In the article, the author presents a systematic anal-ysis of models of digital dispute resolution in modern arbitra-tion. The author studied the dispute resolution models on the platforms “Kleros”, “Aragon”, “CodeLegit”, as well as the Draft arbitration rules for smart contracts “JAMS-2018”and the English “DDRR-2021”. The author identifies the follow-ing types of modelsof arbitration dispute resolution: 1) tradi-tional arbitration; 2) traditional arbitration with blockchain el-ements (a model based on the CodeLegit platform), 3) digital arbitration (“DDRR-2021”). The most important feature and difference of the English “Digital DR Regulation”2021 is the fact that the entire process from the beginning (occurrence of the case) to the end (execution of the decision) is resolved au-tomatically without the intervention of human arbitrators with the help of an artificial intelligence agent. This is the proce-dure for resolving a dispute in the field of smart contracts that should be called digital arbitration. The so-called “decentral-ized arbitration”on the platforms “Kleros”, “Aragon”, “OpenLaw”, “Mattereum Protocol”, “Rhubarb Fund”, “Ju-ry.Online”, “Jur”, “OATH Protocol”, “Juris”and other mod-els of this type does not allow these models to be considered arbitration. The author believes that these models should be conditionally called crowdsourcing quasi-arbitration.
Hi! I can explain how to publish or share, find articles in your field, format citations and answer questions about fees and licensing. How can I help?
Answers are based on The Gufo’s published policies. Editorial decisions are made by the editorial team.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
