Abrahams, B. and Zeleznikow, J. 2008a. Asset Negotiation in Trade-Off Support with a Multi-Agent Environment. Proceedings of First International Conference on Human Factors and Computational Models in Negotiation (HUCOM 2008), Hindriks, K. and Brinkman, W. (eds.), Delft, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Abrahams, B. and Zeleznikow, J. 2008b. A Multi-Agent Architecture for Online Dispute Resolution Services. Expanding the Horizons of ODR: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Online Dispute Resolution, Poblet, M. (ed.), CEUR Workshop Proceedings Series (CEUR-WS.org), Vol. 430, Florence, Italy, 13 December 2008, pp. 51–61.Google Scholar

Abrahams, B. and Zeleznikow, J. 2009. Resolving Family Law Disputes with a Multi-Agent Based Negotiation Support System. Proceedings of GDN2009, the 10th Annual Meeting INFORMS Section on Group Decision and Negotiation, Toronto, Ontario, 14–17 June. Online, available at: http://info.wlu.ca/~wwwmath/faculty/kilgour/gdn/papers.htm (last accessed 26 August 2009).Google Scholar

Adelstein, R. and Miceli, T.J. 2001. Toward a Comparative Economics of Plea Bargaining. European Journal of Law and Economics, 11(1): 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alexander, R. 1997. Family Mediation: Friend or Foe for Women. Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal, 8(4): 255–266.Google Scholar

Ashley, K. 1992. Case-Based Reasoning and its Implications for Legal Expert Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1: 113–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Astor, H. and Chinkin, C.M. 2002. Dispute Resolution in Australia, 2nd edn, Sydney: LexisNexis Butterworths.Google Scholar

Baldwin, J. and McConville, M. 1977. Negotiated Justice: Pressures to Plead Guilty, London: Martin Robertson.Google Scholar

Ball, W.J. 1994. Using Virgil to Analyse Public Policy Arguments: A System Based on Toulmin's Informal Logic. Social Science Computer Review, 12(1): 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barendrecht, J.M. and Vries, B.R. 2004. Fitting the Forum to the Fuss with Sticky Defaults: Failure on the Market for Dispute Resolution Services? Working Paper (SSRN 572042).

Bellucci, E. 2004. Developing Compensation Strategies for the Construction of Negotiation Decision Support Systems. PhD thesis, La Trobe University, Bundoora 3086, Victoria, Australia.

Bellucci, E 2008. AssetDivider: A New Mediation Tool in Australian Family Law. Proceedings of the First International Working Conference on Human Factors and Computational Models in Negotiation, Hindriks, Koen V. and Brinkman, Willem-Paul (eds.), Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, pp. 11–18.Google Scholar

Bellucci, E. and Zeleznikow, J. 1997. Family-Negotiator: an Intelligent Decision Support System for Negotiation in Australian Family Law. Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the International Society for Decision Support Systems, International Society for Decision Support Systems, Lausanne, pp. 359–373.Google Scholar

Bellucci, E 1998. A Comparative Study of Negotiation Decision Support Systems. Proceedings of Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, California, pp. 254–262.Google Scholar

Bellucci, E 2001. Representations for Decision Making Support in Negotiation. Journal of Decision Support, 10(3–4): 449–479.Google Scholar

Bellucci, E 2005a. Managing Negotiation Knowledge with the Goal of Developing Negotiation Decision Support Systems. Proceedings of the 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Campbell, Bruce, Underwood, Jim and Bunker, Deborah (eds.), Sydney: Australasian Chapter of the Association for Information Systems.Google Scholar

Bellucci, E 2005b. Managing Negotiation Knowledge: from Negotiation Support to Online Dispute Resolution. Proceedings of Second International ODR Workshop, Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Wolf Legal Publishers, pp. 11–22.Google Scholar

Bellucci, E. and Zeleznikow, J. 2006. Developing Negotiation Decision Support Systems that Support Mediators: a Case Study of the Family_Winner System. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law, 13(2): 233–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bellucci, E., Lodder, A. and Zeleznikow, J. 2004. Integrating Artificial Intelligence, Argumentation and Game Theory to Develop an Online Dispute Resolution Environment. Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence ICTAI04, Khoshgoftaar, T.M. (ed.), IEEE Computer Society Press, 15–17 November, Los Alamitos, California, pp. 749–754.Google Scholar

Bench-Capon, T.J.M, Lowes, D. and McEnery, A.M. 1991. Argument-based Explanation of Logic Programs. Knowledge Based Systems, 4(3): 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bentham, J. 1988 (1789). The Principles of Morals and Legislation, Amherst: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar

