Legal Nature of Online Arbitration and Its Relationship with Traditional Arbitration

The paper attempts to define the legal nature of online arbitration and its relationship with traditional arbitration. It questions whether online arbitration constitutes arbitration by its legal nature or represents dispute resolution procedures lacking arbitration characteristics. The conducted analysis shows that classifying nonarbitral procedures as “online arbitration” is unjustified from legal-technical and formal-logical perspectives; only procedures meeting core arbitration features qualify. The paper examines the problem of distinguishing online arbitration from traditional arbitration. Through instrumental and qualitative approaches to the role of digital technologies, it is noted that deep digital integration qualitatively transforms dispute resolution in online arbitration, creating phenomena absent in traditional arbitration. These phenomena change the nature of arbitration proceedings and serve as a distinctive feature that allows us to distinguish between online arbitration and traditional arbitration.

1. Bachilo I. L. Globalnaya informatizatciya i pravo // Problemy informatizacii. — 1999. — № 3. — S. 10–19.

2. Born G. Mezhdunarodnyy arbitrazh: pravo i praktika / per. s angl.; pod red. N. A. Babadzhanyana; Rossiyskiy arbitrazhnyy tsentr pri Rossiyskom institute sovremennogo arbitrazha. — M.: Rossiyskiy institut sovremennogo arbitrazha, 2020. — 870 s.

3. Branovitskiy K. L., Rents I. G., Neznamov A. V. [i dr.]. Tsifrovye tekhnologii i tsivilisticheskiy protsess: problemy vzaimovliyaniya // Herald of the Euro-Asian Law Congress. — 2018. — № 2. — S. 56–68.

4. Galkovskaya N. G., Vutyn V. E. Onlayn-arbitrazh kak sredstvo razresheniya transgranichnykh ekonomicheskikh sporov. Problemy prinuditelnogo ispolneniya onlayn-arbitrazhnykh resheniy // Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo. — 2017. — № 24. — S. 133–147.

5. Kurochkin S. A. Onlayn-arbitrazh: teoreticheskie voprosy // Treteyskiy sud. — 2017. — № 3. — S. 148–162.

6. Panov A. A. Onlayn-arbitrazh: problemy, resheniya, perspektivy // Novye gorizonty mezhdunarodnogo arbitrazha. Vyp. 2: sbornik statey / pod red. A. V. Asoskova, A. I. Muranova, R. M. Khodykina. — M.: Infotropik Media, 2014. — S. 111–153.

7. Puchkov V. O. Onlayn-arbitrazh v Rossii i za rubezhom: kollizionnye aspekty pravovogo regulirovaniya // Arbitrazhnye spory. — 2018. — № 4. — S. 119–125.

8. Rozhkova M. A. Ob avtomatizatsii onlayn-arbitrazha i onlayn-uregulirovaniya kommercheskikh i potrebitelskikh sporov // E-commerce i vzaimosvyazannye oblasti (pravovoe regulirovanie): sbornik statey / ruk. avt. kol. i otv. red. dokt. yurid. nauk M. A. Rozhkova. — M.: Statut, 2019. — 234 s.

9. Terenteva L. V. Razreshenie arbitrazhnymi tsentrami domennykh sporov po protsedure UDRP // Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki. — 2014. — № 4.

10. Terekhov V. V., Lungu I. Ponyatie i klyuchevye osobennosti onlayn-razresheniya sporov // Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa. — 2021. — № 4. — S. 153–178.

11. Tsirina M. A. Osnovnye napravleniya sozdaniya elektronnoy sistemy alternativnykh mekhanizmov razresheniya sporov // Administrativnoe pravo i protsess. — 2019. — № 4. — S. 53–56.

12. Chupakhin I. M. Onlayn-arbitrazh: osobennosti ispolneniya resheniy // Arbitrazhnyy i grazhdanskiy protsess. — 2012. — № 11. — S. 26–29.

13. Baert P. R. The Potential of Online Arbitration (OARB) in Resolving Disputes at the Lower End of Value: Justice without the State, or a State of Injustice? — Brussel, 2017. — 139 p.

14. Girsberger D., Schramm D. Cyber-Arbitration // European Business Organization Law Review. — 2002. — No. 3 (3). — P. 611–628.

15. Kaufmann-Kohler G., Schultz Th. The Use of Information Technology in Arbitration // JusLetter. — 2005. — Dec.