Uncertainty and dispute resolution for blockchain and smart contract institutions

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Bronwyn E. Howell ◽  
Petrus H. Potgieter
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Value At Risk ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Human Cognition ◽  
Smart Contracts ◽  
Smart Contract ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Governance Institutions ◽  
Human Actors ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

Abstract Smart contracts have been proposed as a means of revolutionizing transacting between human actors and contributing to blockchain platforms substituting for many current institutions. However, the technical nature of blockchain platforms and smart contracts requires levels of certainty and foresight sufficient for contracts to be complete. We examine the technical and economic characteristics of blockchains and smart contracts to identify sources of uncertainty that may pose challenges to the ability of these technologies to displace existing institutional arrangements, in particular, the courts and other arbitration arrangements. Despite the development of alternative automated blockchain institutions such as the Kleros dispute resolution system, the case for smart contracts and blockchain applications to supplant real-world institutions remains weak. Inherent incompleteness due to limits to information availability, human cognition, and communication means that traditional contract governance institutions will continue to complement blockchain smart contract governance arrangements. The more complex and unique the transaction, the higher the value at risk, the harder to anticipate and precisely specify contingencies and measure and observe outcomes. Furthermore, the longer the time frame between agreement and execution, the less likely it is that smart contracting will be more efficient than traditional contracting.

Designing an Effective Dispute Resolution System

1988 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 413-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
William L. Ury ◽  
Jeanne M. Brett ◽  
Stephen B. Goldberg
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

scholarly journals TOWARDS AN EFFECTIVE KENYAN LABOUR DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM: A COMPARISON WITH THE SOUTH AFRICAN LABOUR DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM

Obiter ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johana K Gathongo ◽  
Adriaan van der Walt
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Labour Dispute ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Labour Standards ◽  
International Labour Standards ◽  
The Government ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

There have been notable concerns in the current dual dispute resolution system in Kenya. The problems include protracted referral timeframes for dismissal disputes, non-regulation of maximum timeframes for the agreed extension after 30 days conciliation period has lapsed, the absence of statutory timeframes for appointing a conciliator/ commissioner and arbitration process under both the Labour Relations Act, 2007 and the Employment Act, 2007. Likewise, the responsibility of resolving statutory labour disputes in Kenya is still heavily under the control of the government through the Ministry of Labour. There is still no independent statutory dispute resolution institution as envisaged by the Labour Relations Act, 2007. As a result, the Kenyan dispute resolution system has been criticised for lack of impartiality leading to the increase in strikes and lockouts.This article examines the effectiveness of the Kenyan labour dispute resolution system. The article evaluates the provisions of international labour standards relevant to labour dispute resolution. The article illuminates and describes the bottlenecks in the current Kenyan system and argues that it does not adequately respond to the needs of parties in terms of the international labour conventions. A comparative approach with South Africa is adopted to see how independent institutions, such as the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, Bargaining Councils and specialised Labour Courts can lead to effective dispute resolution. In view of that, a wide range of remedial intervention intended to address the gaps and flaws highlighted in the study are made. Systematically, the article provides suggestions and possible solutions for a better institutional framework and processes to address them.

scholarly journals Złożenie skargi przez konsumenta za pośrednictwem ODR (Online Dispute Resolution) – internetowego systemu rozstrzygania sporów

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-194
Author(s):  
Anna Rogacka-Łukasik
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
The Other ◽  
Online Dispute Resolution ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Technical Innovations ◽  
Modern Form ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution), as a non-judicial resolution of disputes, is a wide range of mechanisms that aim to put an end to a conflict without the need of conducting a trial before the court. On the other hand, the modern form of ADR is ODR (Online Dispute Resolution) – an online dispute resolution system that is the expression of the newest means of communication and technical innovations in order to help in non-judicial dispute resolving. The goal of this publication is to present the ODR platform and, in particular, to describe the process of filing a complaint by the consumer by means of it.

scholarly journals Pergeseran Rezim Sistem Pemilihan Kepala Daerah di Indonesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-376
Author(s):  
Ahmad Mirza Safwandy ◽  
Husni Jalil ◽  
Moh Nur Rasyid
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Regional Government ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Election System ◽  
Electoral Regime ◽  
Election Fraud ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

Penelitian ini bertujuan menguraikan pergeseran sistem pemilihan kepala daerah dari rezim pemilihan umum ke rezim Pemerintahan Daerah. Pergeseran ini berdampak kepada peralihan kewenangan penyelesaian sengketa dari Mahkamah Konstitusi ke Mahkamah Agung sebagai konsekuensi Putusan MK Nomor 97/PUU–XI/2013. Putusan MK berimpilikasi kepada sistem pemilihan kepala daerah (Pilkada) yang berada di rezim pemilihan umum beralih ke rezim pemerintahan daerah, setelah putusan tersebut undang-undang mengamanatkan pembentukan peradilan khusus Pilkada yang berada di bawah kekuasaan Mahkamah Agung. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif dengan bertumpu pada studi dokumen berupa bahan hukum. Penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa meski tidak lagi menjadi kewenangan MK untuk mengadili perkara Pilkada, MK masih mengadili sengketa Pilkada hingga peradilan khusus Pilkada terbentuk. Peradilan khusus Pilkada selain mengadili sengketa hasil dapat mengadili sengketa proses, terkait sengketa administrasi Pilkada, sengketa Pidana Pilkada termasuk mengadili perihal election fraud dan corrupt campaign practice. Sistem penyelesaian sengketa Pilkada dilakukan melalui satu atap, sehingga tidak terjadi tumpang tindih putusan seperti yang terjadi selama ini. Shifting of Regime on Regional  Election System in Indonesia This study aims to describe the shift of the regional election system from the general election regime to the regional district regime. The shift has an impact on the tranfer of authority to resolve disputes from Constitutional Court to Supreme Court as a consequence of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 97/PUU-XI/2013. The decision implied to the regional election system (Pilkada) which was in the electoral regime moved to the regional government regime, after the ruling mandated the establishment of a special election court under the authority of the Supreme Court. This research uses a normative juridical approach by analyzing law documents. The research concluded that although adjudicating of regional election disputes was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, but the Court still adjudicate election disputes until a special court was formed. In addition to adjudicating disputes over results, the Election Special Court can also adjudicate election disputes related to process, administrative, criminal disputes including hearing about election fraud and corrupt campaign practice. Pilkada dispute resolution system is done through one roof, so there is no overlapping of decisions as has happened so far. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document