Cyberjustice

Last updated

Cyberjustice is the incorporation of technology into the justice system, either through offering court services electronically or through the use of electronics within courtrooms or for other dispute resolution purposes. [1] One of the most crucial goals of cyberjustice is increasing access to justice through both reducing the costs associated with administering justice as well as reducing the burden on the judges and the court system as a whole. [2] [3] [4]

Contents

Electronic justice services

Several electronic services are available in various court systems worldwide. For example, there are several electronic courtrooms [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] that have integrated information and communications technologies such as video-conferencing, holographic evidence presentation technology [9] or other communications technologies in addition to various systems or applications meant to aid in the conduction of the proceedings as well as the presentation of evidence. Additionally, throughout the entire process there is what is known as an electronic case management system available to the parties, their lawyers and judges, that allow them to keep track of what is taking place in the case through the Internet and permit them to file court documents and proceedings electronically [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] or access information relative to the case. Furthermore, many jurisdictions allow for the discovery of documents to be done electronically through the use of electronic discovery systems. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] Once a case has been finalized and has become public information, these court records as well as judgements [39] [40] [41] can be made available electronically to members of the public.

Online dispute resolution

In addition to the use of technology for the purposes of litigation, the term cyberjustice also encompasses the domain of online dispute resolution, [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] whose aim is to aid in the resolution of disputes prior to having to resort to the courts. Several mechanism for this type of electronic dispute resolution are available, namely cyber-negotiation, cyber-mediation and cyber-arbitration. The first can be classified as either assisted, which employs technologies for the purposes of communication, agenda development and adoption of solutions, or automated, where specialized software acts as a negotiator between the parties. [42] For its part, cyber-mediation will often be an alternative where cyber-mediation was unfruitful and it involves a third party’s intervention to assist the parties in reaching an agreement. [42] [54] Finally, cyber-arbitration is different from the preceding two types of dispute resolution in that it is adjudicatory, and therefore must adhere to specified formal rules, as well as that parties never contact one another but rather communicate via an arbitrator. [42]

Cyberjustice initiatives

Cyberjustice has been integrated into the legal systems of several jurisdictions worldwide, including as of 2019 the European Union, Australia, the United States of America, and Canada. Several other international initiatives have been made.

The European Union

The European Union, for example has created the e-Justice Portal through which legislation case law and legal information may be accessed. [55] The European Union also offers two other cyberjustice services, namely e-CODEX, which simplifies cross-border litigations by providing access to electronic delivery services, electronic signatures, electronic payments, electronic authentication and electronic documents, and e-CURIA, which is essentially just an e-filing system. Additionally, other countries within the European Union have incorporated certain technologies into their adjudication of justice, such as the United Kingdom, Italy and Spain. The United Kingdom runs Money Claim Online (MCOL), a service that allows a claim to be instituted online against two people at most who owe up to a maximum of £100,000 that they refuse to pay. [56] Italy offers Trial Online, [57] which is essentially both an electronic filing system and a case management system. Spain has passed laws whose aim is to regulate technology used in conjunction with the legal system [58] and has ultimately resulted in the incorporation of technology in the legal system for the purposes of treating data and managing legal files, [58] not the least of which is LexNET which enables the secure transfer of judicial data. [58]

Australia

Australia offers e-filing services, online courtroom and online case management services, [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] and is the first jurisdiction to have used a fully electronic courtroom for the hearing of a high-profile criminal case. [69]

The United States of America

The United States of America has several electronic courtrooms. For example, the McGlothlin Courtroom, located at the William and Mary College of Law, is one of the few to possess technology making it possible to publish court transcripts online in real time, [70] and was the first to use holographic evidence display and immersive technology. [71]

Canada

Several developments have been made in Canada for electronic access to court records and judgments and electronic case management systems, but its only fully electronic courtroom is on the premises of the University of Montreal. Known as the Cyberjustice Laboratory, this courtroom employs some of the most advanced courtroom technologies, such as audio-visual technology allowing for multi-videoconferencing, and the presentation of evidence in different forms, including 3D evidence via a digital retro-projector and the option of live annotation of evidence while it is being presented. [72] One of the particular developments of the Cyberjustice Laboratory is the platform known as PARLe (Platform to Assist in the Resolution of Litigation electronically), which aids in the resolution of low-intensity disputes via the Internet. [73]

