|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Developing an Online Dispute
Resolution Environment: Dialogue Tools and Negotiation Support Systems in a Three-Step Model Arno
R. Lodder† & John Zeleznikow†† I.
Introduction
A. General Introduction Although artificial intelligence (AI) is
commonly associated with anthropomorphic computers performing amazing feats, as
in movies like The Matrix and Minority Report, AI is actually a much
broader field of study whose results are not always mind-blowing. So what is AI? Two humorous definitions are “whatever computers can’t do yet”[1] and “trying to solve by computer
any problem that a human can solve faster.”[2]
Basically, AI involves the study of automated human intelligence. This includes both practically-oriented
research, such as building computer applications that perform tasks requiring
human intelligence, and fundamental research, such as determining how to represent
knowledge in a computer-comprehensible form.
At the intersection of AI on the one hand and law on the other lies a
field dedicated to the use of advanced computer technology for legal purposes: AI & Law. This article applies the authors’ research in AI & Law to
construct a model for online dispute resolution (ODR). In the past, the authors of this article
have individually developed AI & Law applications, including negotiation
decision support systems (henceforth called “negotiation support systems”)[3] and dialogical argument tools.[4] Negotiation support systems
propose solutions for a conflict based on the information available on a case
at hand.[5] These solutions aim to take
into account the interests of the parties in the best possible way. Dialogical argument tools help disputing
parties to structure the information exchange.
This structure reflects the support relations between the statements put
forward by the parties (i.e., how the parties’ statements support a disputed
issue). Because of our shared interest in the
potential of online dispute resolution (ODR), we analyzed our previous research
and discovered that the negotiation support systems of Zeleznikow could fit
nicely with the dialogical argument tool of Lodder, creating a well-rounded
application for use in online dispute resolution. The weakness of one application is the strength of the other, and
while both applications are individually helpful to their users, neither of
them offers full support for dispute resolution. In this article, we propose merging the dialogical reasoning
tools of Lodder with the game-theory-based negotiation techniques of Zeleznikow
to construct an online dispute resolution environment. We do not present a finished, ready-to-use
ODR environment, but rather, we aim to pave the way for the development of such
a system. The remainder of this article is
structured as follows. In Part I, we
provide background information on the field of AI & Law, alternative
dispute resolution (ADR), and online dispute resolution. In Part II, we discuss the essential
components of our proposed ODR environment:
the assumptions that underlie our model, and how argument tools and
negotiation support systems work, both individually and together. Part III illustrates the working of our
three step model: first, the
calculation of a “BATNA” [6] to inform
the parties about their chances in an eventual court proceeding; second, the
attempted resolution of disputes through use of a dialogue tool; third, further
attempts at dispute resolution through the employment of compensation
strategies and trade-offs constructed by a negotiation support system. Part IV raises some final considerations
about our proposed environment, discussing potential problems and
drawbacks. Part V concludes the article. I. Introduction.................................................................................................................... A.
General Introduction................................................................................................. B.
Artificial Intelligence & Law................................................................................... C.
Alternative Dispute Resolution................................................................................ D.
Online Dispute Resolution....................................................................................... II. Essentials of Our Online Dispute Resolution
Environment............................................ A. Assumptions............................................................................................................. 1.
The Three Steps.................................................................................................. 2.
Information Technology and Communication...................................................... 3.
A Sample Legal Domain..................................................................................... B. The
Argument Tool.................................................................................................. 1.
Introduction......................................................................................................... 2.
Lodder’s Approach to Negotiation and Argumentation....................................... 3.
Using the Argument Tool: An
Example Involving Family Law.......................... C. The
Negotiation Support System Approach............................................................. 1.
Introduction......................................................................................................... 2.
Zeleznikow’s Approach to Building Negotiation Support Systems..................... 3.
Using the Negotiation Support System................................................................ D. How
the Argument Tool and Negotiation Support System Work Together.............. III. The Three-Step Model: A Walk-Through..................................................................... A. The
First Step: Calculating BATNAs..................................................................... B. The
Second Step: Resolving Disputes by a
Dialogue............................................. C. The
Third Step: Negotiation Support Through
the Use of Compensation Strategies and Trade-offs...................................................................................................................... D. The
Consecutive Steps and the Outcome of the Dispute Resolution Process........... IV. Final Considerations Regarding Our Online
Dispute Resolution Environment.............. A. Adding
Issues to the Dispute.................................................................................... B. Disagreement
About Which Issues Are in Dispute................................................... C. Negotiation
and Justice............................................................................................ V. Conclusion..................................................................................................................... † Arno Lodder (lodder@cli.vu) heads the IT Law Department at the Computer Law Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam and is director of the Centre for Electronic Dispute Resolution (CEDIRE; http://cedire.org). We thank Emilia Bellucci, Lenny Braman, Denise McGimsey, and Stephen Mohr for their valuable suggestions that helped to improve this article. †† John Zeleznikow (john.zeleznikow@vu.edu.au) is a professor of Information Systems and director of the Donald Berman Research Unit for IT and Law at Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. [1] Marc Lauritsen uses this definition to suggest that once computers
are able to perform “intelligent tasks,” such tasks are no longer considered
that special. He has also defined AI as
“the study of what we know, how we think, and how we might get machines to do
some of our knowing and thinking for us.”
Marc Lauritsen, Artificial Intelligence in the Real Legal
Workplace, in
Information Technology and Lawyers (Arno R. Lodder & Anja Oskamp eds.,
forthcoming) (on file with author). [2] Ernie Thiessen used this definition in a presentation given at the UN Forum on Online Dispute Resolution in Geneva on June 30, 2003. The same and a slightly modified definition were also used in Arno R. Lodder & Ernest M. Thiessen, The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Online Dispute Resolution, 2003 Proc. UNECE F. on ODR, at http://www.odr.info/unece2003/pdf/lodder_thiessen.pdf. [3] See John Zeleznikow et al., Computer Tools for Aiding Legal Negotiation, 6 Australasian Conf. on Info. Systems 231, 231–51 (1995). See also Emilia Bellucci & John Zeleznikow, AI Techniques for Modelling Legal Negotiation, 7 Int’l Conf. on Artificial Intelligence & L. 108, 108–16 (1999). [4] See Arno R. Lodder &
Aimée Herczog, DiaLaw – A
Dialogical Framework for Modeling Legal Reasoning, 5 Int’l Conf. on Artificial Intelligence &
L. 146, 146–55 (1995). See also Arno R. Lodder, DiaLaw:
On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation passim (1999) [herinafter Lodder, DiaLaw]; Arno Lodder & Paul
E.M. Huygen, eADR: A Simple Tool to Structure the
Information Exchange Between Parties in Online Alternative Dispute Resolution, in Legal Knowledge and Information
Systems JURIX 2001: The Fourteenth Annual International Conference 117–29 (Bart Verheij et
al. eds., 2001). [5] There have been numerous approaches to building negotiation support systems. For detailed coverage of the use of game theory and bargaining strategy to provide negotiation support, see Howard Raiffa, The Art and Science of Negotiation (1982). See also Emilia Bellucci & John Zeleznikow, Representations of Decision-making Support in Negotiation, 10 J. of Decision Systems 449, 449–79 (2001) (discussing AI tools that provide negotiation support); Katia P. Sycara, Persuasive Argumentation in Negotiation, 28 Theory & Decision 203, 203–42 (1990). [6] BATNA stands for “best alternative to a negotiated agreement.” See discussion infra Part III.A. |
||||||||||
