Dispute Resolution Data
Acceptable agreements could only come into fruition with the consent of both parties in dispute. More often than not, a consensus is attained based on experience, and in the presence of agreements that have come in that past. This is where precedence in mediation comes in.
The question of where to get these conflict resolution precedents may be answered with an initiative called Dispute Resolution Data. Bill Slate and Deborah Slate co-founded this initiative which has a unique value proposition; it offers access to previously unavailable dispute resolution claims, duration, and processes.
The data they offer comes from the voluminous records of the International Criminal Court (ICC), International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) and Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CDRE).
The ramifications are set to affect not just single entities with each other, but also across the board. This is most especially true in the context of the voluntary nature of mediation proceedings. A system that could objectively structure arguments and points of negotiations, that is objective and assumed to be fair, could serve as a springboard for amicable settlement.
Effective communication is key, as well as the way mediation proceedings are held. For such a system to be workable, both parties to the mediation need to have a certain threshold for acceptability. In short, they must be willing to agree in the first place. Since the goal of mediation proceedings is to come up with a mutually acceptable compromise, then this is possible. For arbitration proceedings that require an Arbitrator that decides for two or more conflicting parties, it could get complicated especially with emotional and financial undertones. Some corporate entities have the winner-take-all mentally which automatically precludes any type of arbitration proceedings. These cases will then proceed to litigation.
It is essential to know that these systems could affect commercial arbitration, labour disputes, securities arbitration, and more. The key here is in the wealth and breadth of data that is gathered concerning similar situations in the past. Agreements written on smart contracts could pave the way for a more streamlined process, given the growing popularity of resolving conflicts through Arbitration.
While Arbitrators are referred to in-laws as natural persons, the introduction of AI may alter the definition completely. The law will be hinged on whether to classify the machine as artificial persons or natural persons under the law. Arbitrators are expected to have some form of education, knowledge, and experience, but with the advent of natural language, and experience, but, with the advent of natural language processing (NLP), computers can easily be fed with quadrillions of data to make them legally qualified to arbitrate.
The possibility of allowing this cognitive technology to penetrate the ADR sphere will depend on the limited roles it is allowed to play. It Is either restricted to assistive purposes such as appointing arbitrators, researching on the technicality of the disputes, preparing an award, etc. or, it can be equipped with an unlimited scope to address the issues of the clients and devise an enforcement award. But this may raise one pertinent question. Can the arbitral award of an AI be challenged in Court, and if it can, on what grounds or basis?