International initiatives

Several international cyberjustice initiatives have been made. They include ICANN’s Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), which was created to settle disputes regarding trademark infringement in domain names and issues arising out of cybersquatting and typosquatting. [74] [75] The ICANN Electronic Consumer Dispute Resolution (ECODIR) offered a free and voluntary dispute resolution service that began with negotiation and, if not successful, proceeded to mediation and ultimately the recommendation of a solution by the mediator; but this service has been terminated. [1] The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) was as of 2015 exploring the possibility of developing an online dispute resolution system to take care of cross-border disputes resulting from e-commerce. [76] [77] [78]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ian Callinan</span> Former Justice of the High Court of Australia

Ian David Francis Callinan AC KC is a former Justice of the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy.

Small-claims courts have limited jurisdiction to hear civil cases between private litigants. Courts authorized to try small claims may also have other judicial functions, and go by different names in different jurisdictions. For example, it may be known as a county or magistrate's court. These courts can be found in Australia, Brazil, Canada, England and Wales, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Greece, New Zealand, Philippines, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa, Nigeria and the United States.

Online dispute resolution (ODR) is a form of dispute resolution which uses technology to facilitate the resolution of disputes between parties. It primarily involves negotiation, mediation or arbitration, or a combination of all three. In this respect it is often seen as being the online equivalent of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). However, ODR can also augment these traditional means of resolving disputes by applying innovative techniques and online technologies to the process.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Yong Pung How</span> Singaporean judge (1926–2020)

Yong Pung How was a Malayan-born Singaporean judge who served as the second chief justice of Singapore between 1990 and 2006.

PACER is an electronic public access service for United States federal court documents. It allows users to obtain case and docket information from the United States district courts, United States courts of appeals, and United States bankruptcy courts. The system is managed by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts in accordance with the policies of the Judicial Conference, headed by the Chief Justice of the United States. As of 2013, it holds more than 500 million documents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">State Courts of Singapore</span>

The State Courts of Singapore is one of the three categories of courts in Singapore, the other categories being the Supreme Court and Family Justice Courts. The State Courts comprise the District and Magistrate Courts—both of which oversee civil and criminal matters—as well as specialised courts such as the coroner's courts and the Small Claims Tribunals.

The terms legal case management (LCM), legal management system (LMS), matter management or legal project management refer to a subset of law practice management and cover a range of approaches and technologies used by law firms and courts to leverage knowledge and methodologies for managing the life cycle of a case or matter more effectively. Generally, the terms refer to the sophisticated information management and workflow practices that are tailored to meet the legal field's specific needs and requirements.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), or external dispute resolution (EDR), typically denotes a wide range of dispute resolution processes and techniques that parties can use to settle disputes with the help of a third party. They are used for disagreeing parties who cannot come to an agreement short of litigation. However, ADR is also increasingly being adopted as a tool to help settle disputes within the court system.

Pro se legal representation comes from Latin pro se, meaning "for oneself" or "on behalf of themselves" which, in modern law, means to argue on one's own behalf in a legal proceeding, as a defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, or a defendant in criminal cases, rather than have representation from counsel or an attorney.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Courtroom photography and broadcasting</span> Overview of courtroom photographing, videotaping and broadcasting legislation per jurisdiction

Courtroom photographing, videotaping and broadcasting is restricted in many jurisdictions. The law varies from limited film and electronic media coverage in some countries, to a complete ban in others.

Arthur Montraville Monty Ahalt is an American jurist, and a lifelong resident of Maryland. He served as Circuit Court Judge for Prince George's County, and is an internationally recognized advocate of technological solutions for the judicial and legal community. Judge Ahalt has pioneered advances in case management software and online dispute resolution, and is the founder and chief executive officer of VirtualCourthouse.com.

eQuibbly

eQuibbly is an online dispute resolution (ODR), offering individuals and companies in the U.S. Canada, and other countries that are signatories to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. This is a private and legally binding alternative to pursuing litigation in court. eQuibbly was an Online Dispute Resolution service in North America focused exclusively on online arbitration. It ceased operations in 2016.

