A Knowledge Representation Model for the Intelligent Retrieval of Legal Cases

In this paper, we develop a knowledge representation model forthe innovative intelligent retrieval of legal cases, which provideseffective legal case management. Examples are taken from thedomain of accident compensation. A new set of sub-elements forlegal case representation (sub-issues, pro-claimant, pro-respondentand contextual features) has been developed to extend the traditionalrepresentation elements of issues and factors. In our representationmodel, an issue may need to be further decomposed into sub-issues;factors are categorised into pro-claimant and pro-respondentfactors; and contextual features are also introduced to helpretrieval. These extensions can effectively reveal the factualrelevance between legal cases. Based on the knowledge representationmodel, we propose the IPF scheme for intelligent legal caseretrieval. Experiment and statistical analysis have been conductedto demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed representationmodel and retrieval scheme.     

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.     

Developing regulatory standards for the concept of security in online dispute resolution systems

Online dispute resolution (ODR) has improved access to justice in the digital world. ODR users benefit from faster and cheaper dispute resolution mechanisms compared to traditional litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution. There are few and quite varied regulatory systems for ODR.This research aims to develop a set of standards to measure the concept of security and to increase the consistency of security in ODR systems. An exploratory mixed method approach is used, involving a quantitative (survey) and mainly qualitative approach (face-to-face interviews) for gathering data. We identify three elements of information security, privacy, and authentication as standards for an appropriate ODR legal framework. Finally, these findings led to practical implications for policy makers and regulators.