INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue IV, April 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 670

The Effectiveness of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in

Electronic Commerce Disputes.

Anoumbuandem Benvolio Lekunze (PhD.)

Faculty of Laws and Political Science. University of Buea.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2025.140400076

Received: 30 April 2025; Accepted: 03 May 2025; Published: 15 May 2025

Abstract: The heavy reliance of electronic communication tools to conduct businesses across the world has facilitated business

transactions and other related aspects of business. An evaluation on the effectiveness of resolving e-commerce disputes by

alternative dispute resolution methods (ADR) is dwelled upon in this article. There are many problems associated by relying on

the traditional adjudication processes in courts to resolve e-commerce transaction disputes amongst which are; high cost, waste of

time, corruption and jurisdictional problems. Disputes arising from e-commerce transaction are most often complicated to be

resolved by courts based on this. This article raises questions on the effectiveness of using ADR mechanisms to resolve such

disputes and shows its advantages. It also raises questions on the effectiveness of using the normal courts processes. The article is

timely because of the heavy reliance nowadays on e-commerce and the frequency of disputes arising from such. The methodology

used is qualitative with the use of the doctrinal research methods. The findings of this research is beneficial to the business world,

business persons, those charged with conducting ADR and students of business and commercial law. Its findings reveal that

processes like arbitration, mediation and online dispute resolution are more effective and accepted by contending parties in

resolving their disputes as opposed to litigation. It is therefore recommended that e-disputants should use the opportunities and

tools provided under ADR and Online dispute resolution (ODR) to resolve their disputes. That the ODR framework and

guidelines should be properly established as a dispute resolution mechanism with worldwide recognition. It is also recommended

that reciprocity amongst states should be encouraged in solving e-commerce transactions disputes. ADR methods being more

effective in resolving e-commerce disputes, the education community is encouraged to incorporate e-commerce dispute

settlement courses in their syllabuses with continuous training on the topic. That countries should encourage reciprocity to easily

recognize and enforce ADR and ODR decisions.

Keywords: Effectiveness, Dispute Resolution, e- commerce, Transactions

I. Introduction

Electronic commerce (e-commerce) consists of buying and selling goods and services through electronic systems such as the

internet and other computer networks.

The magnitude of trade conducted electronically nowadays has exponentially grown due

to widespread internet usage in the domains of electronic funds transfer, supply chain management, internet marketing and online

shopping. Companies like Amazon, eBay, Alibaba and Temu are the world’s leading companies on e-commerce transactions.

E-

commerce transactions have dominated sales and purchases since 1990 after Tim Berners-Lee invented the world wide web

(www) browser. He transformed an academic telecommunication network into a worldwide communication system that is today

called the internet. But immediately after his invention, commercial transactions on the internet were strictly prohibited until

1991.

By the end of 2000, many European and American business companies started offering their services through the world

wide web and people began to associate the word “e-commerce” with the ability to purchase various goods through the Internet

using secured protocols and electronic payment services.

E-commerce transactions like other conventional commercial

transactions also suffer from unforeseen circumstances that may lead to disagreements and conflicts. Most of these conflicts

arise between parties who reside in different areas of the world and may be governed by different types of laws.

It is for this

reason that the world is moving towards international co-operation to resolve international commercial disputes. This has been

achieved by enacting legislation that can be useful in resolving potential disputes that may arise under e-commerce transactions.

Early examples of legislation in this field are; the Bern convention,

the Paris Convention that led to national statutes for most

industrial property rights by trying to create a basic level of uniformity, the Organization for the Harmonization of Business law

in Africa (OHADA) established in 1993 at Port Louis in Mauritius.

Under the Berne Convention for instance, nation states enact

See The European Union Electronic Commerce Directives of 2000/2001.

Originally, electronic commerce was identified as the facilitation of commercial transactions electronically, using technology such as Electronic Data

Interchange (EDI) and Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT). These were both introduced in the late 1970s, allowing businesses to send commercial documents like

purchase orders or invoices electronically. The growth and acceptance of credit cards, automated teller machines (ATM) and telephone banking in the 1980s

were also forms of electronic commerce.

Kelly K., ‘‘We Are the Web Wired magazine’’ Number 13 (2005).

Although the Internet became popular worldwide around 1994 when the first internet online shopping started, it took about five years to introduce

The main purpose of e-commerce is to connect people and businesses across the world to reduce cost and for people to carryout their businesses within a short

time frame irrespective of the distances.

E- commerce transactions are unique and most of the litigation procedures sort to be used by these conventions may not work considering the swift nature of e-

commerce transactions.