Bibas, S. 2004. Plea Bargaining outside the Shadow of the Trial. Harvard Law Review, 117: 2464–2547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bibas, S 2006. Transparency and Participation in Criminal Procedure. New York University Law Review, 81: 911–966.Google Scholar

Bjurulf, B. and Elgstrom, O. 2004. Negotiating Transparency, in: Elgstrom, O. and Jonsson, C. (eds.), European Union Negotiations: Processes, Networks and Institutions, London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Black, H.C. 1990. Black's Law Dictionary, St. Paul: West Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Blanchard, R.E. 1993. Situation Awareness – Transition from Theory to Practice. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society: 32nd Annual Meeting, Santa Monica: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 39–42.Google Scholar

Bol, S.H. 2005. An Analysis of the Role of Different Players in E-mediation: the (Legal) Implications. Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on ODR, Wolf Legal Publishers, pp. 23–29.Google Scholar

Bellucci, E 2007. Mediation en Internet, Analyse van juridische regels en noodzakelijke waarborgen voor mediation op internet, The Hague: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar

Brams, S.J. and Taylor, A.D. 1996. Fair Division, from Cake Cutting to Dispute Resolution, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Branting, L.K. 1994. A Computational Model of Ratio Decidendi. Artificial Intelligence and Law: an International Journal, 2: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brin, D. 2000. Disputation Arenas: Harnessing Conflict and Competitiveness for Society's Benefit. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 15: 597–617.Google Scholar

Brown, H.J. and Marriott, A.L. 1999. ADR: Principles and Practice, 2nd edn, London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar

Carroll, J.M., Neale, D.C., Isenhour, P.L., Rosson, M.B. and McCrickard, D.S. 2003. Notification and Awareness: Synchronizing Task-Oriented Collaborative Activity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(5): 605–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chandar, S. and Zeleznikow, J. 2009. Risks to Consider when Negotiating IT Outsourcing Agreements. Proceedings of GDN2009, the 10th Annual Meeting INFORMS section on Group Decision and Negotiation, Toronto, Ontario, 14–17 June. Online, available at: http://info.wlu.ca/~wwwmath/faculty/kilgour/gdn/papers.htm (last accessed 26 August 2009).Google Scholar

Charlton, R. 2000. Dispute Resolution Guidebook, Sydney: LBC Information Service.Google Scholar

Clark, P. 1991. A Model of Argumentation and its Application in a Cooperative Expert System. PhD thesis, Turing Institute, Department of Computer Science, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.

Clegg, S. 1994. Power Relations and the Constitution of the Resistant Subject, in: Jermier, J.M., Knights, D. and Nord, W.E. (eds.), Resistance and Power in Organizations, London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Condliffe, P. 2009. Preferences and Justice in Alternative Dispute Resolution. Proceedings of GDN2009, the 10th Annual Meeting INFORMS section on Group Decision and Negotiation, Kilgour, M. and Wang, Q. (eds.), Toronto, Ontario, 14–17 June, p. 48.Google Scholar

Cooter, R. and Rubinfeld, D. 1994. An Economic Model of Legal Discovery. Journal of Legal Studies, 23: 435–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cortes Dieguez, J.P. 2008. Developing Online Dispute Resolution for Consumers in the European Union, PhD thesis, University College of Cork.

Cowdery, N. 2005. Creative Sentencing and Plea Bargaining: Does it Happen and What Are the Results?, LawAsia Biennial Conference: LawAsia Downunder 2.

Vries, B., Leenes, R. and Zeleznikow, J. 2005. Fundamentals of Providing Negotiation Advice Online: the Need for Developing BATNAs. Proceedings of Second International ODR Workshop, Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, pp. 59–67.Google Scholar

Dick, J. 1987. Conceptual Retrieval and Case Law. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Boston: ACM Press, pp. 106–115.Google Scholar

Dickey, A. 1990. Family Law, Sydney: The Law Book Company.Google Scholar

Douglas, R. and Toulson, D. 1999. WIRE Intelligent Quantum (WIRE IQ) – Tort Evaluation by Precedent instead of ‘Rules’. Proceedings of Twelfth International Conference on Legal Knowledge Based Systems, Nijmegen: GNI, pp. 127–128.Google Scholar

Druckman, D. 1977. Negotiations, London: Sage.Google Scholar

Druckman, D 2005. Doing Research: Methods of Inquiry for Conflict Analysis, London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Druckman, D. and Albin, C. 2008. Distributive Justice and the Durability of Negotiated Agreements, The Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, Occasional Papers Series, 10, Brisbane, Queensland.Google Scholar

Dufner, D., Kwon, O. and Hadidi, R. 1999. Web-CCAT: A Collaborative Learning Environment for Geographically Distributed Information Technology Students and Working Professionals. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 1(12).Google Scholar