Business Courts, sometimes referred to as Commercial Courts, are trial courts that primarily or exclusively hear internal business disputes and commercial litigation between businesses. The modern creation of specialized Business Courts in the United States began in the early 1990s, and has expanded greatly in the last thirty years. Business courts are operating in New York City and 10 other jurisdictions throughout New York State as the New York Supreme Court Commercial Division, most recently adding the Bronx Commercial Division, Chicago, North Carolina, New Jersey, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Reno and Las Vegas, Nevada, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maryland, Orlando, Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, and Tampa, Florida, Michigan, Cleveland and Toledo, Ohio, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, Metro Atlanta regionally and Georgia Statewide, Delaware's Superior Court and Court of Chancery, Nashville, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Indiana, Arizona, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia, and the Wyoming Chancery Court. This mapshows states having business courts either statewide, in multiple counties or cities, or within a single major city or county, which is accurate through April 2023. In New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Massachusetts, North Carolina, South Carolina and New Jersey, among other states with business courts, the original programs have expanded by adding judges and/or by expanding into additional cities and counties. In 2023, Utah adopted legislation creating a statewide Business and Chancery Court, which will become operational in 2024. On June 9, 2023, Texas' governor signed an Act into law creating a Business Court. The new law becomes effective in September 2023, but the Business Court will not be open for cases until September 2024 at the earliest.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of New York (state)</span> Overview of the law of the U.S. state of New York

The law of New York consists of several levels, including constitutional, statutory, regulatory and case law, and also includes local laws, ordinances, and regulations. The Consolidated Laws form the general statutory law.

Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal technology</span> Technology and software to provide legal services

Legal technology, also known as Legal Tech, refers to the use of technology and software to provide legal services and support the legal industry. Legal Tech companies are often startups founded with the purpose of disrupting the traditionally conservative legal market.

Access to justice is a basic principle in rule of law which describes how citizens should have equal access to the legal systems in their context. Without access to justice, people are not able to fully exercise their rights, challenge discrimination, or hold decision-makers accountable for their actions.

Distributed ledger technology law is not yet defined and recognized but an emerging field of law due to the recent dissemination of distributed ledger technology application in business and governance environment. Smart contracts, which are also enforceable legal contracts and were created through interaction of lawyers and developers, are called smart legal contracts.

Kerala Lok Adalat or Kerala State Legal Services Authority is an statutory and autonomous body and an alternative dispute resolution mechanism used in the state of Kerala. The Kerala Lok Adalat Act is designed to provide constitutional protection guaranteed under Article 14 and 39-A of the Constitution of India, of "ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR ALL". It is a legal system to resolve pending cases at Panchayat or rural places, those in a pre-litigation stage in courts are resolved amicably. It is recognised as statutory authority under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the Lok Adalats award or decision are deemed to be civil court case and final and enforceable on both parties. Such an award is not appealable in any court of law in the absence of any provision. However, by approaching the court of appropriate jurisdiction, litigation can be initiated by any party in the suit if any of them are dissatisfied with the decision of the Lok Adalat.