The Bern convention of 1886 for copy right was formalised in the Paris Convention of 1983 (for industrial property rights)

The OHADA treaty provides ways to resolve commercial disputes though litigation and ADRs but is generally silent on e-commerce transactions.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 671

copyright statutes and courts enforce legal rights of authors and publishers who are nationals of signatory countries. Also, the

World Intellectual Property Organization treaty (WIPO)

works to promote and harmonize intellectual property (IP) law. The

European Union and North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) aided the harmonization of inter-country laws to promote

effective competition.

These trade areas can ultimately apply trade sanctions and fines on offending national governments when they do not observe the

law. Other examples are the Trade-related Intellectual Properties (TRIPS), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)

which started in 1986 and qualified electronic data as intangible goods

and services alongside primary and manufactured goods.

It can be observed that most of these agreements especially those dwelling on copyrights and other IP laws have become part of

international trade and are regulated by the World Trade Organization (WTO) that has considerable world-wide trade sanctions.

The legal frameworks as seen above suggests that they came into existence because of the plurality of national legal systems with

different laws that may be applied to citizens of different countries within the framework of similar transactions. The trans-border

nature of data distribution over the internet and the huge content of telematics that go across international boundaries with

different legal systems makes it difficult to rely only on adjudication to resolve e-commerce transaction disputes. This is because

countries prefer to secure and protect the interest of their citizens in international commercial transactions.

This is further

exacerbated by different levels of development. The Legislatures of different countries may also fail to reciprocate their laws in

order to effectively resolve e-commerce related disputes on the basis of equality.

As such, Lawrence Lessig clearly puts it that,

‘‘…the invisible hand of cyberspace is building an architecture that is quite the opposite of what was at cyberspace’s birth. The

invisible hand, through commerce is constructing an architecture that perfects control, an architecture that makes possible highly

efficient regulation. In real space we recognize how laws regulate through constitution, statutes and other legal codes. In

cyberspace we must understand how codes regulate, how the software and hardware that make cyberspace regulate cyberspace as

it is.

He further emphasized that code is law. This code presents the greatest threat to liberal ideals as well as its greatest

promise. We can build, or architect, or code cyberspace to protect values that we believe are fundamental, or we can build, or

architect, or code cyberspace to allow those values to disappear.’’

This implies that the dynamism of information technology

makes it difficult to rely on the code i.e., statutes to resolve conflicts in cyberspace that mostly involves e-commerce. This is

arguably so too because such will only lead to a conflict of the choice of law due to the plurality of legal regimes and vast

territorial geographical distances that e-commerce transactions cover. This invariably means that, remedies may be easily

available under extraterritorial forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods.

Statement of the problem.

Assuming that the main reason why many people opt for e-commerce in conducting business is because of the speed in

communication and rapid turnover, so too, the risk of encountering legal problems may occur. Resolving ensuing disputes by

going through the normal lengthy court processes will overwhelm this assumption and will not be profitable to business

counterparts, entities and customers. A problem that may arise is for instance the situation where a dispute may contain foreign

elements. The procedure is to first go through the normal court procedures to determine the competent jurisdiction under the rules

of private international law. Also, the recognition and enforcement of court decisions may have their limitations in their

applicability in different parts of the world. Another setback in using the normal courts will be different conducts of proceedings

around the world that may not be welcomed by all.

Litigation can further lead to some major problems which include the

inadequacy of current private international law when applied to a non-territorial internet, courts may have a problem to reconcile

cyberspace’s nature with the traditional competent jurisdiction and choice of law concept of territoriality. The second problem is

the incapability and unwillingness of courts to spend time to keep updates on the changes in different technologies and

processes.

The third and fourth problems relate to cost and time. E-commerce disputants experiences are that court litigation

costs are very high with unreasonable delays. In other words, the way national courts work sometimes lack the flexibility, rapidity

and the specialization demanded in dealing with cyberspace related cases.

But although alternative dispute resolution methods

may be good in resolving e-commerce transaction disputes, it may also be problematic to recognize and enforce decisions taken

under the different alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms.

Research Questions:

Based on the above problems identified, the following questions are raised;

The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) was created as a UN world-wide policy forum works to promote harmonization of all IP law

Electronic data is now considered tangible

This leads to a dichotomy in the application of legal rules in cyberspace.

