Published Paper Details:

The global ascent of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) promises enhanced efficiency and access to justice but poses profound challenges for governance, ethics, and fairness. This paper contends that the development of regulatory standards and ethical guardrails for ODR is not converging on a universal model but is instead fracturing along distinct philosophical and political lines. Through a comparative policy analysis of the United States, the European Union, China, and India, this study identifies four divergent governance paradigms: the decentralized, market-driven model of the U.S.; the rights-based, regulatory model of the EU; the state-integrated, stability-focused model of China; and the leapfrogging, access-to-justice model of India. The analysis shows that each jurisdiction's legal traditions and policy agendas define basic trade-offs between efficiency and due process, innovation and consumer protection, state control and individual rights, and scalability and inclusivity. The U.S. model prioritizes market innovation at the risk of power imbalances; the EU sets high rights standards while potentially stifling technological adoption; China achieves unprecedented scale through state control, raising transparency and data sovereignty concerns; and India's nascent, inclusive-focused model battles the digital divide. The article finds that fragmentation hinders cross-border dispute resolution and global digital justice. It suggests that future international standards should focus on a flexible framework of minimum core principles like algorithmic accountability, meaningful access, and interoperability that can accommodate different governance philosophies while maintaining fairness. The findings show that ODR governance's future is political and will affect the rule of law in the digital era.