The Philosophical and Legal Rationale for a Systematic Analysis of Digital Dispute Resolution Models in Modern Arbitration




traditional arbitration, digital arbitration, crowdsourcing quasi-arbitration, DDRR-2021, Kleros, Aragon, CodeLegit


In the article, the author presents a systematic analysis of models of digital dispute resolution in modern arbitration. The author studied the dispute resolution models on the platforms “Kleros”, “Aragon”, “CodeLegit”, as well as the Draft arbitration rules for smart contracts “JAMS-2018” and the English “DDRR-2021”. The author identifies the following types of models of arbitration dispute resolution: 1) traditional arbitration; 2) traditional arbitration with blockchain elements (a model based on the CodeLegit platform), 3) digital arbitration (“DDRR-2021”). The most important feature and difference of the English “Digital DR Regulation” 2021 is the fact that the entire process from the beginning (occurrence of the case) to the end (execution of the decision) is resolved automatically without the intervention of human arbitrators with the help of an artificial intelligence agent. This is the procedure for resolving a dispute in the field of smart contracts that should be called digital arbitration. The so-called “decentralized arbitration” on the platforms “Kleros”, “Aragon”, “OpenLaw”, “Mattereum Protocol”, “Rhubarb Fund”, “Jury.Online”, “Jur”, “OATH Protocol”, “Juris” and other models of this type does not allow these models to be considered arbitration. The author believes that these models should be conditionally called crowdsourcing quasi-arbitration.


Download data is not yet available.


Aouidef, Y., Ast, F., & Deffains, B. (2021). Decentralized justice: A comparative Analysis of Blockchain online dispute resolution projects. Frontiers in Blockchain. DOI:

Apostolova, K. (2020). The dawn of a new era: Arbitration in the age of AI and digitalisation. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.

Argerich, G, Taquela, M., & Jorge, J. (2020). Could an arbitral award rendered by AI systems be recognized or enforced? Analysis from the perspective of public policy. Kluwer Arbitration Blog. Retrieved May 10, 2023, from

Bergolla, L., Seif, K., & Eken, C. (2022). Kleros: A socio-legal case study of decentralized justice & blockchain arbitration. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 37, 55. DOI:

Eidenmueller, H., & Varesis, F. (2020). What is an arbitration? Artificial intelligence and the vanishing human arbitrator. University of Oxford. University of Cambridge. DOI:

Frolova, E. E., & Rusakova, E. P. (2022). Development of difital technologies for dispute resolution of economic entities as a means of increasing economic stability. Advances in Research on Russian Business and Management, 65-73.

Gudkov, A. (2020). On fiduciary relationship with Artificial intelligence systems. Liverpool Law Review, 41(3), 251-273. DOI:

Janssen, A., & Vennmanns, T. (2021). Smart dispute resolution in the digital age. The potential of smart contracts and online dispute resolution for dispute prevention and resolution in consumer law cases. International Journal on Consumer Law and Practice, 9(7), 52-73.

Kenyon, S., Jewell, D., Mears, Ch., & Gokarn-Millington, S. (2021). The UKJT digital dispute resolution rules ñ Keeping pace with change. DLA Piper. Retrieved May 10, 2023, from

Koleilat-Aranjo, S., & Dilevka, S. (2020). Use of modern technology in arbitration: Evolution through necessity. Law Business Research. Retrieved May 10, 2023, from

L?giewska, M. (2022). Chapter 11. The new landscape of arbitration in view of digitalization. In The impact of covid on international disputes (pp. 208-217). DOI:

Metzger, J. (2019). The current landscape of blockchain-based, crowdsourced arbitration. Macquarie Law Journal, 19, 81-101. Retrieved May 10, 2023, from

Rusakova, E. P. (2022). Sud KLEROS: Revolyutsiya li protsessa razresheniya sporov? (KLEROS Court: Is the dispute resolution process a revolution?, in Russian). Gaps in Russian Legislation, 15(5), 278-281.

Schaffer-Goddard, J. (2022). Digital dispute resolution rules: Challenging awards under the Arbitration Act 1996. Retrieved May 10, 2023, from

Scott, K., Brown, S., Flakoll, R., & Ossio, D. (2022). Arbitration for cryptoassets and smart contract disputes. Clifford Chance. Retrieved May 10, 2023, from

Singh, V., & Bahmani, M. (2021). Arbitration agreement and arbitral award: The online perspective. Journal of National Law University Delhi, 8(1ñ2), 45-61. DOI:

Zasemkova, O. (2020). On ways to resolve disputes arising from smart contracts. Lex Russica, 73(4), 9-20. DOI:




How to Cite

ERMAKOVA, E. (2023). The Philosophical and Legal Rationale for a Systematic Analysis of Digital Dispute Resolution Models in Modern Arbitration. WISDOM, 28(4), 147–154.



Philosophy of Law