There is also a constrain as regards the trans-border nature of data circulation and the main problem here is that criminal law provision on computer crime is not

sufficient. The content of telematics is so large to an extent that it cannot be monitored by governments and hence will lead to piracy crimes. The Computer

Crime Act has come in place to offer solutions but still yet it still has its shortcomings. The OECD treaty too is worth mentioning here. Decisions made in this

regard are not binding on the judiciary hence making the judicial systems to reach differentiated decisions on cases that might have similar facts.

This aspect aligns with the positivist school of thought.

Lawrence Lessig, Code and other laws in Cyberspace, Basic Books, 1999 p.6.

Justice may not be done at all instances. Not all the parties may be satisfied with the applicable laws of that jurisdiction but at the same time expected to abide

by the decision of such courts. This may further lead to lengthy appeal procedures.

This represents the biggest obstacle to the development appropriate (specialized) skills for the settlement of e-commerce disputes

This provokes resistance and the risk of court litigation.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 672

Can disputes arising from e-commerce transactions be effectively resolved by using the normal court processes?

To what extent are alternative dispute resolution methods effective in resolving e-commerce transaction disputes?

Does using alternative dispute resolution methods lead to a reduction of cost in resolving e-commerce disputes?

Can decisions taken under alternative dispute resolution methods be effectively enforced?

What are the recommendations that can be made to effectively resolve e-commerce disputes?

Objectives

The objectives of this article are;

To investigate the effectiveness of ARDs in resolving e-commerce transaction disputes as opposed to the traditional adjudication

court processes.

To evaluate the cost and benefits of using alternative dispute resolution methods in resolving e-commerce disputes.

To examine whether decisions taken under alternative dispute resolution methods can be effectively enforced.

To make recommendations that can be used to effectively resolve e-commerce disputes.

II. Methodology

The research methodology adopted is qualitative. In this light, it involves analysing related content and using same to evaluate the

resolution of e-commerce transaction disputes. It uses primary and secondary data in the relevant domain and adopts the doctrinal

method. Primary sources include textbooks while secondary sources are journal articles, legislation and reports.

Justification

An article on resolving disputes in e-commerce transactions by using alternative dispute resolution (ADRs) methods is timely

because of the rate at which businesses nowadays tend to rely on information communication technologies (ICTs) to carry out

their business. There is no gainsaying that the complex nature of these businesses concluded online, may lead to a lot of

frustration when disputes arise. There are numerous cases nowadays concerning e-commerce. Therefore, it is imperative to

embark on the best ways to resolve ensuing disputes in the subject matter. This research is carried out at a time when there is a

high level of internet proliferation with a large portion of commercial transactions relied upon and carried out via the internet

under e-commerce. The differences and plurality of legislations in different countries may under e-commerce transactions lead to

discrepancies and delays in resolving e-commerce disputes thereby challenging the intentions of parties to opt for e-commerce

transactions. The findings of this research is needed at this time because of the current trends in globalizations and e-commerce

disputants may not rely only on the traditional court litigation processes to resolve ensuing disputes since such disputes may have

foreign elements that raise issues of jurisdiction.

Significance

This article draws attention to the importance of using ADRs to resolve e-commerce transaction disputes which may be otherwise

difficult to resolve through litigation in normal court processes. Its significance also lies in the fact that it highlights the

weaknesses of going through the normal courts and the advantages of using ADRs. Its findings benefits the global business

community by showing the extent that e-commerce transaction disputes can be resolved with the use of Alternative dispute

resolution methods. It adds to literature in the relevant domain and makes recommendations that can lead to further research in

the area. Scholars, commercial law students, business institutions, lawyers and the judiciary will have a better understanding on

how to resolve e-commerce disputes through ADR methods as opposed to court litigation.

Theoretical and conceptual framework

This article is underpinned by some theories.

The Theory of Justice as Fairness

Some contemporary philosophers under this theory contributed in the elaboration of ways to do justice when conflicts arise. John

Rawls

from an egalitarian point of view expounded on this perspective and captioned it as a theory of justice as fairness. He

considered justice as requiring fairness in determining the results of a case after hearing, while noting that an equitable result can

only be achieved if everyone is heard under a due process. Rawls believed in making the society fair for everyone and insisted

that this can only be accomplished if every party has a fair and equal opportunity to be heard in any cause.

He argued that the

term “justice as fairness” does not imply that justice and fairness are identical, but that the principles of justice are agreed under

fair conditions by individuals who are in a situation of equality. According to Rawls, justice as fairness also implied that the

In 1958.

Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Belknap, Harvard University Press 1971 at p.9.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 673

principles of justice should be applied equally to all individuals. This relates to this article because e-commerce brings together

people of different backgrounds from different places in business transactions.

