Science AI Journal
Business, Management and Accounting · Research topic

Open research questions in Dispute Resolution and Class Actions

35 unresolved questions extracted from the limitations and future-work sections of 1,423 Dispute Resolution and Class Actions papers in our library. Each links back to the study that raised it.

What the literature leaves open

  • electronic witness harmonization. 1.5 Research Questions 1. What legal provisions and procedural standards regulate electronic witness testimony in EU and Common Law jurisdictions? 2. How do EU and Common Law systems differ in their approaches toward admissibility, authentication, and fair trial protections in electronic witness testimony? 3. What are the major legal, procedural, and technological challenges in cross-border electronic witness testimony, and how can procedural harmonization be improved? This study focuses on electronic witness testimony procedures in transnational criminal law and adds to international comparative scholarship in this area. It provides valuable insight to international judges, attorneys, and criminal justice policy-makers (De Hert & Papakonstantinou, 2020; Greenleaf, 2021). It will also help practitioners understand the implications of current debates on electronic/digital justice, global litigation, and the right to a fair trial in virtual court sessions.

    Electronic Witness Testimony in Cross-Border Trials: Procedural Standards under EU Regulation 2018/1805 and Common Law Approaches · 2026 · DOI

  • However, as demonstrated by the comparative analysis with decentralised justice, compliance-based regulation alone is insufficient to address deeper legitimacy concerns 84. Merely disclosing the existence of AI is insufficient; its role must be intelligible and procedurally relevant.

    Decentralised Justice: How Kleros Empowers Jurors in Online Dispute Resolution · 2026 · DOI

  • Based on the results of the research and analysis that have been carried out, there are several recommendations that can be considered in the development of an Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) system in Indonesia, namely the following: 1. The establishment of regulations at the level of Government Regulation (PP) regarding the standardization and certification of private ODR operators, which includes standard dispute resolution procedures, personal data protection, algorithm transparency, and supervision mechanisms for digital platforms. 2. Development of an interoperability system between the private ODR platform and the e-Court system of the Supreme Court and the Consumer Dispute Resolution Agency (BPSK) to build an integrated digital dispute escalation channel and have connectivity with the state execution mechanism. 3. The preparation of the AI Governance framework in the Indonesian legal system, especially related to the use of artificial intelligence and algorithms in digital dispute resolution, including algorithm audit obligations, transparency of automated decision systems, and independent oversight of the use of automation technology by digital platforms. 4. Strengthening the harmonization of ODR regulations with the Personal Data Protection Law, especially through the establishment of derivative regulations that specifically regulate the governance of digital dispute data, including the collection, storage, processing, and destruction of user data in the ODR mechanism. 5. Adjustment of the development of the national ODR system with the direction of ASEAN regional integration, especially through the implementation of the ASEAN Guidelines on Online Dispute Resolution as part of strengthening digital economy governance and integrating digital business dispute resolution in the Southeast Asian region. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abedi, Fahimeh, John Zeleznikow, and Chris Brien. 'Developing Regulatory Standards for the Concept of Security in Online Dispute Resolution Systems'. Computer Law & Security Review 35, no. 5 (2019): 105328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.05.003. ASEAN. ASEAN Guidelines on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR). Jakarta, 2022. https://asean.org/book/asean-guidelines-on-online-dispute-resolution-odr/.

    Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) in the Digital Business Dispute Resolution System: The Problem of Regulation Fragmentation and Harmonization of the Digital Justice System in Indonesia · 2026 · DOI

  • Moreover, European-level actions are limited by an opt-in mechanism when it comes to non-residents of a Member State (Article 9 (3) RAD), national actions are a mixture of opt-in/opt-out solutions, which not only fragments any EU-wide claims but also incentivises forum-shopping and limits consumer redress.

    EU Collective Redress for Inferred Groups: Standing and Compensation under the GDPR, the Representative Actions Directive and the AI Act · 2026 · DOI

  • PROPOSALS AND To the Law Reform Commission of Tanzania and the Ministry of Constitutional and Legal Affairs. The Law Reform Commission and the Ministry must put forward a single, comprehensive amendment bill. This bill should directly revise 51 Baehr, P. (1994). Amnesty International and its selfimposed limited mandate. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 12, 5–20. 52 Buhmann, K. (2009).

    ICT Advancement and Administration of Justice in Tanzania: A Comparative Discussion of the Legal and Institutional Framework Governing E-Justice. · 2026 · DOI

  • The researcher encountered time and monetary constraints. The researcher incurred monetary cost and time to visit the libraries as well as access good-quality internet.

