诉诸司法与跨国公司:促进私人驱动的跨国混合裁决

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW Uniform Law Review Pub Date : 2024-03-20 DOI:10.1093/ulr/unae009
Rishi Gulati
{"title":"诉诸司法与跨国公司:促进私人驱动的跨国混合裁决","authors":"Rishi Gulati","doi":"10.1093/ulr/unae009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter focuses on the delivery of justice to victims of corporate conduct through privately driven transnational hybrid dispute resolution mechanisms. The advent of such mechanisms is now evident through the creation of Meta’s Oversight Board (‘OSB’). How to incorporate such privately driven justice mechanisms in more conventional forms of legal ordering is an important question constituting the central inquiry of this reflection. Via the example of the OSB, this chapter highlights how some content moderation disputes between Meta, one of the most powerful technology companies today, and its users is being resolved using innovative private adjudicative mechanisms. It is then argued that forums like the OSB should be deferred to. But only if the quality of justice provided is consistent with international standards. Where those standards are met, the broad circulation of decisions made by privately driven adjudicative mechanisms should be promoted. This requires proactive, outcome driven, and coordinated international institutional action.","PeriodicalId":42756,"journal":{"name":"Uniform Law Review","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Access to justice and multinational corporations: promoting privately driven transnational hybrid adjudication\",\"authors\":\"Rishi Gulati\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ulr/unae009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter focuses on the delivery of justice to victims of corporate conduct through privately driven transnational hybrid dispute resolution mechanisms. The advent of such mechanisms is now evident through the creation of Meta’s Oversight Board (‘OSB’). How to incorporate such privately driven justice mechanisms in more conventional forms of legal ordering is an important question constituting the central inquiry of this reflection. Via the example of the OSB, this chapter highlights how some content moderation disputes between Meta, one of the most powerful technology companies today, and its users is being resolved using innovative private adjudicative mechanisms. It is then argued that forums like the OSB should be deferred to. But only if the quality of justice provided is consistent with international standards. Where those standards are met, the broad circulation of decisions made by privately driven adjudicative mechanisms should be promoted. This requires proactive, outcome driven, and coordinated international institutional action.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42756,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Uniform Law Review\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Uniform Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/unae009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Uniform Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/unae009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章的重点是通过私人驱动的跨国混合争端解决机制为公司行为受害者伸张正义。Meta 监督委员会('OSB')的成立表明了这种机制的出现。如何将这种私人驱动的司法机制纳入更为传统的法律秩序形式,是一个重要的问题,也是本次思考的核心问题。通过 OSB 的例子,本章重点介绍了当今最强大的科技公司之一 Meta 与其用户之间的一些内容管理纠纷是如何通过创新的私人裁决机制来解决的。本章认为,像 OSB 这样的论坛应该得到尊重。但前提是所提供的司法质量必须符合国际标准。在符合这些标准的情况下,应促进私人裁决机制所做裁决的广泛传播。这需要积极主动、以结果为导向、协调一致的国际机构行动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Access to justice and multinational corporations: promoting privately driven transnational hybrid adjudication
This chapter focuses on the delivery of justice to victims of corporate conduct through privately driven transnational hybrid dispute resolution mechanisms. The advent of such mechanisms is now evident through the creation of Meta’s Oversight Board (‘OSB’). How to incorporate such privately driven justice mechanisms in more conventional forms of legal ordering is an important question constituting the central inquiry of this reflection. Via the example of the OSB, this chapter highlights how some content moderation disputes between Meta, one of the most powerful technology companies today, and its users is being resolved using innovative private adjudicative mechanisms. It is then argued that forums like the OSB should be deferred to. But only if the quality of justice provided is consistent with international standards. Where those standards are met, the broad circulation of decisions made by privately driven adjudicative mechanisms should be promoted. This requires proactive, outcome driven, and coordinated international institutional action.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊最新文献
Interpretation and application of the CISG by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia: an analysis of the judgment in the Boom Conveyor case Electronic enforcement in the digital era: Themis without a sword The Unidroit Principles and the Shari’ah Standards: any room for cooperation? Dealing with registrations and jurisdiction in aircraft financing Revolutionizing trade finance: leveraging the power of blockchain and AI in electronic letters of credit
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1