Edwards, H. 1985. Alternative Dispute Resolution: Panacea or Anathema?Harvard Law Review, 99: 668–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eidelman, J.A. 1993. Software for Negotiations. Law Practice Management, 19(7): 50–55.Google Scholar

Eisenberg, M.A. 1976. Private Ordering through Negotiation: Dispute Settlement and Rulemaking. Harvard Law Review, 89: 637–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Elisha, S. and Wiltgen, T. 2006. Resolving Condominium Disputes: Mediation Works. 10Hawaii Bar Journal 1.Google Scholar

Endsley, M.R. 1995. Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems. Human Factors, 37(1): 32–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ewing, D.W. 1989. Justice on the Job: Resolving Grievances in the Nonunion Workplace, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar

Fabri, M. and Contini, F. (eds.). 2001. Justice and Technology in Europe: How ICT is Changing the Judicial Business, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

Fayyad, U., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G. and Smyth, P. 1996. The KDD Process for Extracting Useful Knowledge from Volumes of Data. Communications ACM, 39(11): 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finel, B. and Lord, K. 1999. The Surprising Logic of Transparency. International Studies Quarterly, 43: 315–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fisher, R. and Ury, W. 1981. Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar

Fisher, R., Kopelman, E. and Kupfer-Schneider, A. 1994. Beyond Machiavelli. Tools for Coping with Conflict, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Fletcher, R. 2008. Mothers and Fathers Accessing Family Relationship Centres. Family Relationships Quarterly, 10: 3–5.Google Scholar

Folberg, J. and Taylor, A. 1984. Mediation: A Comprehensive Guide to Resolving Conflicts without Litigation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Freeman, J.B. 1991. Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments, Berlin: Floris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gazal-Ayal, Oren. 2006. Partial Ban on Plea Bargains. Cardozo Law Review, 27: 2295–2349.Google Scholar

Goldberg, S., Green, E. and Sander, F. 1985. Dispute Resolution, Boston: Little Brown and Company.Google Scholar

Goldring, J. 1976. Australian Law and International Commercial Arbitration. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 15: 216–252.Google Scholar

Gordon, T.F. 1995. The Pleadings Game: An Exercise in Computational Dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2(4): 239–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gray, P., Gray, X. and Zeleznikow, J. 2007. Decision Negotiating Logic: For Richer or Poorer. Proceedings of Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Winkels, R. (ed.), Palo Alto: ACM Press, pp. 247–251.Google Scholar

Gray, P.N., Tierney, R., Gray, X. and Treanor, L.M. 2006. eGanges: Pervasive Peacemaker. Proceedings of the first International Symposium on Pervasive Computing and Applications, Urumchi, China.Google Scholar

Grover, A. 2002. More Security is Needed For Online ADR Applications. 20 Alternatives to High Cost Litig. 135.

Gruber, T.R. 1995. Towards Principles for the Design of Ontologies used for Knowledge Sharing. Intl J Human-Computer Studies, 43: 907–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gutwin, C. and Greenberg, S. 1998. Effects of Awareness Support on Groupware Usability. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Los Angeles, pp. 511–518.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. 1973. Wahrheitstheorien, in: Fahrenbach, H. (ed.), Wirklichkeit und Reflexion, Pfüllingen: Neske, pp. 211–265.Google Scholar

Hall, M.J.J., Calabro, D., Sourdin, T., Stranieri, A. and Zeleznikow, J. 2005. Supporting Discretionary Decision Making with Information Technology: A Case Study in the Criminal Sentencing Jurisdiction. University of Ottawa Law and Technology Journal, 2(1): 1–36.Google Scholar

Heumann, Milton. 1981. Plea Bargaining: The Experiences of Prosecutors, Judges, and Defense Attorneys, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hodge, William, Harrison, Rodney and Colgan, Graeme. 2005. Plea Bargaining. Commonwealth Law Journal, 7: 1112.Google Scholar

Hofstede, G. 1989. Cultural Predictors of Negotiation Styles, in: Mautner-Markhof, F. (ed.), Process of International Negotiations, Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 193–201.Google Scholar

Hollander Blumoff, R. 1997. Getting to ‘Guilty’: Plea Bargaining as Negotiation. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 2: 115–148.Google Scholar

Holsapple, C.W. and Whinston, A.B. 1996. Decision Support Systems – a Knowledge Based Approach, St. Paul: West Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Honeyman, C. 1985. Patterns of Bias in Mediation. Missouri Journal of Dispute Resolution, 141–150.

