Disintegration of the State Monopoly on Dispute Resolution – How Should We Perceive State Sovereignty in the ODR Era?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

The interests of state sovereignty are preserved in conflict management through adoption of a state monopoly for dispute resolution as the descriptive and constitutive concept of the resolution system. State monopoly refers to the state’s exclusive right to decide on the resolution of legal conflicts on its own soil, in other words, in the state’s territorial jurisdiction. This also forms the basis of international procedural law. This conceptual fiction is derived from the social contract theories of Hobbes and Locke and it preserves the state’s agenda. However, such a monopoly is disintegrating in the Internet era because it fails to provide an effective resolution method for Internet disputes in cross-border cases, and, consequently, online dispute resolution has gained ground in the dispute resolution market. It raises the question of whether we should discard the state monopoly as the focal concept of dispute resolution and whether we should open a wider discussion on possible justificatory constructions of dispute resolution, i.e. sovereignty, contract, and quality standards, as a whole, re-evaluating the underlying structure of procedural law.
Translated title of the contributionValtion riidanratkaisumonopolin pirstaloituminen - Miten meidän tulisi arvioida Valtiosuvereniteettiä ODR-aikakaudella?
Original languageEnglish
Article numberVol 1, Issue 2
JournalInternational Journal of Online Dispute Resolution
Volume1
Issue number2
Pages (from-to)125-156
Number of pages32
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2014
MoE publication typeA1 Journal article-refereed

Fields of Science

  • 513 Law

Cite this

@article{c1e631ec8bf24fe18c740b423fb5b5c4,
title = "Disintegration of the State Monopoly on Dispute Resolution – How Should We Perceive State Sovereignty in the ODR Era?",
abstract = "The interests of state sovereignty are preserved in conflict management through adoption of a state monopoly for dispute resolution as the descriptive and constitutive concept of the resolution system. State monopoly refers to the state’s exclusive right to decide on the resolution of legal conflicts on its own soil, in other words, in the state’s territorial jurisdiction. This also forms the basis of international procedural law. This conceptual fiction is derived from the social contract theories of Hobbes and Locke and it preserves the state’s agenda. However, such a monopoly is disintegrating in the Internet era because it fails to provide an effective resolution method for Internet disputes in cross-border cases, and, consequently, online dispute resolution has gained ground in the dispute resolution market. It raises the question of whether we should discard the state monopoly as the focal concept of dispute resolution and whether we should open a wider discussion on possible justificatory constructions of dispute resolution, i.e. sovereignty, contract, and quality standards, as a whole, re-evaluating the underlying structure of procedural law.",
keywords = "513 Law, PROCEDURAL JUSTICE, Constitutional pluralism, ODR",
author = "Riikka Koulu",
year = "2014",
month = "12",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
pages = "125--156",
journal = "International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution",
issn = "2352-5002",
publisher = "Eleven international publishing",
number = "2",

}

Disintegration of the State Monopoly on Dispute Resolution – How Should We Perceive State Sovereignty in the ODR Era? / Koulu, Riikka.

In: International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Vol. 1, No. 2, Vol 1, Issue 2, 12.2014, p. 125-156.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Disintegration of the State Monopoly on Dispute Resolution – How Should We Perceive State Sovereignty in the ODR Era?

AU - Koulu, Riikka

PY - 2014/12

Y1 - 2014/12

N2 - The interests of state sovereignty are preserved in conflict management through adoption of a state monopoly for dispute resolution as the descriptive and constitutive concept of the resolution system. State monopoly refers to the state’s exclusive right to decide on the resolution of legal conflicts on its own soil, in other words, in the state’s territorial jurisdiction. This also forms the basis of international procedural law. This conceptual fiction is derived from the social contract theories of Hobbes and Locke and it preserves the state’s agenda. However, such a monopoly is disintegrating in the Internet era because it fails to provide an effective resolution method for Internet disputes in cross-border cases, and, consequently, online dispute resolution has gained ground in the dispute resolution market. It raises the question of whether we should discard the state monopoly as the focal concept of dispute resolution and whether we should open a wider discussion on possible justificatory constructions of dispute resolution, i.e. sovereignty, contract, and quality standards, as a whole, re-evaluating the underlying structure of procedural law.

AB - The interests of state sovereignty are preserved in conflict management through adoption of a state monopoly for dispute resolution as the descriptive and constitutive concept of the resolution system. State monopoly refers to the state’s exclusive right to decide on the resolution of legal conflicts on its own soil, in other words, in the state’s territorial jurisdiction. This also forms the basis of international procedural law. This conceptual fiction is derived from the social contract theories of Hobbes and Locke and it preserves the state’s agenda. However, such a monopoly is disintegrating in the Internet era because it fails to provide an effective resolution method for Internet disputes in cross-border cases, and, consequently, online dispute resolution has gained ground in the dispute resolution market. It raises the question of whether we should discard the state monopoly as the focal concept of dispute resolution and whether we should open a wider discussion on possible justificatory constructions of dispute resolution, i.e. sovereignty, contract, and quality standards, as a whole, re-evaluating the underlying structure of procedural law.

KW - 513 Law

KW - PROCEDURAL JUSTICE

KW - Constitutional pluralism

KW - ODR

M3 - Article

VL - 1

SP - 125

EP - 156

JO - International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution

JF - International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution

SN - 2352-5002

IS - 2

M1 - Vol 1, Issue 2

ER -