mohammadhassan abootorabi zarchi

One of the major challenges of online arbitration in recent years, has been that some companies and traders have abused their superior economic position (especially in e-commerce field) against the weaker parties to the contract;  for instance, they have attempted to insert some unfair terms in the contract without clear notification to other party, or they have excessively approached to such tribunals, so that, strengthened the assumption of colluding and influencing managers and arbitrator working in those tribunals. These problems have raised some concerns and questions in the minds of policymakers and jurists about role of government in balancing power between litigants, as well as the philosophy and principles of monitoring the performance of online arbitration tribunals.The present article, beside describing these unfair terms and unbalanced conditions between disputed parties; analyzing the legal and judicial procedure of pioneer countries in the field of ODR (US and EU) and examining the local law of Iran; attempts, for the purpose of providing effective support for the weaker parties, to submit some useful and practical recommendations, by taking into account of principle of fair trial, goals of e-Government and also the principles of transparency and participation as the main principles of good governance.

Following surge increase of disputes arising out of technology developments, and especially rapid growth of e-commerce and different interactions in the cyberspace within recent decades (which some authors called it "Tsunami of Disputes"); many states, private companies and entities, at the end of second Millennium, were impelled to apply Information and Communications Technologies in the dispute settlement mechanisms. During last decade, with the help of modern Information and Communications Technologies, many different new and sophisticated models emerged and implemented, around the world, for facilitating and enhancing Online Dispute Resolutions, among them, one of the most important and efficient one has become well-known as "Crowdsourcing Online Disputes Resolution (CODR)".This new technology, by relying on "Wisdom of Crowd", conveyed much better capacities and opportunities to settle the disputes peacefully and without any need to recourse to Judicial Authorities. The present article, beside specifying the capacities of this new methods as well as analyzing their opportunities and challenges demonstrates that in order to reach fast, fair, more peaceful and cheaper methods of dispute settlements, exploiting the capacities of new models of ODR would be crucial, urgent and unavoidable, especially by considering the possibility of increase of conflicts because of Covid-19 virus out-breaking disaster and the financial and physiological crisis therefrom and the high volume of disputes in the judiciary system of our country.

Taking into account of rapid growth of international trade and the dramatic increase of the disputes arisen therefrom, it is indispensable to recognize the opportunities and challenges of "Electronic Alternative Dispute Resolutions (EADR)" for commercial disputes and to identify the conditions of interventions by the relevant governmental entities in the regulation and control of activities of online arbitration or mediation tribunals.This Article, at first, describes the history, opportunities and challenges of “EADR” and prevailing obstacles hindering its development and then, in the following sections, we will endeavor to clarify the roles and function of Judicial Power in its support, contributionand supervision for the development of “EADR”.As a conclusion, any intervention by the Judiciary Power in these activities must be planed and executed in the close cooperation with other relevant governmental and non-governmental entities so that no parallel action occurs in these regards and any inconsistent or insular official program is avoided. In addition, the prerequisites for the recognition and enforcement of online dispute resolutions should be identified in more details. Thus, we must try to provide coherent judicial precedent and realize and introduce the potentials and specific roles that the Judiciary Power can play in these reagrds..