References

  1. 1 2 Benyekhlef, Karim; Gélinas, Fabien (2005). "Online Dispute Resolution". Lex Electronica (10:2): 5. SSRN   1336379.
  2. ↑ Schultz, Thomas (2006). "Human Rights: A Speed Bump For Arbitral Procedures? An Exploration of Safeguards in the Acceleration of Justice". International Arbitration Law Review. 9 (1): 8. SSRN   896535.
  3. ↑ Lupo, Giampiero; Bailey, Jane (2014). "Designing and Implementing e-Justice Systems: Some Lessons Learned from EU and Canadian Examples". Laws: 354.
  4. ↑ Vermeys, Nicolas (2010). "Code source et sources codifiées: pour une cyberjustice québécoise ouverte et accessible". Lex Electronica (14:3): 2–4.
  5. ↑ Macdonald, Ros; Wallace, Anne (2004). "Review of the Extent of Courtroom Technology in Australia" . Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  6. ↑ "Effective Use of Courtroom Technology: A Judge's Guide to Pretrial and Trial" (PDF). The Federal Judicial Center. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  7. ↑ "Software". Cyberjustice Laboratory. Archived from the original on January 7, 2015. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  8. ↑ Solomon, Samuel H.; Gruen, Martin. "The High Tech Courtroom" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on May 18, 2005. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  9. 1 2 Lederer, Frederic I. (2004). "Courtroom Technology: A Status Report" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 12, 2015. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  10. ↑ "Federal Court(Canada)". cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca. Archived from the original on 2015-09-06. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  11. ↑ "Court Services Online - e-Filing: Frequently Asked Questions" (PDF). British Columbia, Ministry of Justice. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  12. ↑ "E-Filing | Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador". www.court.nl.ca. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  13. ↑ "Wills, Estates, and Guardianship E-Filing: Quick Reference Guide" (PDF). Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  14. ↑ "E-File Notice of Charter Application". albertacourts.ca. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  15. ↑ "Welcome to CT Judicial Branch e-services". www.jud.ct.gov. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  16. ↑ "Florida Courts E-Filing Portal". www.myflcourtaccess.com. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  17. ↑ "Case Type and Document Exceptions to Electronic Filing" (PDF). Connecticut Judicial Branch. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  18. ↑ "eFileTexas.Gov | Official E-Filing System for Texas". www.efiletexas.gov. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  19. ↑ "E-Filing Instructions". nvcourts.gov. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  20. ↑ "EFlex eFile Online Training Registration with the Delaware Courts". courts.delaware.gov. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  21. ↑ "Court of Common Pleas Judicial Officers". courts.delaware.gov. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  22. ↑ "eFiling in the Delaware Supreme Court". courts.delaware.gov. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  23. ↑ "Superior Court of Delaware eFiling". courts.delaware.gov. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  24. ↑ "User Guide to eFiling: Divorce Applications in family law" (PDF). Family Law Courts. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 27, 2014. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  25. ↑ "Welcome to the Commonwealth Courts Portal" (PDF). Commonwealth Courts Portal. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  26. ↑ "eLodgment". www.fedcourt.gov.au. Federal Court of Australia. 2012-09-27. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  27. ↑ "eFiling". Family Court of Australia. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  28. ↑ "eFiling and case management". www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au. Supreme Court of Victoria. Archived from the original on 2016-02-27. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  29. ↑ "Guide to eFiling". Supreme Court of Victoria. Archived from the original on March 17, 2015. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  30. ↑ CITEC (2013-09-06). "VIC County Court eFiling". www.confirm.com.au. Retrieved 2019-07-05.
  31. ↑ "CITEC Confirm Court eFiling". CITEC Confirm. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  32. ↑ "Guidelines for the Discovery o Electronic Documents in Ontario" (PDF). eDiscovery Guidelines. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  33. ↑ Arent, Lisa M.; Brownstone, Robert D.; Fenwick, William A. (2002). "Ediscovery: Preserving, Requesting and Producing Electronic Information". Santa Clara High Tech L.J. (19): 133.
  34. ↑ Foggo, Gavin; Grosso, Suzanne; Harrison, Brett; Rodriguez-Barrera, Jose Victor. "Comparing E-Discovery in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Mexico" (PDF). p. 2.
  35. ↑ "Download publication | The Sedona Conference®". thesedonaconference.org. Archived from the original on 2017-02-02. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  36. ↑ "Civil Justice Reform Project - Ministry of the Attorney General". www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  37. ↑ Manning, Kathryn J. (July 29, 2011). "E-Discovery in Canada". Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  38. ↑ Prince, Tamara R. (June 2009). "Electronic Discovery in Alberta - Applying the Rules and Standards: From Collection to Exchange" (PDF). Retrieved March 11, 2015.
  39. ↑ "Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII)". www.austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  40. ↑ "CanLII". Canadian Legal Information Institute.