The Natural Law Theory

Natural law can be defined as the inherent right of a person to a fair and just treatment. One of the oldest recorded definitions of

natural law comes from the Roman orator, Cicero. As early as the 7

century, The Roman orator and statesman Marcus Tullius

Cicero laid the foundation to the concept of natural law. Cicero described it as the highest reason implanted in nature which

commands what ought to be done and forbids the opposite.

He noted that rights are not based upon men’s opinions, but upon

nature and that natural law is the right reason to agree with nature, with universal application that is unchanging and everlasting.

Most of what is known today about natural law was codified in the 13

century by St. Thomas Aquinas. He reasoned out that

there is an eternal law which is God’s device to fairly govern the entire community of the universe towards a common good. He

further articulated the fact that divine law has been represented for example in the Ten Commandments. This implies that the

principles of natural law has to be highly considered in resolving e- commerce transactions. Justice therefore needs to be done at

all places irrespective of the cause of action and the nationality of the parties involved.

Transaction Cost theory

The transaction cost theory was propounded by John R. Commons in 1931.

Williamson defines transaction costs as a cost innate

in running an economic system or companies, comprising the total costs of making a transaction, including the cost of planning,

deciding, changing plans, resolving disputes, and after-sales. According to Williamson, the determinants of transaction costs are

frequency, specificity, uncertainty, limited rationality, and opportunistic behaviour.

Transaction cost theory (TCT) considers a

transaction as the most basic unit of measure and focuses on how much effort, resources, or cost is necessary for two parties to

complete a transaction. Transaction costs are is also defined as the costs beyond the cost of the product or service that are required

to exchange a product or service between two entities. By determining that the purpose of e-commerce is to significantly reduce

cost, the same applies to resolving e-commerce disputes with the use of ADRs as opposed to costly litigation processes. This

theory has a bearing in this article in this perspective.

The contract theory

The contract theory explores the way that parties create legally binding agreements for the exchange of goods and services. It

incorporates elements of law and economics. Ronald H.

propounded the contract theory in 1937 where he noted that the longer

the duration of a contract regarding the supply of goods or services due to the difficulty of forecasting, then the less likely and

less appropriate it is for the buyer to specify what the other party should do. A contract in a legally binding agreement between

two or more parties. In relation to using ADR to resolve e-commerce disputes, arbitration may be agreed upon by parties to a

contract where they can use the arbitral clauses to resolve their dispute. Arbitral clauses are contractual in nature. So too, parties

may agree to submit their dispute to a mediator out of their free will. The contract theory represents the behaviour of a decision

maker under certaincircumstances. The choice to use ADR in resolving e-commerce disputes is based on a separate contract or

agreements incorporated in the original contract. Therefore based on this theory parties are bound to follow the terms of their

agreements in case disputes arise. Failure to do so will lead to a breach of contract with its attendant consequences.

The Concept of Realistic Legitimate Expectation

This is a basic conceptual parameter that encapsulates this research. The concept is used particularly to mean to act fairly upon a

promise. It applies to contractual agreements and in e-commerce because business transactions are contractual in nature. A person

under this concept has an expectation under a promise to be treated in a fair manner. This article is also underpinned by this

concept because people expect that every legal proceeding has to be fair. In ADRs parties agree to submit their dispute to a third

party or body while expecting a fair outcome. The agreement itself to submit their dispute to a third party is usually part of the

business agreement and reflected especially in arbitration clauses or under mediation clause. An e-commerce disputant ought to

under this theory expect a fair decision due to his legitimate expectation of being heard. One of the clearest mention of this

concept comes from the dicta of Laws LJ in the case of R (Nadarajah) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

in which

he stated that; “the principle of good administration requires that public authorities should be held to their promises. This can be

undermined if the law does not insist that any failure or refusal to comply is effectively justified as a proportionate measure in the

circumstances with proportionality depending on the interests being balanced in each case.” In O'Reilly v. Mackma,

reference to

legitimate expectation was made by Lord Frasier who briefly summed up the court’s decision in regards to legitimate expectation

as involving legitimate or reasonable expectation from an express promise given on behalf of a public authority or the existence

of a regular practice which the claimant can reasonably expect to continue hence leading to procedural certainty in the

Cited in Morris v. United States, 12 F.2d 727 (9

Cir. 1926) by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in May 8, 1959.

Cicero said; There will not be a different law at Rome and at Athens, and different law now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law for all

nations and for all times. (1928, 3.33)

John R. Commons, ‘‘Institutional Economics,’’ American Economic Review, Vol.21, pp.648-657, 1931

www.investopedia.com.(accessed on the 05/05/2025).

Coase, R. H., "The Nature of the Firm". Economica. (1938) 386–405.

EWCA Civ 1363 Case No: C4/2002/2697 & C4/2003/2729 (2005).

[1983]2 AC 237.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 674

determination of cases. Therefore if e-commerce disputants agree to submit their dispute to a public authority who may be and

arbitrator then the arbitrator is bound by this concept to resolve the dispute fairly.

The disadvantages of court adjudication processes in resolving e-commerce disputes.

Court processes through litigation is the most popular way to resolve conflicts and has been used for many centuries to settle

disputes. A court gains its authority from a state as one of the arms of government while carrying with it the authority to take

decisions backed by law.

One of the major setbacks of litigation which does not make it suitable for e-commerce disputes is the

unnecessary delays involved in court processes. Most e-commerce cases may not be determined within a reasonable time frame in

the context of opting for e-commerce transaction disputes. Reasonable time is the time frame during which a trial ought to be

carried out and the case determined. Reasonable time may vary from case to case depending on the peculiar nature and facts of

every case and the organisation of courts in different legal systems. One of the main purposes of e-commerce is to carry out

transactions within a short period of time and delays in its dispute resolution mechanisms can challenge this purpose. Elements to

be considered as to what amounts to reasonable time are; the national legislation, the cause of action, the nature of the cause of

action, the complexity of the case, the conduct of the accused or the parties to the dispute and the conduct of the judicial

authorities.

Paradoxically, reasonable time does not mean that hearing should be rushed even in electronic commercial cases.

Due to the cross-border nature of e-commerce transactions, the likelihood that language may be a hindrance during litigation that

will require the services of an interpreter which may further lead to delays. This delay may be further exacerbated because the

right to interpretation is not limited to oral interpretation but is also extend to the interpretation of documents.

In the

Cameroonian case of The People and Another v. Tita Njina Kevin Ndango,

a document written in German which was used as

exhibit in the case had to be translated in order to conform to the language requirement of the court which led to a further delay.

Many procedural issues handled before litigation can be resolved through ADR where the whole process is summarized. This is

the reason why it is preferable to resolve e-commerce disputes through ADR processes.

Delays may also occur in litigations processes because some pre-litigation formalities like summonses must be issued. This leads

to loss of precious time that is not favorable for those who have opted to carry out their transaction by an electronic means. This is

why it is believed that the conduct of civil litigation in England has become more abrasive and aggressive.

The conduct of

proceedings in litigation may also be tainted with undue influence like partiality and lack of judicial independence.

E-commerce transaction disputes may not require the same traditional and general litigation rules that characterize conventional

commercial transactions. This is because of the co-existence of plurality of legal norms across different countries. This

coexistence of many laws in e-commerce transactions creates difficulties on the laws to apply between parties from different

countries. Chaos can exist due to the fact that e-commerce disputes can take place within different regimes of law. Different

territorial legal systems have different laws and considering the trans-boarder nature of e-commerce in cyberspace, it is becoming

complicated to handle such disputes through the courts.

There are also difficulties by governments to monitor data shared through telematics due to their very large nature and their

ability to cross national boarders. If such monitoring is done under all e-commerce transactions, it may lead to the violation of

privacy rights. The issue of bribery and corrupt practices by some courts also go a long way to discourage e-disputants to rely on

courts to resolve differences.

The Suitability of resolving e-commerce disputes under different types of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

ADR is successful in reducing legal costs and time consumption for business disputants. Computer technology spreads massive

free information and further lowers barriers to manage cases of foreign nature. ADR is more flexible, specialized, and

expeditious. ADR processes allow parties to adopt positional bargaining and problem-solving modes to solve e-commerce

disputes. ADR offers more appropriate procedures for e-commerce because different circumstances and interests require different

procedures. ADR can be successfully used to evade conflict of laws and solves problems of jurisdiction. Certainty and

predictability is achieved as parties know where, who and how their dispute will be settled. It is for this reason that settling

disputes through ADR mechanisms is advantageous in achieving speed, less cost and fairness.

This is also why most labour

matters which are commercial in nature, begins with conciliation in many countries. This is known as pre-litigation dispute

methods that may resolve a m case in an expedited manner.

Arbitration

Arbitration may be used as one of the ADR methods to resolve ensuing e-commerce disputes especially considering the binding

nature of arbitral awards. It has a long history and has been widely used after the second world war to resolve disputes between

These decisions must be abide to even if the parties feel unsatisfied.

Some trials lasting as long as 10 years have been deemed reasonable, while others lasting less than one year have been found to be unreasonably delayed.

