and the developments that are likely, should the field fail to actively address this issue. We discuss the costs of no governance, and the potential costs and disadvantages of employing a higher‐governance model. We ask whether ODR can, indeed, be governed at all, and illustrate why addressing ODR governance is a very complex venture, in terms of the web of factors to be addressed, no matter how beneficial internal governance may be. We do not, in this article, intend to decide any of these questions — but, rather, to pose them to the ODR field and to the wider fields of ADR and conflict management. We point out why the ODR field is at a developmental point that is highly suitable for discussing and deciding these questions — and why these decisions might have far‐reaching implications for a wide range of conflict‐related fields.     

Regulatory Domain and Regulatory Dexterity: Critiquing the UK Governance of ‘Fracking’

This article provides a critique of the UK government's regulatory response to ‘fracking’. It shows how government has adopted two distinct schemas of regulation, which may usefully be classified under the headings ‘regulatory domain’ and ‘regulatory dexterity’. These schemas rely on very different interpretive conventions and are in many ways contradictory. Yet, government uses both ‘domain’ and ‘dexterity’ arguments simultaneously in order to advance its policy in favour of fracking. The article explains how two seemingly different regulatory approaches work together towards the same policy goal, and highlights the role of law in facilitating technological development.     

论计算机网络技术的发展对犯罪心理学研究的影响

计算机网络技术的发展 ,为人类的文明进步做出了巨大的贡献。然而 ,它却如一把双刃剑 ,在造福于人类的同时 ,也为犯罪提供了更广阔的空间和土壤 ,已成为犯罪心理形成的新的归因。计算机网络技术的发展使犯罪主体呈现多元化 ,犯罪动机呈现多样化 ,使犯罪目的呈现不确定性 ,使传统犯罪呈现网络化。同时 ,计算机网络技术的发展也引起了犯罪心理学研究方法以及犯罪心理预测、预防技术的深刻变革。     

数字技术竞争与东亚安全秩序

地区安全秩序是相应区域内国家维持本国安全和地区稳定的互动模式。进入21世纪以来,东亚安全秩序逐渐呈现出以战略对冲为核心特征的互动模式,即地区国家通过有上限的竞争和有底线的合作维护自身安全和地区稳定。不过,随着人类社会加速进入数字时代,美国自2018年以来全面打压甚至遏制中国数字技术的实力发展和全球影响。在数字技术竞争背景下,东亚安全秩序虽面临新的冲击,但中国和东亚国家的政策选择并未脱离既有的安全战略模式。在进入数字时代的过程中,东亚安全秩序展现出较强的延续性,其主要原因来自两个方面：一是东亚安全秩序的形成基础并未弱化甚至有所巩固和强化;二是数字技术竞争背景下美国的战略选择和实力特点,使得东亚国家深化与美国的数字合作面临更大的不确定性,从而进一步强化了东亚国家维持既有战略模式的倾向。这些发现在一定程度上拓展了中国对数字时代东亚秩序和国际秩序转型的理论认识,同时也对进入数字时代过程中如何妥善处理中美关系和周边关系具有一定的启发意义。     

智能时代的数字劳动异化及其消解

伴随着数字智能技术的发展,数字劳动已在西方资本主义国家呈现出新的异化表征,主要表现 为资本家对数字劳动产品的无偿占有、数字劳动过程的非自我的加速与规训 、数字劳动主体类本质的异化以及 数字劳动关系的异化四个维度。这是多种成因共同作用的结果,数字生产资料的私人占有是根本原因,数字资 本的逐利本性是动力原因,数字智能技术资本化是技术原因,市场监管与劳动保障的缺失是外部原因。由于中 西方数字劳动问题存在本质差异,中国在新时代数字建设中,通过积极推进数字生产资料的共有共享、完善数 据生产要素参与的分配制度、加强数字智能技术治理、完善数字劳动治理体系等多方位举措,有效防范并化解 了数字劳动问题,为西方资本主义国家摆脱数字劳动异化困境、构建和谐数字劳动关系提供了中国智慧。     

谈现代信息技术在ITS中的应用

近年来,随着经济和科技的不断发展,现代信息技术在各行业中的应用越来越广泛,成果越来越显著。同时,信息技术产业为综合交通的现代化和智能化带来了无限生机和活力。文章从GIS-T、GPS、ETC、现代图像处理技术、模式识别技术、数据压缩技术等各方面论述了信息技术在智能交通系统中的应用,并分析了在应用中还存在的有待发展之处。     

Stem Cell Research and Technology in Iran—Window of Opportunity in the Midst of International Tension

This paper aims to explain how the key characteristics of “stem cell research” as an emerging technology facilitate the strategy of an Iranian organization, namely, “the Royan Institute” to learn by interaction and to generate knowledge. It argues that the Royan could take advantage of the window of opportunity that stem cell research and technology had temporarily opened up but its endeavors are now being hampered by unfavorable international factors and weak domestic infrastructure. The article substantiates the case by giving an objective account of networking and gatekeeping in the process of learning/innovation at the Royan and concludes by questioning the continuity of the actual learning strategy in order to sustain the Royan's knowledge production.     

情势变更原则刍议

情势变更原则虽然在我国合同法中没有明确规定,但在司法实践中却有运用情势变更原则裁决合同纠纷的案例。随着我国社会主义市场经济的建立和逐渐完善,情势变更原则在合同法中的重要性日益凸显。探讨如何在司法实践中适用情势变更原则,使审判工作达到法律效果与社会效果的统一具有十分重要的理论意义和现实意义。     

试论自主创新与风险投资

自主创新发展高科技已成为我国调整产业结构和转变经济增长方式的一个中心环节,打造自主创新的风险投资机制,建立以企业为主体、市场为导向、政府资助和社会闲置资本为主体的风险投资体系,是实现我国自主创新、“十一五”规划的重要手段。风险投资在发达国家已取得了辉煌的成就,在我国尚处于开发阶段,完善我国的资本市场,形成风险投资的退出机制将是风险投资成败的关键。     

Why and how does the regulation of emerging technologies occur? Explaining the adoption of the EU General Data Protection Regulation using the multiple streams framework

Why and how the regulation of emerging technologies occurs is not clear in the literature. In this study, we adapt the multiple streams framework – often used for explaining agenda-setting and policy adoption – to examine the phenomenon. We hypothesize how technological change affects policy-making and identify conditions under which the streams can be (de-)coupled. We trace the formulation of the General Data Protection Regulation to show that the regulation occupied the legislative agenda when a policy window was exploited through policy entrepreneurship to frame technological change as a problem for data privacy and legislative harmonization within the European Union. Although constituencies interested in promoting internet technologies made every effort to stall the regulation, various actors, activities, and events helped the streams remain coupled, eventually leading to its adoption. We conclude that the alignment of problem, policy, politics, and technology – through policy entrepreneurship – influences the timing and design of technology regulation.