Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Negotiation, Online Dispute Resolution, and Artificial Intelligence

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation

  • 94 Accesses

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been fundamental to the development of online dispute resolution and negotiation support systems (NSS). The earliest such systems were settlement-oriented and template-based or rule-based. Then followed the development of case-based systems, which were based on AI ideas. Simultaneously, game theory was used as the basis of providing intelligent negotiation support, as shown in the Adjusted Winner, Family Winner, and Smartsettle Systems. In the early years of negotiation support using AI, systems development was often ad hoc rather than systematic, with a focus more upon technology than user needs. The situation changed as intelligent NSS were proposed for use in a variety of domains such as family law and international disputes. We conclude with a discussion of the features that a truly helpful online dispute resolution system would provide, and with comments on how the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the need for online dispute resolution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Plea bargaining is the process whereby the accused and the prosecutor in a criminal case workout a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant’s pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of a multicount indictment in return for a lighter sentence.

  2. 2.

    See https://www.kentlaw.iit.edu/institutes-centers/center-for-access-to-justice-and-technology last viewed November 10, 2019

  3. 3.

    A Pareto-optimal outcome is defined by the property that any other outcome that makes one party better off makes at least one other party worse off.

  4. 4.

    https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/about-us last viewed July 19, 2020

  5. 5.

    Toulmin (1958) stated that all arguments, regardless of the domain, have a structure that consists of four basic invariants: claim, data, warrant, and backing. Every argument makes an assertion. The assertion of an argument stands as the claim of the argument. A mechanism is required to act as a justification for the claim, given the data. This justification is known as the warrant. The backing supports the warrant and in a legal argument is typically a reference to a statute or precedent case.

  6. 6.

    A neural network receives its name from the fact that it resembles a nervous system in the brain. It consists of many self-adjusting processing elements cooperating in a densely interconnected network. Each processing element generates a single output signal which is transmitted to the other processing elements. The output signal of a processing element depends on the inputs to the processing element: each input is gated by a weighting factor that determines the amount of influence that the input will have on the output. The strength of the weighting factors is adjusted autonomously by the processing element as data is processed.

  7. 7.

    Logrolling is a process in which participants look collectively at multiple issues to find issues that one party considers more important than does the opposing party. Logrolling is successful if the parties concede issues to which they give low importance values. See (Pruitt 1981).

  8. 8.

    https://www.amica.gov.au/ last viewed July 20, 2020.

  9. 9.

    https://www.smh.com.au/technology/judges-mandate-app-for-separated-parents-20190906-p52op7.html last viewed February 18, 2020.

  10. 10.

    See, generally, Adieu, “Complete Your Financial Disclosure in a Fraction of the Time” https://www.adieu.ai/ last viewed July 27, 2020.

  11. 11.

    https://rechtwijzer.nl/ last viewed July 20, 2020.

  12. 12.

    See, generally, Immediation, “What Is Immediation?” https://www.immediation.com/ last viewed July 27, 2020.

  13. 13.

    See, generally, MODRON, “Resolve the World’s Disputes Whenever Wherever” https://www.modron.com/ last viewed July 27, 2020. MODRON is the provider favored by the Australian Resolution Institute: Resolution Institute, “Resolution Institute and MODRON Have Partnered to Bring Our Members Spaces” (2020) https://www.resolution.institute/resources/online-dispute-resolution-platforms/modron last viewed July 27, 2020.

References

  • Barsky AE (2016) The ethics of app-assisted family mediation. Conflict Resol Q 34(1):31–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellucci E, Zeleznikow J (2005) Developing negotiation decision support systems that support mediators: a case study of the Family_Winner system. Artif Intell Law 13(2):233–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bibas S (2004) Plea bargaining outside the shadow of trial. Harv Law Rev 117:2463–2547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brams SJ, Taylor AD (1996) Fair division: from cake-cutting to dispute resolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brams SJ, Togman JM (1996) Camp David: was the agreement fair? Confl Manag Peace Sci 15(1):99–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denoon DB, Brams SJ (1997) Fair division: a new approach to the Spratly Islands controversy. Int Negot 2(2):303–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Docherty J (2004) Little book of strategic negotiation: negotiating during turbulent times. Simon and Schuster, Intercourse, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Eidelman JA (1993) Software for negotiations. Law Prac Manag 19:50

    Google Scholar 

  • Fayyad U, Piatetsky-Shapiro G, Smyth P (1996) From data mining to knowledge discovery in databases. AI Mag 17(3):37–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher R, Ury W (1981) Getting to yes. PenguinGroup, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross JI (2019) Bargaining in the (murky) shadow of arbitration. Harv Negot Law Rev 24(2):185–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagan M (2018) A human-centered design approach to access to justice: generating new prototypes and hypotheses for interventions to make courts user-friendly. Indiana J Law Soc Equity 6(2):199

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess TJ, Rees LP, Rakes TR (2000) Using autonomous software agents to create the next generation of decision support systems. Decis Sci 31(1):1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katsh ME (1995) Dispute resolution in cyberspace. Conn Law Rev 28:953

    Google Scholar 

  • Katsh ME, Rabinovich-Einy O (2017) Digital justice: technology and the internet of disputes. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kersten GE (1995) Simulation and analysis of negotiation processes: the case of Softwood Lumber Negotiations. In: Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual Hawaii international conference on system

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten GE (1997) Support for group decisions and negotiations an overview. In: Multicriteria analysis. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 332–346

