developer_admin

-Liliana Amione* Abstract This article examines the current global challenges of technology implementation in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), highlighting the difficulties of mediating in times of the “new normal” arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. It focuses mainly on the analysis of the Mandatory Pre-Judicial Mediation System, prior to the traditional court process, in the Province of Santa Fe, Argentina. I. Introduction On March 11th, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID – 19 outbreak a global pandemic. Since then, the states had adopted preventive measures to contain and mitigate the spread of the virus and the health impact to safeguard the collective right to public health. In this sense, the strategies implemented by the countries involved isolation and social distancing, the prohibition and/or less movement and physical appearance to places of public access, and border restrictions on the mobility of people and goods. At the same time, it was necessary to guarantee the normal development of economic activities and the regular provision of goods and services. These measures were provided on a temporary basis since they restricted the exercise of human rights such as the right to work, to transit, to reside and to leave the territory, and their limitation must always be assessed against the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, temporality, necessity, legality, and be based on reasons of public order, security, and public health, as it emerges from the international and inter-American corpus juris. That being the case, those measures should not be prolonged in time to avoid a violation of international human rights. Hence, with the passage of time, it became imperative to think how to return to various social, educational, sports and entertainment activities without endangering the life and physical integrity of people. How could the protection of public health be achieved without violating other fundamental human rights? Information and communication technologies (ICT) were key tools in the new socialization imposed by COVID-19, and this is how remote work modalities, holding meetings by electronic means, digital signature, digital procedures, no longer seemed so far away and exclusive of a futuristic universe. Alternative dispute resolution was no alien to this context, and ICT must be received to enable their development in times of COVID-19. Through the lens of the decisions adopted in the Province of Santa Fe, Argentina within the Compulsory Pre-Trial Mediation System, this article examines the current challenges and prospects of implementing ICT in such a procedure. II. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Alternative forms of conflict resolution are defined as a set of procedures that allow disputes to be resolved without resorting either to force or litigation process. It should be noted, however, that such methods are not merely an alternative to judicial review. On the contrary, ADR are of substantial importance as elements for the preservation of peace and social coexistence, being closely linked to representative democracy based on the rule of law. It should not be overlooked that disputes are the main factors in disrupting peaceful social coexistence, and the strengthening of ties of peace depends on their solution. In this sense, the choice of peaceful methods and self-composition of disputes is an aspect whose awareness must be deepened among citizens and stakeholders such as operators of the legal system, public institutions, and private corporations, to name a few. In the words of Hortensia D. T. Gutierrez Posse de Ariosa \”… States are realities with life, composed of men and women and it is in their hearts, in their convictions, that peace dies or that peace is born. What disturbs them endangers peace; what satisfies them, instead, builds it.\”[i] The non-adversarial and dejudicialized methods of conflict resolution collaborate in the practice of tolerance, in the learning of coexistence, generating good neighbors who, based on those values, can coexist peacefully, and build peace through their interaction, from the Human Rights paradigm, in which the dignity of the person prevails. III. Mandatory Pre-judicial Mediation System – Province of Santa Fe, Argentina a. Regulatory framework: key provisions In the Province of Santa Fe, Argentina, by Act Nº. 13.151, the mediation system was established as a non-adversarial method for the “non – judicialization” of dispute resolution throughout the province, as a prior and mandatory instance before accessing courts. This legislation has been regulated successively by provincial decrees Nº. 1747/11, 1612/14, 4688/14, 4036/18 and 184/19.[ii] The implementing authority of the “Mandatory Pre-Judicial Mediation System” is the “Mediation Management Agency”[iii], within the scope of the Undersecretariat for Access to Justice of the Ministry of the Interior, Justice, Human Rights and Diversity of the Government of the Province of Santa Fe.