For example, the Inter-American Commission considers the right to translation of documents as fundamental to due process (Report on the Situation of Human

Rights of a Segment of the Nicaraguan Population of Miskito Origin, OEA Ser.L/V/11.62, doc.10, rev. 3, 1983.

(2010) 1 CCLR 1-126.

Brown Henry J., & Arthur L. Marriott Qc., ADR principles and Practice, London: Sweet & Maxwell 2002, P25.

Ibid p27.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 675

states and private individuals.

Arbitration is a private mechanism for the resolution of disputes which takes place in private

pursuant to an agreement between two or more parties, under which the parties agree to be bound by the decision of the arbitrator.

In relation to e- commerce, arbitration provides businesses with a method or mechanism for the resolution of business disputes

on the basis of the ideas of justice, and not necessarily compromise the settlement process. This is because of the binding nature

of its decisions that assigning rights and duties and distributes the benefits and burdens. Once rendered, such decisions or

determinations must be respected. A problem that may arise in arbitral awards is in the recognition and enforcement of its

decisions by national courts. A distinctive trait of arbitral justice, when compared with state justice, is that the parties in the latter

give their concern to abide to whatever decision is arrived. The decision of an arbitrator thus is binding on the parties.

Mediation

This is a facilitative process in which disputing parties engage the assistance of an impartial third party known as a mediator who

helps them to arrive at an agreed resolution of their dispute.

The main difference between Mediation and arbitration is that,

unlike in mediation, the decision of an arbitrator is binding on both parties but in mediation, the mediator has no authority to

make decisions that are binding on the parties. As regards electronic commerce disputes, mediation could be a better option,

considering the problems of jurisdiction and the interaction of different laws in cyberspace. This is so because of the nature of

electronic data that could be disseminated without any encumbrances across territorial boundaries.

The Advantages of using ADR methods to resolve e -commerce transaction disputes.

Many conflicts that arise under e-commerce create difficulties to get satisfactory results from the normal courts. This suggests

that different methods of dispute resolution may be considered. The benefits of using ADR methods in comparison to the normal

courts and their procedures to resolve e-commerce related disputes have enormous advantages. This is because of the frequency

and satisfaction derived in e-commerce transactions. The probability of encountering problems in e-commerce transactions is

high. For example, a British on-line retailer may electronically enter into a contract with a Chinese person to market his

products. If any party breaches his contractual obligations, it will be cumbersome and time consuming to determine the applicable

law to settle the dispute. That is why although most disputes in e-commerce transactions may not be difficult to resolve, but

rather, a difficulty may arise due to disagreements on the choice of law to apply.

The management of conflicts and their resolution methods differ significantly in different countries because of different legal

frameworks. Therefore the resolution of e-commerce disputes need the participation of specialized and extra judicial settlement

bodies to conciliate the traditional rules within the intrinsic nature of the internet. The main reason for this is because e-

commerce disputes have particular characteristics since the parties involved hardly meet in person to conclude their deal.

Meanwhile in real space, parties are able to personally negotiate contracts face to face.

ADR has become increasingly popular as an alternative to the traditional court proceedings which are perceived to be slow and

expensive. ADR overcomes the geographical issues that can make court proceedings unsuitable for certain cross-border disputes.

It can be observed that consumers and businesses are increasingly reluctant to engage in business transactions online because of

the difficulties involved in legally resolving problems that may arise. Because of this, the Colin Rule emphasizes that any party to

a dispute can contact an online expert to explain his position in confidence and state its preference among the choices of

mediation, arbitration, evaluation or negotiation. Online disputes resolution (ODR) method is becoming popular because of its

speed and other advantages.

ODR is an online service that works by receiving demands from a petitioner. It then contacts the adverse party to see if he is

willing to use the site’s services and if he shares the first party’s preferred means of resolution. Upon the payment of a fee, the

online resolution mechanism will then work with both parties with the aim of resolving the dispute. If an agreement is reached,

the details are set out in a document which the parties can then choose to make it legally binding. The principal aim of solving

commercial conflicts is justice. The intention to do justice and the satisfaction of the parties involved in a dispute is the prime

objective in both real world and cyberspace. Colin contends that the traditional state system based in public courts is not always

suitable to manage disputes which originate in cyberspace. ADR and ODR are better ways for the resolution of e-commerce

disputes. These mechanisms can be effectively utilized to deal with the problems that emerge from relying on the judicial

processes in courts to resolve e-commerce disputes. It may be observed that ODR employs ADR procedures conducted with the

assistance of computer technology. For instance, ODR has adapted a range of ADR processes for online use which include

arbitration and mediation which can be via e-mail or through a secure website.