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner JL, Simpson RL (1989) The MEDIATOR: analysis of an early case-based problem solver 4. Cogn Sci 13(4):507–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korobkin R, Zasloff J (2005) Roadblocks to the road map: a negotiation theory perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict after Yasser Arafat. Yale J Int Law 30:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus S, Hoz-Weiss P, Wilkenfield J, Andersen DR, Pate A (2008) Resolving crises through automated bilateral negotiations. Artif Intell 172(1):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki RJ, Barry B, Saunders DM (2020) Negotiation. Mc Graw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis HTT (2015) Helping families by maintaining a strong well-funded family court that encourages consensual Peacemaking: a judicial perspective. Fam Court Rev 53(3):371–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodder AR, Zeleznikow J (2010) Enhanced dispute resolution through the use of information technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Massoud TG (2000) Fair division, adjusted winner procedure (AW), and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. J Confl Resolut 44(3):333–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matwin S, Szpakowicz S, Koperczak Z, Kersten GE, Michalowski W (1989) Negoplan: an expert system shell for negotiation support. IEEE Intell Syst 4:50–62

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty LT (1976) Reflections on TAXMAN: an experiment in artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. Harv Law Rev 90:837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mnookin RH, Kornhauser L (1979) Bargaining in the shadow of the law: the case of divorce. Yale Law J 88(5):950–997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mnookin RH, Peppet SR, Tulumello AS (2000) Beyond winning: negotiating to create value in deals and disputes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver JR (1996) A machine-learning approach to automated negotiation and prospects for electronic commerce. J Manag Inf Syst 13(3):83–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piatetsky-Shapiro G, Frawley WJ (1991) Knowledge discovery in databases. AAAI, Menlo Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Prawer N, Zeleznikow J (2019, June) War as a technique of international conflict resolution–an analytical approach. In: International conference on group decision and negotiation. Springer, Cham, pp 123–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt DG (1981) Bargaining behavior. Ac, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa H (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rule C (2003) Online dispute resolution for business: B2B, ecommerce, consumer, employment, insurance, and other commercial conflicts. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter S, Thompson D (2016) Public-Centered civil justice redesign: a case study of the British Columbia civil resolution tribunal. McGill J Disp Resol 3:113

    Google Scholar 

  • Sander FE (1976) The multi-door courthouse. Barrister 3:18

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlobohm DA, Waterman DA (1987) Explanation for an expert system that performs estate planning. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pp 18–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith R (2016) Ministry of Justice for England and Wales Dives into the deep water on online dispute resolution. Disp Resol Mag 23:28

    Google Scholar 

  • Sourdin T, Zeleznikow J (2020) Courts, mediation and COVID-19. Aust Bus Law Rev 48:138–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Stranieri A, Zeleznikow J (2006) Knowledge discovery from legal databases, vol 69. Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Stranieri A, Zeleznikow J, Gawler M, Lewis B (1999) A hybrid rule–neural approach for the automation of legal reasoning in the discretionary domain of family law in Australia. Artif Intell Law 7(2–3):153–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susskind RE (1986) Expert systems in law: a jurisprudential approach to artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. Modern Law Rev 49(2):168–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susskind RE (1987) Expert systems in law. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sycara KP (1993) Machine learning for intelligent support of conflict resolution. Decis Support Syst 10(2):121–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sycara KP (1998) Multiagent systems. AI Mag 19(2):79–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiessen EM (1993) ICANS: an interactive computer-assisted multi-party negotiation support system. PhD Dissertation, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, Dissertation Abstracts International, 172p

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiessen EM, Loucks DP, Stedinger JR (1998) Computer-assisted negotiations of water resources conflicts. Group Decis Negot J 7(2):109–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson M (2011) Alternative modes of delivery for family dispute resolution: the telephone dispute resolution service and the online FDR project. J Fam Stud 17(3):253–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin S (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1947) Theory of games and economic behavior, 2nd rev. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton RE, McKersie RB (1965) Behavioral theory of labor negotiation. An analysis of a social interaction system. McGraw-HiII, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Waterman DA, Peterson MA (1981) Models of legal decisionmaking. The RAND Corporation. R-2717-ICJ, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  • Waterman DA, Paul J, Peterson M (1986) Expert systems for legal decision making. Expert Syst 3(4):212–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weizenbaum J (1966) ELIZA – a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Commun ACM 9(1):36–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkenfeld J, Kraus S, Holley KM, Harris MA (1995) GENIE: a decision support system for crisis negotiations. Decis Support Syst 14(4):369–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleznikow J (2014) Comparing the Israel–Palestinian dispute to Australian family mediation. Group Decis Negot 23(6):1301–1317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleznikow J (2016) Can artificial intelligence and online dispute resolution enhance efficiency and effectiveness in courts. IJCA 8:30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleznikow J, Bellucci E (2003) Family_winner: integrating game theory and heuristics to provide negotiation support. In Proceedings of sixteenth international conference on legal knowledge based system 21:30

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeleznikow J, Meersman R, Hunter D, Van Helvoort E (1995) Computer tools for aiding legal negotiation. In: ACIS95 – Sixth Australasian conference on information systems, pp 231–251

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. La Trobe University Law School, Bundoora, VIC, Australia

    John Zeleznikow

Authors
  1. John Zeleznikow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Zeleznikow .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Wilfrid Laurier University Dept. Mathematics, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    D. Marc Kilgour

  2. University of Strathclyde Strathclyde Business School, Glasgow, UK

    Colin Eden

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Zeleznikow, J. (2020). Negotiation, Online Dispute Resolution, and Artificial Intelligence. In: Kilgour, D.M., Eden, C. (eds) Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_38-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_38-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12051-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12051-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation