JUSTICE IN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

INTERNATIONAL SUMMER SCHOOL 2023

Nicolás Parra Herrera & Oladeji Tiamiyu

Description

This course aims to explore the kinds of dispute processing systems developed and implemented
in new and emerging digital technologies. The course also deals with the challenges and
complexities these tools bring to the notion of justice and our capacity to resolve, manage, and
prevent conflict by addressing the following problems: what can we learn about dispute
resolution from processes influenced by digital technologies? what are the implications of
digitizing justice? What are the appropriate contours of online dispute resolution (ODR) in a
world where technology is more ubiquitous? What are the costs and benefits of using big data,
artificial intelligence, and blockchain technologies, among others, as supportive tools for
managing conflict? To delve into these questions, the course will be structured as a seminar to
collaboratively think together about these topics and invite international pioneers in the field to
share their visions and the obstacles they encounter in digitizing justice and in the broader ODR
industry.

To tackle these inquiries, we propose a comprehensive framework comprising three levels:

architectural, ethical, and regulatory approaches. The architectural approach delves into how
models of online dispute resolution (ODR) and digital justice design influence the outcomes of
decisions. By considering justice as a spatial concept, we recognize that the design choices made
will impact the inclusivity of participation, the methods employed, and the range of disputes that
can be deliberated within such spaces. The ethical approach examines matters pertaining to
professional ethics, moral philosophy, and political theory. Our understanding of ethics extends
beyond mere design considerations. It delves into broader questions, such as how ODR and
digital justice systems should be structured to uphold preferred moral values (e.g., independence,
transparency, autonomy, and equality). Additionally, we explore the ethical challenges that may
arise with the digitization of judicial systems and with the expansion of ODR to manage various
disputes in society.

The prevalent narrative is that the covid pandemic compelled courts, online platforms, and
businesses to create ways of resolving and preventing conflicts without requiring in-person
processes. We challenge this narrative by exploring dispute system design principles in digital
technologies before the pandemic occurred. Particularly, we will explore the emergence of online
dispute resolution in e-commerce (e.g. eBay), online community-based dispute resolution (e.g.
Wikipedia dispute resolution model), the blockchain model of online dispute resolution (e.g.
Kleros), content moderation in social media as a dispute system design problem (e.g. Facebook
Oversight Board), and algorithmic decision-making models (e.g. AI-based justice). The course
will unpack the benefits of using online dispute resolution with these technologies and the
potential trade-offs involved.

This course is a laboratory to expand the imagination of how legal services and adjudication is
working now through digital technologies and how it will work in the future.
Course objectives
 Provide students with an expanded vocabulary of the emergent ODR and digital justice
field to assess particular use-cases and identify the architectural, ethical, and normative
components.
 Train students to discuss and debate contemporary problems raised by the emergence of
ODR and digital justice initiatives in diverse contexts, such as content moderation, legal
procedure, dispute system design, online dispute resolution systems, e-commerce, etc.
 Empower students to think critically about the ideological and practical underpinnings
informing the greater use of technology in dispute resolution processes.

Methodology
This course is taught using a wide array of pedagogical styles. The orienting principle in all
sessions is that this is a collaborative and participatory enterprise based on mutual learning
because the topics discussed are continuously evolving. As such, we should engage with this
matter using curiosity, imagination, adaptability, and fallibility.

 Lecture-based sessions. Some sessions will be heavily lecture-based (cátedra activa).

Here Professors Tiamiyu and Parra-Herrera will explain the building blocks of the
concepts we will be grappling with during the course. These sessions are more
conceptual, and they will provide you with frameworks and a toolkit to analyze the case
studies we will discuss in sessions 3-9.

 Seminar-style format sessions. During certain sessions, a student will volunteer to act as
the presenter for the initial portion of the discussion. Each student will be assigned one of
these seminar-style sessions by the professors. In these sessions, the student should (as
every student) read the assigned material and present a topic discussed in the assigned
materials. In addition to being descriptive, presenters will be expected to form a clear
argument related to their opinion of the topic. Examples of an argument include what a
presenter thinks about the consequences of a technological tool on the legal (including
dispute resolution) profession and predictions for the future, among other argumentation
strategies. Additionally, the student will have the responsibility, once they have finished
the presentation, for starting off the discussion. Depending on numbers, you might have
to lead more than one class. The presentation will not entail written work. This
intervention will be graded based on the quality of the presentation, understanding of the
readings, the creative connections between them and/or other material discussed in the
class, the thoughtfulness of the questions prepared for discussion, and active participation
throughout the session. Note: you can bring written materials or read parts of it as part of
your presentation, but these will not be graded. Consider bringing copies for everyone.