[iv] The Mediation procedure is mainly structured on the physical attendance of the parties and the registration on paper of the actions linked to its development. The parties must participate personally, and they may not do so by proxy, except only for those who hold public office or enjoy certain prerogatives, and those who are domiciled more than 150 km from the meeting’s venue. The procedure must take place in judicial days and working hours, unless otherwise agreed by the parties with the appointed mediator and formalized it in writing. The mediator is obliged to hold the meetings in its office, previously authorized for this purpose, and to notify the date and time of the mediation meeting in person or by any reliable means, meaning letters, letters with notice of return closed on themselves without envelope and those that may be made by notifiers of the Judiciary. For his part, the applicant must appear at the Mediator’s office and deliver 2 copies of the mediation request form so that the mediator signs one and returns the other, being notified of its designation from that moment. Finally, the records of the meetings are delivered in print and must be signed by hand by the mediator and parties involved. Nevertheless, during the process certain stages can be identified where ICT has been incorporated, citing for example the initial form that can be sent electronically, the draw of the mediator, the notification

¿Cuáles son los desafíos en la adopción de tecnología y el cambio de ADR a ODR? Mediación Prejudicial Obligatoria y “nueva normalidad” en el ámbito de la Provincia de Santa Fe, Argentina. –Liliana Amione* SUMARIO: I. Introducción – II. Los métodos alternativos de solución de controversias. – III. Mediación Prejudicial Obligatoria en la Provincia de Santa Fe, Argentina: a. Marco regulatorio; b. Mediación Prejudicial Obligatoria en tiempos de pandemia. – IV. Experiencia de la Mediación en la “nueva normalidad”. V. Reflexión final. Introducción En virtud de la pandemia declarada con fecha 11 de marzo de 2020 por la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS), en relación con el coronavirus COVID – 19, los Estados debieron adoptar medidas preventivas conducentes a contener y mitigar la propagación del virus y el impacto sanitario en resguardo del derecho colectivo a la salud pública. En tal sentido, las estrategias diseñadas por los países involucraron el aislamiento y distanciamiento social, la prohibición y/o menor circulación y concurrencia a lugares de acceso público, y restricciones fronterizas a la movilidad de personas y bienes, siendo necesario garantizar, al mismo tiempo, el normal desenvolvimiento de las actividades económicas y la provisión y prestación habitual de bienes y servicios. Tales medidas fueron previstas con carácter temporal dado que restringían el ejercicio de derechos humanos tales como el derecho de trabajar, de transitar, de residencia y de salir del territorio, debiendo su limitación ajustarse a los principios de razonabilidad, proporcionalidad, temporalidad, necesidad, previsión legal, y encontrarse fundadas en razones de orden público, seguridad y salud pública, conforme surge del corpus iuris internacional e interamericano. Por tal motivo, con el transcurso del tiempo, devino imperioso planificar el retorno a diversas actividades sociales, educativas, deportivas y de entretenimiento sin poner en peligro la vida y la integridad física de las personas. ¿De qué manera podía alcanzarse el objetivo de protección de la salud pública sin conculcar otros derechos esenciales para el ser humano? Las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación (TIC) resultaron herramientas clave en la nueva socialización que imponía el COVID – 19, y es así como modalidades de trabajo remoto, celebración de reuniones por medios electrónicos, firma digital, trámites digitales, ya no aparecían tan lejanas y privativas de un universo futurista. Los medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos no resultaron ajenos a este contexto, debiendo recepcionar las TIC para posibilitar su desarrollo en tiempos de COVID – 19. Efectuaré un breve análisis de las decisiones adoptadas en la Provincia de Santa Fe, Argentina, en materia de Mediación Prejudicial Obligatoria a fin de reflexionar acerca de las perspectivas de incorporación de las TIC en forma definitiva en tal procedimiento. Los métodos alternativos de solución de controversias. Los métodos alternativos de resolución de conflictos son definidos como un conjunto de procedimientos que permiten resolver controversias sin recurrir a la fuerza y sin que lo resuelva un juez. No obstante, cabe precisar que dichos métodos no constituyen únicamente una alternativa a la instancia judicial. Por el contrario, revisten importancia sustancial como elementos para la preservación de la paz y convivencia social, vinculándose estrechamente con la democracia representativa que se asienta en el Estado de Derecho. No debe soslayarse que los diferendos son los principales factores de alteración de una coexistencia social pacífica, de cuya solución dependerá el desarrollo de vínculos de paz. En tal sentido, la elección de métodos pacíficos y de autocomposición de controversias es un aspecto cuya concientización debe profundizarse tanto en los ciudadanos como en los operadores del sistema jurídico Al decir de Hortensia D. T. Gutierrez Posse de Ariosa “…los Estados son realidades con vida, compuestos de hombres y de mujeres y que es en sus corazones, en sus convicciones, que muere o que nace la paz. Lo que les perturba, pone en peligro la paz; lo que los satisface, en cambio, la construye.”