Hörnle, J. 2009. Cross-border Internet Dispute Resolution, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howard, R.A. and Matheson, J.E. 1981. Influence Diagrams, in: Howard, R.A. and Matheson, J.E., Readings on the Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis, Vol. 2, Menlo Park, CA: Strategic Decision Group.Google Scholar

Hunt, A. and Thomas, D. 2000. The Pragmatic Programmer, Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Hutchinson, B., Tilman, V., Lodder, A.R., Borri, A. and Gouimenou, J. 2009. CEN/ISS [Draft] Workshop Agreement on Standardisation of Online Dispute Resolution Tools.

Iosif, V., Mika, P., Larsson, R. and Akkermans, H. 2003. Field Experimenting with Semantic Web Tools in a Virtual Organisation, in: Davies, J., Fensel, D. and Harmelen, F. (eds.), Towards the Semantic Web, Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Jameson, J.K. 2001. Employee Perceptions of the Availability and Use of Interest-Based, Right-Based, and Power-Based Conflict Management Strategies. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 19(2): 163–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jennings, N.R., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A.R., Parsons, S., Sierra, C. and Wooldridge, M. 2000. Automated Haggling: Building Artificial Negotiators. Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, p. 1.

Johnson, P.E., Zualkernan, I.A. and Tukey, D. 1993. Types of Expertise: An Invariant of Problem Solving. International Journal of Man Machine Studies, 39: 641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. 1995. Conflict Resolution: A Cognitive Perspective, in: Arrow, K.et al. (eds.), Barriers to Conflict Resolution, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, pp. 44–60.Google Scholar

Kannai, R., Schild, U. and Zeleznikow, J. 2007. Modeling the Evolution of Legal Discretion – an Artificial Intelligence Approach. Ratio Juris, 20(4): 530–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Katsh, E. and Rifkin, J. 2001. Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Kaufman-Kohler, G. and Schultz, T. 2004. Online Dispute Resolution: Challenges for Contemporary Justice, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar

Keller, W. 1996. Disparate Treatment of Spouse Murder Defendants. S. Cal. Rev. L. & Women's Stud, 6: 255–280.Google Scholar

Kennedy, G., McMillan, J. and Benson, J. 1984. Managing Negotiations, 2nd edn, London: Hutchinson Business.Google Scholar

Kersten, G.E. 1997. Support for Group Decisions and Negotiations, in: Climaco, J. (ed.), An Overview, in Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Support, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar

Kersten, G.E 2001. Modeling Distributive and Integrative Negotiations. Review and Revised Characterization. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(6): 493–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kersten, G.E. and Noronha, S.J. 1997. Supporting International Negotiations with a WWW-based System, Interim Report, IIASA, Austria.Google Scholar

Kersten, G.E 1999. Negotiation via the World Wide Web: A Cross-Cultural Study of Decision Making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8: 251–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klein, M.C.A., Steenbergen, W. van, Uijttenbroek, E.M., Lodder, A.R. and van Harmelen, F. 2006. Thesaurus-based Retrieval of Case Law, in: Engers, T. (ed.), JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, Berlin and Tokyo: IOS Press, pp. 61–70.Google Scholar

Kochan, T. 1992. Walton and McKersie's Behavioral Theory of Labor Relations: An Industrial Relations Perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13: 289–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kolodner, J.L. and Simpson, R.L. 1989. The Mediator: Analysis of an Early Case-Based Problem Solver. Cognitive Science, 13(4): 507–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Korobkin, R. 2006. Psychological Impediments to Mediation Success: Theory and Practise. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 21: 281–238.Google Scholar

Kraus, S. 2001. Strategic Negotiation in Multi-Agent Environments, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kraus, S., Sycara, K. and Evenchik, A. 1998. Reaching Agreements through Argumentation: A Logical Model and Implementation. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 104(1–2): 1–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kraus, S., Hoz-Weiss, P., Wilkenfeld, J., Andersen, D. and Pate, A. 2008. Resolving Crises through Automated Bilateral Negotiations. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 172(1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kydd, A. 2003. Which Side Are You On? Bias, Credibility, and Mediation. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4): 597–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Larson, D.A. 2006. Technology Mediated Dispute Resolution (TMDR): A New Paradigm. Ohio State Journal of Dispute Resolution, 629.Google Scholar

Lax, D.A. and Sebenius, J. 1986. The Manager as Negotiator, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Lewicki, R.J., Saunders, D.M. and Minton, J.W. 1999. Zone of Potential Agreement in Negotiation, 3rd edn, Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin-McGraw Hill.Google Scholar

Lewicki, R.J., Barry, B., Saunders, D.M. and Minton, J.W. 2003. Negotiation, 4th edn, New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Google Scholar