 Guest speakers. During certain sessions, professors will invite guest speakers who
possess relevant experience in the topics being discussed. These guest speakers
encompass a diverse range of individuals, including ODR pioneers, developers of
decentralized justice systems, content moderators, and blockchain experts. Professors
expect students to come prepared for these sessions by having at least one question to ask
the speaker or actively participating in the ensuing discussions. Participation grading will
be taken into account heavily for these sessions. A note on guest speakers’ sessions: guest
 speakers may reschedule on short notice. Therefore, if they come in a different session
(or cancel), we will adjust the course schedule to accommodate the guest speakers to the
extent possible.

 Workshops or group discussions. During certain sessions, professors might run

workshops or group activities so that student debate, discuss, and assess arguments,
design strategies, or ethical conundrums appearing in the hypotheticals, thought
experiments, cases, or any prompts given by professors.

Grading

Percentage Description Deadline

Participation 20% Active participation in class. NA

Participation and questions raised during guest speakers

visit.

*If you feel there are other ways of participating and

contributing to the class, let us know before hand and we
will consider them.
Presentation 35% Seminar-style format presentation. Assigned first
No need to present written work. class.
The presentation should include, at the very least:

 Synthesis of the arguments in the assigned

material.
 Contrasts and comparisons between positions,
concepts, and other arguments already discussed
in class or between the readings.
 Personal normative standpoint, reaction and/or
critique to the assigned material and their
proposals.
 2-5 questions to start the class conversation. The
quality and thoughtfulness of the questions will be
considered.
Final paper 45% Final paper should be written in pairs (max 3 students). July 27. 10:00
(max. 2-3 The reason for this is to foster collaborative working. p.m. (Colombian
students) Intellectual work flourishes in dialogue and this is an time)
opportunity for you to learn from others and teach others.
The topics should be discussed and approved before
session 8 with the professors.

Formal requirements

 The use of ChatGPT or any generative AI tool is

strictly prohibited with the sole exceptions of
correcting syntax or English grammar problems.
Violating this can result in punishments for
academic dishonesty.
 2000 words max (including footnotes).
 Times New 12
  Spacing: 1.5.
 1” margin in each side.

Substantive requirements (before deciding a topic, think

over these questions)

• The context. Identify the landscape. What topic

and field do you want to intervene?
• The problem. What did problems or challenges
did you discover? What interpretation or lens do
you want to add?
• The effects. What are the consequences of seeing
the problem according to your interpretation,
argument, or lens? What benefits and losses
entail?
• The stakes. Why is this relevant?
• The conclusion and lingering questions. What is
your conclusion or reflection after this journey.
What have you learned from it?

Course schedule

SESSION/DATE TOPIC ASSIGNED MATERIAL

The Framework of Digitizing Justice
1. July 10 Setting the stage -Susskind, Richard, The Future of Courts, The Practice, Vol. 6
Introduction to Digital Justice (5), 2020. Link.
and Online Dispute Resolution
(ODR) -Oladeji, Tiamiyu, The Impending Battle for the soul ODR:
Evolving Technologies and Ethical Factors Influencing the
Field, Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 23(1), 75.

Optional

-Solum, Lawrence, Procedural Justice 78 S. California Law

Review, 181 (2004) 242-273 (just skim)

-Rule, Colin, Separating the People from the Problem: Colin

2. July 11 The Ethics of Digitizing
Justice
Technical, adaptive, and social
challenges of digitizing justice.
Ethical models.
Rule and the rise of online dispute resolution, The Practice,
Center on the Legal Profession, Harvard Law School. Link.
-Wing, Leah, Janet Martinez, Ethan Katsh, and Colin Rule.
“Designing Ethical Online Dispute Resolution Systems: The
Rise of the Fourth Party.” Negotiation Journal 37, no. 1
(January 2021): 49–64.
-Amy Schmitz. Measuring "Access to Justice" in the Rush to
Digitize. 88 Fordham L. Rev. 2381 (2019-2020) Link.

-Benjamin Weiser, “Here’s What Happens When Your

Lawyer Uses ChatGPT” New York Times (May 27, 2023).

3. July 12 The Architecture and
Geographical components of
Digitzing Justice
The Cosmopolitan and the
National Frameworks of
Digitizing Justice and the
architecture of ODR/Digital
Justice.
Case studies
4. July 13 The rise of disputes in social
media from an ODR
perspective
The Facebook Oversight Board
as digitizing justice?
Guest speaker (Members of the
Facebook Oversight Board)
5. July 14 The rise of online dispute
resolution in e-commerce and
beyond
From eBay model to AI ODR.
Designer of the eBay dispute
resolution model.
Optional
-ABA Guidance for ODR Link
-The National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution
- Online Dispute Resolution Standards Link
On the geographical
Berman, Paul Schiff. 2002. “The Globalization of
Jurisdiction.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151 (2):
472–512.
On architecture (Justice as a space?)
-Mamo, Andrew, Object Lessons: The Materiality of Legal
Practices, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution,
Forthcoming. Link.
Colombia protests: The Oversight Board has overturned
Facebook's decision to remove a post showing a video of
protesters in Colombia criticising the country's president, Ivan
Duque- Oversight Board. Link.
Levy, Steven “Inside Meta’s Oversight Board: 2 Years of
Pushing Limits” Wired (November 8, 2022). Link.
Klonick, Kate. 2020. “The Facebook oversight board:
Creating an independent institution to adjudicate online free
expression”. The Yale Law Journal 129:2418. Link.
Douek, Evelyn. 2022. “Content Moderation as Systems
Thinking.” Harvard Law Review 136 (2): 526–607.
Sullivan, Mark “Exclusive: The Harvard professor behind
Facebook’s oversight board defends its role,” Fast Company
(July 9, 2019). Link
Videos (before class)
-How Facebook's content moderation oversight board works,
CNBC. Link
-Facebook's Supreme Court: Why Facebook Created The
Content 'Oversight Board' - TLDR News. Link.
-Rule, Colin. "Designing a Global Online Dispute Resolution
System: Lessons Learned from eBay." University of St.
Thomas Law Journal, vol. 13, no. 2, Winter 2017, pp. 354-
369.
-Rabinovich-Einy, Orna. 2021. “The Past, Present, and Future
of Online Dispute Resolution.” Current Legal Problems 74

6. July 15 The rise of generative AI and
digitizing justice
Automated decision making,
ChatGPT, and other
experiments.
Guest speaker (TBD)
7. July 17 The rise of decentralized
models of digital justice
The Kleros case using
blockchain, cryptocurrencies,
and other technologies in
adjudicating disputes.
8. July 18 Community-based ODR
models
The Wikipedia Dispute and the
antitrust out of court
community-based enforcement.
Deadline: Final date to get
approval for final papers.
(1): 125–48.
Aura Esther Vilalta 2013. ODR and E-Commerce. Link
Podcast
Convergence. Episode 1: Colin Rule: Online Dispute
Resolution Origin Stories. Host: Tiamiyu Oladeji. Link.
-Field, Jessica et. Al. “Principled Artificial Intelligence:
Mapping Consensus in Ethical and Rights-based Approaches
to Principles for AI,” Berkman Klein Center for Internet &
Society (2020). Link. Only pages 28-35.
-Metz, Cade, “We Teach A.I. Systems Everything, Including
Our Biases,” New York Times (Nov 11, 2019). Link.
-Taylor, Luke, “Colombian judge says he used ChatGPT in
ruling,” The Guardian (Feb 2, 2023). Link.
-Kuang, Cliff “Can A.I. Be Taught to Explain Itself?,” New
York Times Magazine (Nov. 21, 2017). Link.
-Cathy O’Neill, “The era of blind faith in big data must end,”
YouTube. Link
-Lesage, Clément, Ast, Federico, and George, William,
Kleros, Short Paper v.1.0.7, September 2019. Link.
-Park, Sunoo, Specter, Michael, Narula, Neha, Rivest, Ronald
L, “Going from bad to worse: from Internet voting to
blockchain voting,” Journal of Cybersecurity, 7, Issue 1,
2021.
Optional
De Filippi, Primavera. Blockchain and the Law: The Rule of
Code, Cambridge, MA and London, England: Harvard
University Press, 2018, p. 13-32.
Podcast
Convergence. Episode 2: Federico Ast and Sophie Nappert,
Blockchain ODR. Host: Tiamiyu Oladeji. Link.
Wikipedia model
-Jemielniak, Dariusz, Conflict Resolution on Wikipedia in
Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia,
Stanford University Press (2014), 59-85.
Antitrust out of court enforcement
Oladeji Tiamiyu, Resuscitating the Transnational Promise of
E-Commerce
Optional
 Wikipedia. Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Model. Link.

9. July 19 State-based digiting court
models and algorithmic
decision-makers instead of
human judges. Is Human
Judgement Necessary?
Guest speaker (TBD)
-Spaulding, Norman W., 'Is Human Judgment Necessary?
Artificial Intelligence, Algorithmic Governance, and the
Law', in Markus D. Dubber, Frank Pasquale, and Sunit Das
(eds), The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI (2020).
Spaulding, Norman, ODR and the End of Adversarial Justice.
PG 252-257; 278-285

Wrapping up: Political Economy and other reflections

10. July 21 Technology and the Political -Pasquale, Frank. New Laws of Robotics, Cambridge, MA and
Economy of Digitizing London, England: Harvard University Press, 2020.
Justice
-Benkler, Yochai, The Role Of Technology In Political
Economy: Part 1, LPE Blog. Link.

-Benkler, Yochai, The Role Of Technology In Political

Economy: Part 2, LPE Blog. Link.

-Benkler, Yochai, The Role Of Technology In Political

Economy: Part 3, LPE Blog. Link.