It is reasonable to assumed that disputes arising between small, medium and large size companies can be resolved through one of

the ODR modalities. This is because the characteristics that have encouraged increased computer use among contracting parties

are the same justifying the adoption of ODR systems. Internet is a resource that extends what we can do, and where and when we

can do it. ODR uses computer technology to support the storage and dissemination of information. Simultaneous translation

software can facilitate participation of multicultural companies in a real-time videoconference process. While language barriers

See the New York Convention of 1958.

Brown Henry J., & Arthur L. Marriott Qc., ADR principles and Practice, London: Sweet & Maxwell 2002, P49.

Ibid p.127.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 676

have often blocked the engagement on both ADR and traditional adjudication procedures, ODR has the potential to ensure

efficient procedures for the parties in dispute. In this context, ODR is meant to have an immense impact on the facilitation and

organization of dispute resolution in e-commerce. Therefore, it is possible in ODR to employ videoconferencing so that the

mediator and the parties can see each other. A setback in the ODR procedure unlike offline ADR procedures is that

confidentiality cannot be guaranteed at all times. In offline ADR procedures confidentiality is not really a problem, but in ODR

communications take place through cyberspace by constant copying both intentionally and unintentionally. This constant copying

may lead to leaks that may affect the impartiality of the process.

III. Conclusion.

E- commerce disputes have their origins in e-commerce transactions and should follow due process. A due process is hearing

which is efficiently and effectively administered in determining cases according to the principles of justice which guarantee

fundamental rights and fairness. This article has attempted to examine the nature of e-commerce transaction disputes in relation to

its nature and the options on how to resolve such disputes whenever they arise. The state may intervene in resolving disputes of

such nature by using coercion. This coercion does not work properly in e-commerce disputes. The problem of jurisdiction and

the distances capable of being covered by electronic data interchange are some of the factors that have contributed to the

difficulties encountered by courts in resolving e-commerce transaction disputes. This article has exposed most of these

weaknesses and has suggested the use of the various ADR methods to resolve and achieve faster long lasting solutions within a

short space of time. ADR as could be seen have no territorial limits, so too is electronic data interchanged in cyberspace. ADR

mechanisms apart from being expeditious and reliable, disputing parties generally tend to abide to the outcome of the

proceedings. This is because they generally have the discretion to choose between the various options in ADR. In arbitration for

instance, disputing parties accept arbitral clauses which makes the decision of the arbitrator binding on both of them. In mediation

and conciliation, although the decision of the mediator may not be binding, parties usually agree to such decisions because of the

concern given by them to use the method to resolve their dispute. It cannot be gainsaid that ADRs will constitute a better option

in resolving E- commerce transactions disputes over the traditional court processes with its attendant consequences that are not

suitable for e-commerce.

It is therefore recommended that the ODR framework and guidelines should be properly established as a dispute resolution

mechanism with worldwide recognition. This can be done such that a set of rules and guidelines are formulated under national

legislations that with recognize ODR under their legal and institutional frameworks in dispute resolution in e-commerce. It is

also recommended that reciprocity amongst states should be encouraged in solving e-commerce transactions disputes because of

their trans-boarder nature. From the findings in this article that ADR methods are more effective in resolving e-commerce

disputes, the education community is encouraged to incorporate e-commerce dispute settlement as a course in their syllabuses.

That the judicial personnel should be continuously trained to understand how ADR can be used in e-commerce disputes. It is

finally recommended that national courts should minimize the bureaucracy involved in the recognition and enforcement of

foreign decisions and awards in e-commerce related disputes.

Bibliography

1. Appley, George, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution and the civil justice system’, in Mackie, Karl J, A handbook of dispute

resolution: ADR in action. Routledge, London, 1991.

2. Briggs, A., The Conflict of Laws. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.

3. Burnstein, Matthew,. ‘A Global Network’, in Boele Woelki, Katharina and Kessedjian,

4. Catherine., Which Court Decides? Which Law Applies? The Hague ; Boston : Kluwer Law International, c1998.

5. Cherry Lisco, Cara. ‘Case Study in Online Mediation: Resolution Across

Borders.’http://www.ombuds.org/cyberweek2002/library/lisco_ecommerce_article.doc

6. Clarkson, CMV and Hill, Jonathan., Jeffey on the Conflict of Laws. Second Edition. Butterworths, 2002.

7. 7.Conley Tyler, M. (2003), ‘Seventy-six and Counting: An Analysis of ODR Sites,’ in Katsh, E.and D. Choi, Proceedings

of the UNECE Second Forum on Online Dispute Resolution, Center for Information Technology and Dispute

Resolution, University of Massachusetts.

