A simple scheme to structure and process the information of parties in online forms of alternative dispute resolution

An essential problem in online forms of alternative dispute resolution is that it is difficult to structure and process the information that is exchanged between negotiating parties. This paper offers a simple scheme according to which users can enter claims and justify them with other claims. Claims can also be conceded, questioned and contradicted. Based on the information that is entered into the system, principles of computational dialectic are applied to compute which claims are established (accepted by all parties) and which are not. The scheme thus presented ensures that users are confronted with the consequences of the various claims made, which makes them hopefully more aware of the relative positions they occupy in the negotiation. The theory in the paper is illustrated with the help of a concrete business-to-consumer dispute and a partially implemented ODR client. Key-phrases: alternative dispute resolution, online dispute resolution, computational dialectic.