[i] Los métodos no adversariales y desjudicializados de resolución de conflictos colaboran en la práctica de la tolerancia, en el aprendizaje de convivencia, generando buenos vecinos que coexisten pacíficamente, encuadrándose en el paradigma de los Derechos Humanos, en el cual prima la centralidad de la dignidad del ser humano. Mediación Prejudicial Obligatoria – Provincia de Santa Fe, Argentina Marco regulatorio En la Provincia de Santa Fe, Argentina, mediante Ley Nº 13.151[ii], se instituyó el sistema de Mediación como método no adversarial en orden a la desjudicialización de la resolución de conflictos en todo el ámbito de la citada provincia, con carácter de instancia previa y obligatoria a la iniciación del proceso judicial. Dicha legislación ha sido reglamentada sucesivamente por decretos provinciales Nº 1747/11, Nº 1612/14, Nº 4688/14, Nº 4036/18 y Nº 184/19. La autoridad de aplicación del Sistema de Mediación Prejudicial Obligatoria es la Agencia de Gestión de Mediación (AGEM)[iii], en el ámbito de la Subsecretaría de Acceso a la Justicia del Ministerio de Gobierno, Justicia, Derechos Humanos y Diversidad del Gobierno de la Provincia de Santa Fe. El procedimiento de Mediación se estructura principalmente sobre la base de la presencialidad y el registro en soporte papel de las actuaciones vinculados a su desarrollo. Es así que se establece la obligatoriedad de participación personal de las partes, no pudiendo hacerlo por apoderado, exceptuando únicamente a quienes se desempeñan en cargos públicos o gocen de determinadas prerrogativas, y a quienes se domicilien a más de 150 km de la sede de celebración de las audiencias. El trámite debe desarrollarse en días y horas hábiles judiciales, salvo acuerdo en contrario de las partes con el mediador/a interviniente, formalizado por escrito. El mediador está obligado a celebrar las reuniones en su oficina, habilitada al efecto y a diligenciar la notificación de la fecha de reunión de mediación en forma personal o por cualquier medio fehaciente, entendiendo por tal las cartas documentos, las cartas con aviso de retorno cerradas sobre sí mismas sin sobre y las que puedan realizarse por notificadores del Poder Judicial. Por su parte, el requirente debe apersonarse en la oficina del mediador y entregar 2 copias del formulario de mediación para que éste intervenga

-Ashmin Goel* I.     INTRODUCTION In 2020, the onset of covid-19 created a severe disruption in almost all the countries of the world at an unprecedented level. The countries had to respond to this pandemic by taking stringent safety measures that included imposing overall lockdowns and curfews, leading to deleterious effects on the economies and a plummet in the GDP growth of the countries in the year 2020. As of now, we still do not know when the pandemic will be over; it has posed enormous health and socio-economic challenges for the world. The precarity posed by the threat of the rise of the coronavirus has stymied the growth of both private and public institutions for quite a long time. A need has arisen where the whole world will have to accustom themselves to the new digital life of social distancing as the virus has curbed the possibility to hold physical meetings and gatherings to run the economy.  Accordingly, judicial, and arbitral institutions have been under tremendous pressure to keep functioning during the pandemic, notwithstanding the delay in delivering judgements due to lockdown restrictions and following social distancing and other measures to suppress the pandemic. The courts are frequently questioned about how they will continue providing justice, and thus there arises a need to assess their priorities while adapting to the pandemic. In such an aberrant situation where most of the workplaces and institutions have shut down, and arbitration hearings have been delayed or cancelled, it becomes pertinent to analyse the impact of the pandemic on dispute resolution. The corollary of the current crisis is the disruptions in the Alternative dispute resolution system, the ineffectiveness of which at a larger scale has led to seeking of solutions by a plethora of institutions and individuals which have hastily veered their minds and attention to the efficacy of the ODR mechanisms. The covid-19 outbreak has led to a rapid reshaping of how pending proceedings and future disputes will go forward. ODR is not an old phenomenon and has been in use since the 1990s and therefore, it will be easier to adapt to the online mode of solving disputes and given the flexibility and efficacy that ODR provides, we can expect a step forward towards the delivery of justice in this exigent situation with the support of technology. II.    