  41. ↑ "British and Irish Legal Information Institute". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  42. 1 2 3 4 Gillieron, Philippe (2007). "From Face-to-Face to Screen-to-Screen: Real Hope or Tue Fallacy?". Ohio St. J. On Disp. Resol. (23): 302.
  43. ↑ "Recommended Best Practices For Online Dispute Resolution Service Providers" (PDF). American Bar Association Task Force on eCommerce and ADR. Retrieved March 15, 2015.
  44. ↑ "Fields of work". www.cen.eu. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  45. ↑ "OECD Recommendation on Consumer Dispute Resolution and Redress - OECD". www.oecd.org. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  46. ↑ "European Commission - European Judicial Network - Alternative dispute resolution - Community law". ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
  47. ↑ Katsh, Ethan; Rifkin, Janet; Gaitenby, Alan (2000). "E-Commerce, E-Disputes, and E-Dispute Resolution: In the Shadow of "eBay Law"". Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution (15:3).
  48. ↑ Petrauskas, Feliksas; Kybartiene, Egle (2011). "Online Dispute Resolution in Consumer Disputes". Jurisprudence (18:3).
  49. ↑ Kao, Chi-Chung (2009). "Online Consumer Dispute Resolution and the ODR Practice in Taiwan - A Comparative Analysis". Asian Social Science. 5 (5:7). doi: 10.5539/ass.v5n7p113 .
  50. ↑ Calliess, Gralf-Peter (2009). "Online Dispute Resolution: Consumer Redress in a Global Market Place". German Law Journal (7:8).
  51. ↑ Cortes, Pablo (2007). "The potential of Online Dispute Resolution as a Consumer Redress Mechanism". doi:10.2139/ssrn.998865. S2CID   154492064.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  52. ↑ Ponte, Lucille M. (2001). "Boosting Consumer Confidence in E-Business: Recommendations for Establishing Fair and Effective Dispute Resolution Programs for B2C Online Transactions". Alb. L.J. Si. & Tech. (12).
  53. ↑ Cortes Dieguez, Juan Pablo (2008). "An Analysis of the UDRP Experience - Is it time for reform?". Computer Law & Security Report (24).
  54. ↑ Cole, Sarah Rudolph; Blankley, Kristen M. (2006). "Online Mediation: Where We Have Been, Where We Are Now, and Where We Should Be". U. Tol. L. Rev. (38).
  55. ↑ "European e-Justice Portal". e-justice.europa.eu. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
  56. ↑ "Make a money claim online - GOV.UK". www.gov.uk. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
  57. ↑ Fabri, Marco (2012). "Some European and Australian e-Justice services" (PDF). Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  58. 1 2 3 Martinez, Agusti Cerrilo i (2009). "E-Justice in Spain". In Martinez, Agusti Cerrilo i; Abat, Pere Fabra i (eds.). E-Justice: Information and Communication Technologies in the Court System. New York: Information Science Reference. pp. 101–102.
  59. ↑ "Online Services". www.fedcourt.gov.au. Federal Court of Australia. 2012-09-27. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
  60. ↑ "eCourtroom". www.fedcourt.gov.au. Federal Court of Australia. 2012-09-27. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
  61. ↑ "High Court of Australia". www.hcourt.gov.au. The High Court of Australia. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
  62. ↑ "eServices". Family Court of Australia. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  63. ↑ "eCourt". New South Wales Land and Environment Court. Archived from the original on February 9, 2015. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  64. ↑ "eCallover". New South Wales Land and Environment Court. Archived from the original on February 9, 2015. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  65. ↑ "NSW Supreme, District & Local Courts Online Registry". www.service.nsw.gov.au. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
  66. ↑ "VCAT Online: Lodge applications via the internet (Residential Tenancies registered users only)". Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal. Retrieved March 20, 2015.
  67. ↑ "Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII)". www.austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
  68. ↑ Jackson, Sheryl; Macdonald, Ros. "Using the Internet to Assist Court Processes: Delivery of Justice in an Electronic Age" (PDF). Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  69. ↑ Potter, Sandra; Farrelly, Phil; Begg, Derek (2009). "The E-Court Roadmap: Innovation and Integration An Australian Case Study". In Martinez, Agusti Cerrilo i; Abat, Pere Fabra i (eds.). E-Justice: Information and Communication Technologies in the Court System. New York: Information Science Reference.
  70. ↑ "McGlothlin Courtroom | Center for Legal & Court Technology". www.legaltechcenter.net. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
  71. ↑ Lederer, Frederic I. (2004). "Courtroom Technology: A Status Report" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 12, 2015. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  72. ↑ "Discover the Cyberjustice Laboratory in 8 min". Cyberjustice Laboratory. Retrieved March 8, 2015.[ permanent dead link ]
  73. ↑ "Software". Cyberjustice Laboratory. Archived from the original on January 7, 2015. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  74. ↑ "Resources - ICANN". www.icann.org. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
  75. ↑ Cortes Dieguez, Juan (2008). "An Analysis of the UDRP Experience - Is it time for reform?". Computer Law & Security Report (24).
  76. ↑ "Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law" (PDF). United Nations. Retrieved March 20, 2015.[ permanent dead link ]
  77. ↑ "Possible Future Work on Online Dispute Resolution in Cross-Border Electronic Commerce Transactions" (PDF). United Nations, General Assembly. Retrieved March 20, 2015.[ permanent dead link ]
  78. ↑ "Report of Working Group III (Online Dispute Resolution) on the work of its thirty-first session (New York, 9-13 February 2015)" (PDF). United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. Retrieved March 20, 2015.[ permanent dead link ]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.