Llewellyn, K. 1962. Jurisprudence, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lodder, A.R. 1999. Dialaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lodder, A.R 2002a. European Union E-Commerce Directive – Article by Article Comments. Guide to European Union Law on E-Commerce, in: Lodder, A.R. and Kaspersen, , (eds.), eDirectives, The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1009945.Google Scholar

Lodder, A.R 2002b. Online Negotiation and Mediation: Is There Room for Argument Support Tools? Paper presented at the 17th bileta Annual Conference. Online, available at: www.bileta.ac.uk/Document%20Library/1/Online%20Negotiation%20and%20Mediation%20-%20Is%20There%20Room%20for%20Argument%20Support%20Tools.pdf (last accessed 9 November 2008).

Lodder, A.R 2004. Man and Machine: What's the Difference. JAVI, 3(1): 20–21.Google Scholar

Lodder, A.R 2006. The Third Party and Beyond: An Analysis of the Different Parties, in Particular the Fifth, Involved in Online Dispute Resolution. Information and Communication Technology Law, 15(2). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1269562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lodder, A.R. and Herczog, A. 1995 DiaLaw: A Dialogical Framework for Modeling Legal Reasoning, Proceedings of Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York: ACM Press, pp. 146–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lodder, A.R. and Huygen, P. 2001. eADR: A Simple Tool to Structure the Information Exchange Between Parties in Online Alternative Dispute Resolution. Legal Knowledge and the Information Systems JURIX 2001: The Fourteenth Annual Conference, pp. 117–129.

Lodder, A.R. and Oskamp, A. (eds.). 2006. Information Technology and Lawyers. Advanced Technology in the Legal Domain, from Challenges to Daily Routine, Berlin: Springer.

Lodder, A.R. and Zeleznikow, J. 2005. Developing an Online Dispute Resolution Environment: Dialogue Tools and Negotiation Systems in a Three Step Model. The Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 10: 287–338.Google Scholar

Loui, R.P. and Norman, J. 1995. Rationales and Argument Moves. Artificial Intelligence & Law, 3: 159–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Loui, R.P., Norman, J., Olson, J. and Merill, A. 1993. A Design for Reasoning with Policies, Precedents and Rationales. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York: ACM Press, pp. 202–211.Google Scholar

Loui, R.P., Norman, J., Alpeter, J., Pinkard, D., Craven, D., Linsday, J. and Foltz, M. 1997. Progress on Room 5: A Testbed for Public Interactive Semi-Formal Legal Argumentation. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York: ACM Press, pp. 207–214.Google Scholar

Mack, K. and Roach Anleu, S. 1995. Balancing Principle and Pragmatism: Guilty Pleas. Journal of Judicial Administration, 4(4): 232–239.Google Scholar

Mack, K 1996. Guilty Pleas: Discussions and Agreements. Journal of Judicial Administration, 6(8): 9.Google Scholar

Mack, K 1997. Sentence Discount for a Guilty Plea: Time for a New Look. Flinders Journal of Law Reform, 1: 123.Google Scholar

Mack, K 1998. Reform of Pre-Trial Criminal Procedure: Guilty Pleas. Criminal Law Journal, 22: 263.Google Scholar

Mackenzie, G., Vincent, A. and Zeleznikow, J. 2007. Decision Support for Criminal Sentencing and Plea Bargaining. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Law and Technology (IASTEAD), 24–26 September 2007, Berkeley, pp. 49–59.Google Scholar

Mackenzie, G 2008. Negotiating about Charges and Pleas – Balancing Interests and Justice, in: Climaco, J., Kersten, G. and Costa, J.P. (eds.), Proceedings of Group Decision and Negotiation 2008, Portugal: INESC Coimbra, pp. 167–180.Google Scholar

Marshall, Catherine. 1989. Representing the Structure of Legal Argument. Proceedings of Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York: ACM Press, pp. 121–127.Google Scholar

Matthijssen, L. 1999. Interfacing between Lawyers and Computers. An Architecture for Knowledge Based Interfaces to Legal Databases, Dordrecht: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar

Matwin, S., Szpakowicz, S., Koperczak, Z., Kersten, G.E. and Michalowski, G. 1989. NEGOPLAN: An Expert System Shell for Negotiation Support. IEEE Expert, 4(4): 50–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McEwen, C., Rogers, N. and Maiman, R. 1995. Bring in the Lawyers: Challenging the Dominant Approaches to Ensuring Fairness in Divorce Mediation. Minnesota Law Review, 79: 1317–1412.Google Scholar

Milnor, J. 1998. John Nash and ‘A Beautiful Mind’. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 45(10): 1329–1332.Google Scholar