    ICT Advancement and Administration of Justice in Tanzania: A Comparative Discussion of the Legal and Institutional Framework Governing E-Justice. · 2026 · DOI

  • The proposal for an open technical standard enabling interoperability between national ADR entities and private ODR platforms lacks specification of minimum technical and legal requirements. The paper does not define what interoperability should encompass regarding data exchange, algorithm transparency, dispute metadata standardization, or compliance verification across heterogeneous platform implementations.

    A Mediação Assistida por Inteligência Artificial: Imparcialidade Algorítmica, ODR e os Desafios Regulatórios no Quadro da AI Act Europeu · 2026 · DOI

  • The paper calls for periodic algorithmic bias assessments in ADR entities using AI (proposed for Directive RAL revision), but no standardized methodology for measuring algorithmic bias specifically in mediation outcomes, settlement agreement fairness, or party satisfaction across different dispute types has been established. The metrics and audit procedures for compliance with this obligation remain undefined.

    A Mediação Assistida por Inteligência Artificial: Imparcialidade Algorítmica, ODR e os Desafios Regulatórios no Quadro da AI Act Europeu · 2026 · DOI

  • The paper proposes that the Portuguese DGPJ develop guidelines distinguishing AI as an auxiliary tool (admissible) versus delegation of mediation to AI systems (inadmissible), but no empirical framework exists for assessing where specific ODR platform functionalities fall on this spectrum. Concrete operational indicators and test protocols are needed to determine when a mediator maintains effective versus delegated control.

    A Mediação Assistida por Inteligência Artificial: Imparcialidade Algorítmica, ODR e os Desafios Regulatórios no Quadro da AI Act Europeu · 2026 · DOI

  • The paper identifies a normative conflict between the confidentiality obligations of mediation law (Lei n.º 29/2013), the transparency requirements of the EU AI Regulation (Articles 9-16), and GDPR data subject rights, but no specific legal hierarchy or operational procedures for resolving these conflicts have been developed. Research is needed on how mediation data can be used for AI model training while maintaining effective anonymization and preserving mediator-party confidentiality.

    A Mediação Assistida por Inteligência Artificial: Imparcialidade Algorítmica, ODR e os Desafios Regulatórios no Quadro da AI Act Europeu · 2026 · DOI

  • The distinction between effective human supervision and nominal human supervision (rubber-stamping) in AI-mediated dispute resolution requires empirical validation through case studies of actual mediation platform operations. The paper identifies this distinction as legally decisive but provides no methodology for measuring or auditing whether human mediators genuinely maintain the capacity to question, override, or reverse algorithmic recommendations in practice.

    A Mediação Assistida por Inteligência Artificial: Imparcialidade Algorítmica, ODR e os Desafios Regulatórios no Quadro da AI Act Europeu · 2026 · DOI

  • The temporal gap between the entry into force of the EU AI Regulation (August 2, 2026) and the pending revision of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Directive (2013/11/UE) creates a regulatory vacuum where AI-assisted mediation platforms operating during this transition period lack full AI Regulation protections, while the institutional ODR reference platform has been closed. Specific mechanisms to protect parties using AI-mediated ODR systems during this interim period have not been defined.

    A Mediação Assistida por Inteligência Artificial: Imparcialidade Algorítmica, ODR e os Desafios Regulatórios no Quadro da AI Act Europeu · 2026 · DOI

  • Work on the issue was justified by the importance of the topic forpractice and the need to refer to the introduced changes, which, in view of the passage of the law on March 9, 2023, have not yet been analyzed in the literature.

    MEDIATION SETTLEMENT FOR CLAIMS NOT COVERED BY THE SUBJECT MATTER OF DISPUTE COMMENTS IN THE LIGHT OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF MARCH 9, 2023. · 2023 · DOI

  • Abstract This article examines the under-researched, inter-connected issues of substantive remedy and a role for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) National Contact Points (NCPs) to complement judicial remedy regimes involving civil liability for companies in home-state jurisdictions.

    Confronting Challenges to Substantive Remedy for Victims: Opportunities for OECD National Contact Points under a Due Diligence Regime Involving Civil Liability · 2023 · DOI

  • Although there has been expected great potential in solving disputes online and the rise of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) use, the assumptions has not been confirmed yet.