WHAT IS ODR MECHANISM? Before we delve into the impact of the covid-19 outbreak on ODR, it is apposite to get an understanding of what is ODR. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ODR Working Group defines ODR as “a mechanism for resolving disputes facilitated through the use of electronic communications and other information and communication technology”.[i] In other words, Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) refers to the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms over the internet. ODR encompasses a series of online means of communication, including “e-mail, Internet Relay Chat (IRC), instant messaging, Web forum discussions, and similar text-based electronic communications”. [ii] ODR is aimed at resolving a claim or dispute arising out of issues ranging from an online e-commerce transaction to disputes arising from an issue not involving internet, called as an “offline” dispute. ODR being a modification cum addition to the traditional legal process of resolving claims and disputes, it has become one of the most widely used methods of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Online Dispute Resolution can be seen as an online equivalent of ADR as it primarily involves the use of negotiation, mediation or arbitration for dispute resolution.[iii] Dispute resolution techniques range from methods where parties have complete control of the procedure, to methods where a third party is in control of both the process and the outcome.[iv]But with the introduction of the ODR mechanism, an additional two parties are found, which play a significant role in resolving disputes like the other three parties that are ubiquitous. The added parties are ‘technology’ being the fourth party and ‘the provider of the technology’ being the fifth party. The fourth party embodies a variety of capabilities in the same manner that the third party does, thus making an increase in technology advances, reducing the role of the third party. While the fourth party sometimes takes the place of the third party in the process of dealing with automated negotiations, it will frequently be used by the third-party as a tool for assisting the process. As a result of this, ODR processes offers faster, transparent, low-cost, and accessible options for resolving disputes online. The attempt made by the judiciary and the legislature to achieve the goal of providing access to justice for all has been made attainable and smooth by the processes of ODR. III.  CHANGES BROUGHT BY COVID-19 The virus has made the future uncertain, it has already affected the way business is done; most of the organisations are working on sub-optimal capacities, which had exacerbated the problems. Given the situation, the judiciary has readily incorporated technology as a means to deliver inclusive justice. Even during the nation-wide lockdown, the courts made an attempt to provide justice through the system of e-filings and virtual hearings. Still, given the excess delay in resolving disputes, arbitration through the way of technology came as the answer to increase the efficacy of resolving disputes, thereby becoming a turning point in finally bringing online dispute resolution (ODR) in the world of arbitration. The relevance of ODR in the covid era can be attributed to its cost-effective, flexibility and expedient nature. Even before the pandemic, ODR has been of much use in resolving e-commerce dispute at a significant level, but in the present time, it has been adopted to determine a wider variety of conflicts across the globe. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, even the current Chief Justice, Justice Bobde, has noted the need for steps to be taken to make courts virtual in order to prevent the shutdown of the top courts.[v]He has also emphasised the need to have international arbitration and artificial intelligence (“AI”) as a leading alternative to the current

-Shivani Verma* “There was a time when people felt the internet was another world, but now people realise it’s a tool that we use in this world.”           Tim Berners- Lee These are the wise words of the man who is credited with inventing the world wide web, and a rather telling observation by him. We can hardly imagine a world now, where technology is viewed as a separate discipline, and not part of our daily lives. It is safe to say that there has been a pre- internet world and a post-internet world, and using technology, post internet world has seen innumerable and unimaginable breakthroughs, Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)being one of them. ODR has the power to change the landscape of the dispute resolution mechanisms, across territories. It has the power to change how humans view resolving disputes altogether. It already has, and it further will. I.   WHAT IS ODR & HISTORY OF ODR Online Dispute Resolution is different from the traditional court systems, and is in fact a parallel justice system, which successfully blends information technology and dispute resolution mechanisms together in order to resolve disputes efficiently. ODR is not just dispute resolution, but dispute prevention process as well.  