Mnookin, R. 2003. When Not to Negotiate. University of Colorado Law Review, 74: 1077–1107.Google Scholar

Mnookin, R. and Kornhauser, L. 1979. Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce. Yale Law Journal, 88: 950–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mnookin, R. and Ross, L. 1995. Introduction, in: Arrow, K.et al. (eds.), Barriers to Conflict Resolution, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, pp. 17–18.Google Scholar

Mnookin, R., Peppet, S.R. and Tulumello, A.S. 2000. Beyond Winning: Negotiating to Create Value in Deals and Disputes, Cambridge, MA: The Belnap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Mollen, S. 1999. Alternate Dispute Resolution of Condominium and Cooperative Conflicts. St John's Law Journal, 75.Google Scholar

Murninghan, J.K. 1986. Organizational Coalitions: Structural Contingencies and the Formation Process, in: Lewicki, R.J., Sheppard, B.H. and Bazerman, M.H. (eds.), Research on Negotiations in Organizations, Vol 1., Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar

Nakano, R. 2001. Web Content Management: A Collaborative Approach, Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Nasar, S. 1994. A Beautiful Mind: A Biography of John Forbes Nash, Jr., Winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar

Nash, J. 1950. Non-Cooperative Games. PhD thesis, Princeton University.

Nash, J 1953. Two Person Cooperative Games. Econometrica, 21: 128–140.

Neale, M.A. and Bazerman, M.H. 1983. The Role of Perspective-taking Ability in Negotiating under Different Forms of Arbitration. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 36: 378–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Neale, M.A 1991. Cognition and Rationality in Negotiation, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Nitta, K. and Shibasaki, M. 1997. Defeasible Reasoning in Japanese Criminal Jurisprudence. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 5: 139–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

O'Malley, P. 1983. Law, Capitalism, and Democracy: A Sociology of the Australian Legal Order, London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

Oskamp, A., Lodder, A.R. and Apistola, M. (eds.). 2004. IT Support of the Judiciary: Australia, Singapore, Venezuela, Norway, the Netherlands and Italy, The Hague: Asser Press.CrossRef

Orwell, G. 1945. Animal Farm, London: Secker and Warburg.Google Scholar

Osborne, M.J. and Rubinstein, A. 1990. Bargaining and Markets, San Francisco: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar

Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1969. The New Rhetoric, translated by Wilkenson, J. and Weaver, P., University of Notre Dame Press. Originally published in 1958 in French as Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1958. La Nouvelle Rhétorique: Traité de l'Argumentation, Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar

Peterson, D. 2008. What Determines Success in Negotiating? How to Improve as a Negotiator and Mediator. Online, available at: www.sbcadre.org/articles/0027.htm (last accessed 6 September 2009).

Peterson, M. and Waterman, D.A. 1985. Evaluating Civil Claims: An Expert Systems Approach to Evaluating Liability Cases, in: Walter, C. (ed.), Computer Power and Legal Reasoning, St. Paul: West Publishing Company, pp. 627–659.Google Scholar

Phegan, R. 1995. The Family Mediation System: An Art of Distributions. McGill Law Journal, 40: 365.Google Scholar

Pierani, Marco. 2005. ODR Developments under a Consumer Perspective: The Italian Case. Proceedings of Second International ODR Workshop, Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, pp. 43–45.Google Scholar

Pruitt, D.G. 1981. Negotiation Behavior, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Pruitt, D.G and Carnevale, P.J. 1993. Negotiation in Social Conflict, Maidenhead and Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar

Pryles, M.C. 2002. Dispute Resolution in Asia, 2nd edn, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar

Quirchmayr, G. 2006. Internet, WWW and beyond, in: Lodder, A.R. and Oskamp, A. (eds.), Information Technology and Lawyers, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 137–163.Google Scholar

Raiffa, H. 1968. Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choice under Uncertainty, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.Google Scholar

Raiffa, H 1982. The Art and Science of Negotiation: How to Resolve Conflicts and Get the Best Out of Bargaining, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.Google Scholar

Raiffa, H., Richardson, J. and Metcalfe, D. 2002. Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar

Raines, S. and Conley Tyler, M. 2007. From eBay to Eternity: Advances in Online Dispute Resolution. University of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No. 200. Online, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=955968 (last accessed 31 August 2009).

Raith, M.G. 2000. Fair Negotiation Procedures. Mathematical Social Sciences, 39(3): 303–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reimer, U., Brockhausen, P., Lau, Th. and Reich, J. 2003. Ontology-based Knowledge Management at Work: The Swiss Life Case Studies, in: Davies, J., Fensel, D. and Harmelen, F. (eds.), Towards the Semantic Web, Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Riskin, L. 1996. Understanding Mediators' Orientations, Strategies, and Techniques: A Grid for the Perplexed. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 7: 25.