    Online Dispute Resolution to Resolve Consumer Disputes from the Perspective of European Union Law: Is the Potential of ODR Fully Used? · 2016 · DOI

  • Although the parties maintain the right to seek judicial review of UDRP decisions, however, the level of deference that courts should grant those decisions remains unclear.

    Domain Name Dispute Resolution in U.S. Courts: Should ICANN be Given Deference? · 2002

  • \nWhile any model must make concessions to tractability, this simplifying assumption is especially troublesome because lawyers have long been considered to have a special influence on how litigation is conducted, even if there has been no consensus on whether lawyers dampen or exacerbate conflict in litigation.

    Disputing through Agents: Cooperation and Conflict between Lawyers in Litigation · 1994 · DOI

  • Crowd judging, as an emerging crowdsourced online dispute resolution mechanism, facilitates a paradigm shift in platform governance by decentralizing adjudicative power to users; however, its decision-making mechanisms remain unclear.

    How Does Evidence Persuade Crowd Jurors? A Study On Crowdsourced Online Dispute Resolution Based On The Elm Model · 2026

  • It is recommended to promote ADR training, clear clauses, online platforms, and further research on ADR’s cross-border effectiveness.

    Resolving Cross Border Construction Disputes: The Evolving Role of alternate Dispute Resolution · 2025 · DOI

  • In fact, the Georgian legislator lays the development of mediation on practice and gives freedom of action to the mediator, although he stipulates that this freedom is limited by the will of the parties.

    ADVANTAGES OF MEDIATION IN CIVIL DISPUTES · 2023 · DOI

  • Contradiction in terms? Given this legal basis, it remains to be seen in practice whether simulation remains possible in the face of this legal nominalism and if the legal action brought on the grounds of simulation is nevertheless feasible.

    Simulația în acțiune – număr de iluzionism nominalist-legal · 2019 · DOI

  • ” Paradoxically, this has occurred alongside unequivocal evidence from the Australian Institute of Family Studies’ evaluation data that judicial officers are dealing mainly with families displaying seriously dysfunctional attitudes and behaviours.

    From Helping Court to Community‐Based Services: The 30‐Year Evolution of <scp>A</scp>ustralia's <scp>F</scp>amily <scp>R</scp>elationship <scp>C</scp>entres · 2013 · DOI

  • Institutional interests help explain why appellate courts impose ADR participation notwithstanding mixed results on ADR efficacy.

    Why ADR Programs Aren't More Appealing: An Empirical Perspective · 2010 · DOI

  • ” Additionally, it counters the chief criticism of such an approach, specifically that a literal reading produces absurd or internally inconsistent results.

    Why "Or" Really Means "Or": In Defense of the Plain Meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's Safe Harbor Provision · 2010

  • It notes that there is insufficient recognition of the differences between schemes geared at managing mass litigation as opposed to those aimed at facilitating otherwise non-viable claims.

    COLLECTIVE REDRESS PROCEDURES–EUROPEAN DEBATES · 2009 · DOI

Most-cited papers in Dispute Resolution and Class Actions

Most recent work

Find a gap in your own Dispute Resolution and Class Actions sub-topic

This page shows what the Dispute Resolution and Class Actions literature already flags as unresolved. To narrow it to your specific question, run the guided finder — it searches the gap library on demand and checks candidates against 250M+ OpenAlex works.

Open the Research Gap Finder →

Related topics in Business, Management and Accounting

Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
652 open questions
Entrepreneurship Studies and Influences
453 open questions
Consumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
337 open questions
Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
293 open questions
Environmental Sustainability in Business
211 open questions
Management and Organizational Studies
186 open questions
Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
174 open questions
International Business and FDI
159 open questions
35 open questions have been extracted from the limitations and future-work passages of 1,423 Dispute Resolution and Class Actions papers in our library. Each one below links back to the study that raised it, so you can read the original claim in context.

Tools for your next paper

Gaps & Literature SearchFind open questions in any field — 120,000+ open gaps mined from our own library.Pre-CheckIs your paper ready? A Tier 1–5 acceptance probability in seconds.Journal FinderA ranked shortlist of target journals from a 17,500-venue index.Duplicate Publication CheckerCheck prior-publication & salami-slicing risk across 8 sources.Citation GeneratorFreeA DOI or title → APA, MLA, Vancouver, Chicago, BibTeX, RIS. No signup.Graphical Abstract MakerFreeTurn your findings into a colorblind-safe graphical abstract.

Compare the category — Honest roundups of the AI research tools, ours listed alongside the alternatives.

Command palette

Jump anywhere, run any action.