AMY J. SCHMITZ, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, Cyberjustice Lab
Email: schmitz.220@osu.edu

Recent years have seen new technologies disrupt many established industries and institutions, continually testing our imaginations and expectations. Accordingly, it is no surprise that technology is disrupting the law. Moreover, the Covid-19 pandemic generated new disputes and a need for expanded access to online means for resolving those disputes, especially for consumers. As a result, lawyers, judges, software developers, and policymakers have been exploring ways to utilize technology in expanding access to the courts and dispute resolution. With this in mind, scholars and policymakers have argued for “online dispute resolution” (ODR) to expand access to justice (A2J). This chapter discusses evolution of ODR in recent years, as well as emerging issues in ODR that deserve attention in order to craft ODR that lives up to the promise in advancing A2J.

DUNCAN B. HOLLIS, Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law
Email: duncan.hollis@temple.edu
KAL RAUSTIALA, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law
Email: Raustiala@law.ucla.edu

This essay surveys Internet governance as an international institution. We focus on three key aspects of information and communication technologies. First, we highlight how, unlike natural commons such as sea or space, digital governance involves a socio-technical system with a man-made architecture reflecting particular and contingent technological choices. Second, we explore how private actors historically played a significant role in making such choices, leading to the rise of existing “multistakeholder” governance frameworks. Third, we examine how these multistakeholder structures favored by the U.S. and its technology companies have come under increasing pressure from multilateral competitors, particularly those championed by China under the banner of “internet sovereignty,” as well as more modest efforts by the European Union to employ an approach akin to “embedded liberalism” for digital governance. The future of the Internet turns on how what we term these Californian, Chinese, and Carolingian visions of Internet governance compete, evolve, and interact. Thus, this essay characterizes Internet governance as a heterogenous, dynamic, multi-layered set of principles, regimes and institutions—a regime complex—that not only governs cyberspace today, but has adapted and transformed along pathways that may serve as signposts for international institutions that regulate other global governance challenges.