ODR began its existence as ‘Online ADR’ and was meant to be an online equivalent process of offline face to face dispute resolution mechanisms such as negotiation, mediation, and arbitration.[i] Therefore, it is very important to understand the origin of both technology and the dispute resolution mechanisms, the two pillars on which ODR has developed. In this context, ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions become relevant. How has ODR come into picture? Why is it needed at all? For understanding ‘How ODR came into being’, it is relevant to also understand how the world we are living in has changed since the arrival of technology called Internet and How the concept of Alternate Dispute Resolution came into picture, making Online ADR a reality. As far as development of Internet goes, early on in 1468 the Department of Defence, United Nations had established a Federal Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA)which was mainly responsible for developing technologies for military use. The military network was called the ARPANET, and was restricted to use only by military.[ii] On October 29, 1969, ARPANET delivered its first message: a “node-to-node” communication from one computer to another, thus getting October 29, 1969 widely known as the “Internet Day.” In the year 1980, access to ARPANET was expanded to several universities by National Science Foundation which funded the establishment of supercomputing centres in these universities. Thus, ARPANET was now in use not just by military, but also by academia. Given the restricted use of ARPANET by military and academia, Internet for the first 20-25 years of its existence saw very few disputes. And for the few disputes there were no online formal institutions for resolving them. After the exclusive use by military and academia, ARPANET, was later formally decommissioned in 1990, having partnered with the telecommunication and computer industry for commercialization and an expanded worldwide network, known from then on as INTERNET came into being. However, after the decommissioning in 1990, the world saw the evolution of Internet and its unimaginable increased use, which meant the world of Internet would not be dispute free. And that is what exactly happened. From there to now, we have witnessed how Internet has changed the landscape for communications, associations, and interactions. It has connected people disregarding all kinds of boundaries, culture, territories, so much so that the online world did not just begin to connect using internet, but it began disputing on internet too, just like in offline world.   1990s was the time when online environment for commerce, education, employment, entertainment was on a boom. Suddenly the commercialization of Internet was a ready tool in everyone’s hand to start interacting for anything big and small. This gave them power; this gave their businesses the power too. However, similar to the offline world, where increased interaction often results in increase of disputes, the online world saw increased disputes ranging from spamming, phishing, illegal downloading, piracy, to normal commerce of buying and selling online. Cyberspace was no longer a harmonious place. Internet as a 21st century medium has revolutionised almost all areas of life. From serving as a common source of information, communications tool, global platform for trade and commerce, it has become the engine for introducing modern technological solutions for almost every activity. Needless to say, that Internet has made an impact on many areas of private and public life, one such area being law. Parallelly, when the world was getting introduced to Internet in the 1960’s and 1970s, the world was also witnessing dissatisfaction with the Court systems all over the world. The caseloads were increasing manifolds with each passing day and much more was expected from the Institution responsible for delivering justice. This discontent with the formal Court systems led to the Convening of Pound Conference 1976 where several of the legal stalwarts discussed the current state and the drudgery of the judicial system, not just in terms of efficiency but relating to cost, time, quality of outcome reached, party satisfaction, impact of resolution, interest-based needs, creative solutions etc. Pound Conference has given huge impetus to the growth in popularity to the process of Mediation, which is one of the mechanisms under Alternate Dispute Resolution. Pound Conference pressed for having the mechanisms of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR). ADR though seen as a recently developed mechanism, is an old trick/way of resolving disputes between parties. While Courts are the adversarial form of justice system, ADR aims at resolving the dispute in an amicable manner. Amongst the processes of ADR i.e. negotiation, mediation and arbitration, negotiation and mediation are the informal processes which aims to settle the matter between two or more disputing parties, and are more driven by needs and satisfaction of parties than their rights and obligation. In negotiation, parties try to discuss their problems and resolve it amongst each other.