Rissland, E., Ashley, K. and Branting, L.K. 2005. Case-Based Reasoning and Law. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 20(3): 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ross, H.L. 1980. Settled Out of Court, New York: Aldine.Google Scholar

Ross, L. 1995. Reactive Devaluation in Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, in: Arrow, K.J., Mnookin, R.H., Ross, L., Tversky, A. and Wilson, R., Barriers to Conflict Resolution, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, pp. 26–42.Google Scholar

Roth, A.E. 1979. Axiomatic Models of Bargaining. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems No. 170. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rubin, J.Z. and Sander, F.E. 1991. Culture, Negotiation, and the Eye of the Beholder. Negotiation Journal, 6: 249–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rule, C. 2002. Online Dispute Resolution for Businesses, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Rusanow, G. 2003. Knowledge Management and the Smarter Lawyer, New York: ALM Publishing.Google Scholar

Saaty, T. 1980. The Analytical Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority, Allocation, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Saaty, T 1994. How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Interfaces, 19: 19–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Saaty, T 2005. Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process, Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.Google Scholar

Sander, F. 1976. Varieties of Dispute Processing, 70 Federal Rules Decisions 111.

Sander, F 2002. Some Concluding Thoughts. Ohio State Journal of Dispute Resolution, 17: 205–211.Google Scholar

Schelling, T.C. 1958. The Strategy of Conflict: Prospectives for a Re-orientation of Game Theory. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(3): 203–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schiavetta, S. 2008. Electronic Alternative Dispute Resolution – Increasing Access To Justice Via Procedural Protections, PhD thesis, University of Oslo.

Schild, U. 1998. Decision Support for Criminal Sentencing. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6(4): 151–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schild, U. and Zeleznikow, J. 2008. The Three Laws of Robotics Revisited. International Journal of Intelligent Systems Technologies & Applications, 4(3–4): 254–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schlobohm, D.A. and Waterman, D.A. 1987. Explanation for an Expert System that Performs Estate Planning. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Boston: ACM Press, pp. 18–27.Google Scholar

Schultz, T. 2005. Réguler le commerce électronique par la résolution des litiges en ligne, Brussels: Bruylant.Google Scholar

Scott, R. and Stuntz, W. 1992. Plea Bargaining as Contract. The Yale Law Journal, 101(8): 1909–1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sebenius, J.K. 2007. Negotiation Analysis: Between Decisions and Games, in: Edwards, W., Miles, R. and Winterfeldt, D. (eds.), Advances in Decision Analysis, Cambridge University Press, pp. 469–488.Google Scholar

Seifman, R.S. and Freiberg, A. 2001. Plea Bargaining in Victoria: The Role of Counsel. Criminal Law Journal, 25(2): 63–74.

Senger, J. 2004. Decision Analysis in Negotiation. Marquette Law Review, 87: 723–735.Google Scholar

Shapiro, D.L. and Brett, J.M. 1993. Comparing Three Processes Underlying Judgments of Procedural Justice: A Field Study of Mediation and Arbitration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(6): 1167–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shavell, S. 2003. Economic Analysis of Litigation and the Legal Process. Discussion Paper No. 404, John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics, and Business, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Simon, H.A. 1957. Models of Man, New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Simpson, R. 1985. A Computer Model of Case-Based Reasoning in Problem Solving. Doctoral dissertation, School of Information and Computer Science, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.

Solovay, N. and Reed, C.K. 2003. The Internet and Dispute Resolution Untangling the Web, New York: Law Journal Press.Google Scholar

Sourdin, T. 2005. Alternative Dispute Resolution, 2nd edn, Australia: Lawbook Co, Thomsons.Google Scholar

Stipanowich, T.J. 2004. ADR and the ‘Vanishing Trial’: The Growth and Impact of ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1(3): 843–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stranieri, A. and Zeleznikow, J. 2005. Knowledge Discovery from Legal Databases, Vol. 69, Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stranieri, A., Yearwood, J. and Meikle, T. 2000. The Dependency of Discretion and Consistency on Knowledge Representation. International Review of Law Computers and Technology, 14: 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stranieri, A., Zeleznikow, J. and Yearwood, J. 2001. Argumentation Structures that Integrate Dialectical and Monoletical Reasoning. Knowledge Engineering Review, 16(4): 331–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stranieri, A., Zeleznikow, J., Gawler, M. and Lewis, B. 1999. A Hybrid – Neural Approach to the Automation of Legal Reasoning in the Discretionary Domain of Family Law in Australia. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 7(2–3): 153–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stuckenschmidt, H., Harmelen, F., Waard, A., Scerri, T., Bhogal, R., Buel, J., Crowlesmith, I., Fluit, Ch., Kampman, A., Broekstra, J. and Mulligen, E. 2004. Exploring Large Document Repositories with RDF Technology: The DOPE Project. IEEE Intelligent Expert, 19(3): 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stulberg, J. 2000. Mediation, Democracy and Cyberspace. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 15: 619–642.Google Scholar

