FEATURES OF THE SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CYBER DISPUTES THROUGH ADR IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LEGISLATION OF THE BRICS COUNTRIES

Year 2024, , 149 - 166, 30.06.2024

Islambek Rustambekov

https://doi.org/10.55027/tfm.1379346

Abstract

This paper examines the comparative effectiveness of various alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods in resolving international cyber disputes. Drawing on a review of academic literature, analysis of practical case studies and statistical data, it identifies key procedural strengths and limitations of arbitration, mediation, ombudsmen, and online dispute resolution for common cyber conflict scenarios. It concludes on the optimal tailoring of different ADR techniques for cybercrime, hacking attacks, data breaches, and e-commerce disputes. The paper proposes multiple innovations to enhance cyber ADR efficacy, including hybrid models, specialized procedural standards, and enforcement mechanisms. It discusses integrating ADR into national cybersecurity strategies using the BRICS platform as an example. The research aims to inform optimization of flexible, confidential, and technically expert out-of-court approaches to manage the proliferation of cross-border cyber disputes.
Key findings show mediation’s utility for cybercrime across jurisdictions but need for law enforcement coordination. International arbitration is appropriate for cyber B2B disputes while ombuds aid consumer recourse. Early neutral evaluation assists cybersecurity breach diagnosis but requires enforcement. Tailored arbitration rules, substantively flexible guidelines, and incentivizing voluntary ADR adoption are advised.

Keywords

alternative dispute resolution, online dispute resolution, cyber dispute, cybersecurity, arbitration, mediation, ombudsman, BRICS

BRICS ÜLKELERİNİN MEVZUATI BAĞLAMINDA ULUSLARARASI SİBER UYUŞMAZLIKLARIN ALTERNATİF UYUŞMAZLIK ÇÖZÜMÜ YOLUYLA ÇÖZÜMÜNÜN ÖZELLİKLERİ

Abstract

This paper examines the comparative effectiveness of various alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods in resolving international cyber disputes. Drawing on a review of academic literature, analysis of practical case studies and statistical data, it identifies key procedural strengths and limitations of arbitration, mediation, ombudsmen, and online dispute resolution for common cyber conflict scenarios. It concludes on the optimal tailoring of different ADR techniques for cybercrime, hacking attacks, data breaches, and e-commerce disputes. The paper proposes multiple innovations to enhance cyber ADR efficacy, including hybrid models, specialized procedural standards, and enforcement mechanisms. It discusses integrating ADR into national cybersecurity strategies using the BRICS platform as an example. The research aims to inform optimization of flexible, confidential, and technically expert out-of-court approaches to manage the proliferation of cross-border cyber disputes.
Key findings show mediation’s utility for cybercrime across jurisdictions but need for law enforcement coordination. International arbitration is appropriate for cyber B2B disputes while ombuds aid consumer recourse. Early neutral evaluation assists cybersecurity breach diagnosis but requires enforcement. Tailored arbitration rules, substantively flexible guidelines, and incentivizing voluntary ADR adoption are advised.

Keywords

alternative dispute resolution, online dispute resolution, cyber dispute, cybersecurity, arbitration, mediation, ombudsman, BRICS

References

• 1. Miles M, Huberman A, Saldana J, Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (4th edn, SAGE Publications Inc 2020) 23.
• 2. Wall J, Stark J, Standifer R, ‘Mediation: A Current Review and Theory Development’ (2001) 45(3) Journal of Conflict Resolution 370, 391.
• 3. Chawki M, ‘Nigeria Tackles Advance Fee Fraud’ (2009) 1 Journal of Information, Law and Technology 56, 59.
• 4. Jaishankar K, Cyber Criminology: Exploring Internet Crimes and Criminal Behavior (CRC Press 2011) 87.
• 5. Pillar D, Building Peace and Justice in Cyberspace: Avoiding an Electronic Wild West (The Hague Institute for Global Justice 2013) 113.
• 6. Paul K, Inside the Ransomware Economy (1st edn, Wiley 2021) 149.
• 7. Hinduja S, Patchin J, ‘It Takes a Village: Integrating Modern Mediation Techniques into Cyberbullying Intervention and Prevention Programs’ (2019) 34 Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 45.
• 8. Cole S, Blankley K, Odeh T, ‘Online Dispute Resolution for Smart Contracts’ (2019) 49 Seton Hall Law Review 103.
• 9. Schmitz A, ‘Drive-By Virtual Arbitration: Improving Arbitration Through Technology’ (2012) 2012 Journal of Dispute Resolution 10, 37, 105.
• 10. Garrie D, Mann D, ‘Cyber-Security Mediation: Creating a Global Solution to a Global Problem’ (2014) 2014(1) Journal of Dispute Resolution 217, 255.
• 11. Graux H (2020), How Can Alternative Dispute Resolution Facilitate Access to Remedies for Victims of Privacy Violations Occasion 43, 127.
• 12. Katsh E (2012), ‘ODR: A Look at History’ in Abdel Wahab M, Katsh E and Rainey D (eds), Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice 21-30.
• 13. Raymond M, ‘The Internet of Disputes: DPAs, Private Law and Dispute Resolution in the Digital Economy’ (2017) 33(6) Computer Law & Security Review 51, 787, 799.
• 14. Gross J, Cybersecurity: Law and Practice (Packt Publishing Ltd 2018) 63.
• 15. Michaels A, ‘Dispute Resolution Along the Belt and Road’ (2014) 9(1) Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 135.
• 16. Lars D, ‘Artificial Intelligence: Robots, Avatars, Mediation’ (2017) 25 Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 105.
• 17. Kaufmann-Kohler G, Schultz T, Online Dispute Resolution: Challenges for Contemporary Justice (Kluwer Law International 2004) 19.
• 18. United Nations General Assembly, Open-Ended Working Group on Developments in The Field of Information and Telecommunications in The Context of International Security (United Nations [2021]) 5.
• 19. Gulyamov S, Bakhramova M, ‘Digitalization of International Arbitration and Dispute Resolution by Artificial Intelligence’ (2022) 9 World Bulletin of Management and Law 79, 85.