Philosophy of Technology: a reflection about Technology and Arbitration

Francisco González de Cossío
Abstract

Arbitration is distinguished for being more efficient than other options. It has used technology in a more efficient way than other options. Covid-19 has taken this situation to the next level, demanding readjustment. Especially, a real concern regarding the possibility of compromising due process has been raised. This essay defends that (1) technology allows following arbitration processes virtually; (2) innovation will help to increasingly achieve the ideal of seeking justice, since the cost reduction will imply that more cases can be heard and adjudicated, causing what is currently a luxury (obtaining justice) to spread and penetrate distinct segments of society, which is currently neglected; and (3) the challenges we currently face demand so (e.g. climate change, loss of biodiversity). All it takes is a change of attitude. To adapt.

Keywords:
Technology, due process, arbitration proceedings, justice, efficiency

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
González de Cossío, F. (2023). Philosophy of Technology: a reflection about Technology and Arbitration. Revista De Derecho Privado, 1(19), 83–111. https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24487902e.2021.19.17747

References

Alarie, Benjamin et al., “Law in The Future”, The University of Toronto Law Journal, Canadá, vol. 66, num. 4, 2016.

Attali, Jacques, Comment nous protéeger des prochaines crises, Francia, Fayard, 2018.

Bostrom, Nick, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 2014.

Buchanan, Bruce G. y Headrick, Thomas E., “Some Speculation about Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning”, Stanford Law Review, Estados Unidos, vol. 23, num. 1, 1970.

Cuéllar, Mariano-Florentino, “A Common Law for the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Incremental Adjudication, Institutions, and Relational Non-Arbitrariness”, Columbia Law Review, vol. 119, num. 7, 2019.

Domingos, Pedro, The Master Algorithm: How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning Machine Will Remake Our World, Estados Unidos, Basic Books, 2015.

Ezrachi, Ariel y Stuke, Maurice E., Virtual Competition: The Promise and Perils of the Algorithm-Driven Economy, United States of America, Harvard University Press, 2016.

Figueres, Christiana y Rivett-Carnac, Tom, The Future We Choose: Surviving the Climate Crisis, Estados Unidos de América, Alfred A. Knopf, 2020.

Gehl, Katherine M. y Porter, Michael, The Politics Industry: How Political Innovation can break partisan Gridlock and save our Democracy, Estados Unidos de América, Harvard Business Review Press, 2020.

Goldberg, Steven, “NINE. Artificial Intelligence and the Essence of Humanity”, Culture Clash: Law and Science in America, Estados Unidos de América, New York University Press, 1994.

International Council for Commercial Arbitration, “Does a Right to a Physical Hearing exist in International Arbitration? Investigating the Legal, Conceptual and Practical Implications of a Remote Hearings in International Arbitration”, ICCA Reports, num. 10, 2022, available at: https://cdn.arbitration-icca.org/s3fs-public/document/media_document/Right-to-a-Physical-Hearing-General-Report.pdf.

Kahneman, Daniel et al. Noise. A Flaw in Human Judgment, Estados Unidos, Little, Brown Spark, 2021.

Lee, Linda-Eling et al., “Women on boards: Global trends in gender diversity on corporate boards”, MSCI Research Insights, 2015.

Norberg, Johan, Progress: The Reasons to Look Forward to the Future, Reino Unido, Oneworld Book, 2016.

Organización Internacional del Trabajo, “La mujer en la gestión empresarial: Cobrando impulso en América Latina y el Caribe”, Oficina de Actividades para los Empleadores, Suiza, 2017, available at: https://www.ilo.org/public/spanish/dialogue/actemp/downloads/events/2017/lima_conf/wibm_fullreport_2017_sp.pdf.

Rissland, Edwina L., “Artificial Intelligence and Law: Steppingstones to a Model of Legal Reasoning”, The Yale Law Journal, vol. 99, num. 8, 1990.

Robinson, Mary, Climate Justice, Reino Unido, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018.

Robson, David, “The «3.5% rule»: How a small minority can change the world,” BBC Future, Reino Unido, 2019, available at: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world.

Schumpeter, Joseph A., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Estados Unidos de América, HarperPerennial, 1950.

Stern, Nicholas, The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review, Reino Unido, Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Susskind, Richard E., Online Courts, and the Future of Justice, Estados Unidos, Oxford University Press, 2019.

Tegmark, Max, Life 3.0. Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, Estados Unidos, Alfred A. Knopf, 2018.

Werner, Charlotte et al., ¿“Moving women to the top: McKinsey global survey results”, McKinsey & Company, 2010, available at: http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/moving-women-to-the-top-mckinsey-global-survey-results.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Hecho en México, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), todos los derechos reservados 2021.
Esta página y sus contenidos pueden ser reproducidos con fines no lucrativos, siempre y cuando no se mutile, se cite la fuente completa y su dirección electrónica.
De otra forma, requiere permiso previo por escrito de la institución.


Sitio web administrado por el Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas.
Cualquier asunto relacionado con este portal favor de dirigirse a: padiij@unam.mx


Circuito Maestro Mario de la Cueva s/n
Ciudad Universitaria, Alc. Coyoacán
Ciudad de México, C.P. 04510
Tel. +52(55)5622 7474

¿Cómo llegar?

Suscripción a actividades académicas

Aviso de privacidad