8. De Ly, Filip., International business law and lex mercatoria , North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1992.

9. Hill, Jonathan., The law relating to international commercial disputes, Lloyd's of London Press, London, New York,

1994.

10. Katsh, E., J. Rifkin and A. Gaitenby. ‘E-commerce, E-disputes, and E-dispute Resolution: In the Shadow of “eBay

Law”.’ Ohio State J. of Dispute Resolution, 15(3), 705-734. (2000)

11. 11.Lagarde, Paul and Giuliano, Mario., Report on the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations,

Journal officiel n° C 282 du 31/10/1980 p. 0001 – 0050.

12. 12.Lessig, L., Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, New York: Basic Books, 1999.

13. 13.Lessig, L., The future of ideas : the fate of the commons in a connected world, Vintage Books, New York, 2002.

14. 14.Mackie, Karl J., A handbook of dispute resolution: ADR in action. Routledge, London, 1991.

15. 15.Nott, Susan M.., ‘For better or worse? The Europeanization of the Conflict of Laws’, in Liverpool Law Review.

Volume 24. Nos. 1-2, 2002, 3-17.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING, 
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS) 
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025 
www.ijltemas.in                                                                                                                                                   Page  677 
 
16.  Reidenberg, Joel R., ‘Lex Informatica: The Formulation of Information Policy Rules through Technolog’y , 76 TEXAS 
L. REV. 553 (1998)  
17.  17.Reidenberg,  Joel  R.,  ‘Technology  and  Internet  Jurisdiction’, 153  University  of  Pennsylvania  Law  Review.  2005. 
http://ssrn.com/abstract=691501  
18.  18.Rothchild,  John,.  ‘Jurisdiction  over  E-Commerce  Transactions:  United  States  Law’.  http://hcch.e-
vision.nl/upload/wop/e-comm_rothchid.pdf    
19.  Schultz, Thomas, Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Dirk Langer, and Vincent Bonnet. ‘Online Dispute Resolution: State of 
the Art, Issues, and Perspectives.’ Report of the E-Com Research Project of the University of Geneva, p.78. Geneva. 
(2001). http://www.online-adr.org/reports/TheBlueBook-2001.pdf  
20.  Tyler,  Tom.,  ‘Procedure  of  resul’t, in  Mackie, Karl  J,  A handbook of  dispute resolution:  ADR in action.  Routledge, 
London, 1991.  
21.  Van  der  Hof,  Simone,  ‘The  relevance  of  party  autonomy  with  respect  to  international  online  B2B  contracts  –  A 
European and US perspective’. http://hcch.e-vision.nl/upload/wop/e-comm_vdhof.pdf  
International Conventions 
1.  Convention  on  the  law  applicable  to  contractual  obligations  (80/934/EEC).  http://www.rome-
convention.org/instruments/i_rep_lagarde_en.htm. 
2.  Convention  on  the  Recognition  and  Enforcement  of  Foreign  Arbitral  Awards.  1958 
http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention.html  
3.  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, of 22 December 2000, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of 
judgments in civil and commercial matters [Official Journal L 12 of 16.01.2001]. 
4.  European  Convention  On  International  Commercial  Arbitration. 
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/ddcaron/Documents/RPID%20Documents/rp04011.html 
5.  UNCITRAL  Model  Law  on  International  Commercial  Arbitration  (1985). 
http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/un.arbitration.model.law.1985/  
6.  Vienna Convention for the International Sale of Goods. http://www.cisg-online.ch   
Reports 
1.  OECD (2002b) Report on Legal Provisions Related to Business  
2.  Consumer  Alternative  Dispute  Resolution  in  Relation  to  Privacy  and  Consumer  Protection,  OECD,  Paris, 
www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2002doc.nsf/linkto/dsti-iccp-reg-cp(2002)1-final  
3.  2004 Statistical Report, ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, Vol. 16/No.1. p 21 
Websites 
1.  The Hague Conference on Private International Law. http://www.hcch.net/ ( Accessed on the 11
th
 of April 2017) 
2.  LexMercatoria.org,  (Accessed on the 10
th
 of March 2017).  
3.  UNIDROIT http://www.unidroit.org/. (Accessed on the 15th of April 2017) 
4.  Wiki pedía. http://en.wikipedia.org (Accessed on the 5th day of July 2017)    
 