Stuntz, W. 2004. Plea Bargaining and Criminal Law's Disappearing Shadow. Harvard Law Review, 117: 2548–2560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sycara, K. 1993. Machine Learning for Intelligent Support of Conflict Resolution. Decision Support Systems, 10: 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sycara, K 1998. Multiagent Systems. AI Magazine, 19(2): 79–92.Google Scholar

Tata, C. 2000. Resolute Ambivalence: Why Judiciaries do not Institutionalise their Decision Support Systems?International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 14: 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thian, Y.S. 2004. Singapore, in: Oskamp, A., Lodder, A.R. and Apistola, M. (eds.), IT Support of the Judiciary: Australia, Singapore, Venezuela, Norway, the Netherlands and Italy, The Hague: Asser Press, pp. 45–70.Google Scholar

Thiessen, E.M. 1993. ICANS: An Interactive Computer-Assisted Multi-party Negotiation Support System. PhD dissertation, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, Dissertation Abstracts International, 172p.

Thiessen, E.M. and McMahon, J.P. 2000. Beyond Win–Win in Cyberspace. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 15: 643.Google Scholar

Thiessen, E.M., Loucks, D.P. and Stedinger, J.R. 1998. Computer-Assisted Negotiations of Water Resources Conflicts. Group Decision and Negotiation Journal, 7(2): 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thompson, L. 1991. Information Exchange in Negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27: 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tor, Avishalom, Gazal-Ayal, Oren and Garcia, Stephen M. 2006. Substantive Fairness and Comparative Evaluation in Plea Bargain Decision Making. Available at SSRN.

Toulmin, S. 1958. The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ury, W.L., Brett, J.M. and Goldberg, S.B. 1988. Getting Disputes Resolved, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Boven, L., Gilovich, T. and Medvec, V. 2003. The Illusion of Transparency in Negotiations. Negotiation Journal, 19(2): 117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laarschot, R., Steenbergen, W., Stuckenschmidt, H., Lodder, A.R. and Harmelen, F. 2005. The Legal Concepts and the Layman's Terms. Bridging the Gap through Ontology-Based Reasoning about Liability. JURIX 2005, IOS Press, pp. 115–125.Google Scholar

Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. 1947. The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 2nd edn, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Vincent, A. and Zeleznikow, J. 2005. Toulmin-Based Computational Modelling of Judicial Discretion in Sentencing. Proceedings ofThe Uses of Argument, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 18–21 May, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, pp. 465–475.Google Scholar

Vincent, A 2006. Discretionary Judicial Sentencing: Decision Making and Decision Support, in: Hafner, Carole and O'Rourke, Maureen (eds.), Law and Technology: LawTech 2006, Calgary: ACTA Press, pp. 119–126.Google Scholar

Vincent, A 2007. The De-Socialisation of the Courts, Sentencing Decision Support and Plea Bargaining. International Review of Law Computers & Technology, 21(2): 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vincent, A., Sourdin, T. and Zeleznikow, J. 2007. Criminal Sentencing, Intuition and Decision Support, in: Elleithy, K. (ed.), Advances and Innovations in Systems, Computing Sciences and Software Engineering, Berlin: Springer, pp. 41–46.Google Scholar

Wright, G.H. 1972. The Logic of Preference Reconsidered. Theory and Decision, 3(2): 140–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vreeswijk, G.A.W. and Lodder, A.R. 2005. GearBi: Towards an Online Arbitration Environment Based on the Design Principles Simplicity, Awareness, Orientation, and Timeliness. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 13(2): 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, D. 2004. A New Dialectical Theory of Explanation. Philosophical Explorations, 7: 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walton, R.E. and McKersie, R.B. 1965. A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Wang, F.F. 2008, Online Dispute Resolution: Technology, Management and Legal Practice from an International Perspective, Abington: Woodhead Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Waterman, D.A. and Peterson, M. 1980. Rule-Based Models of Legal Expertise. Proceedings of the First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Stanford University, AAAI, pp. 272–275.Google Scholar

Waterman, D.A 1981. Models of Legal Decisionmaking, Technical Report, R-2717–1CJ, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California.

Waterman, D.A 1984. Evaluating Civil Claims: An Expert Systems Approach. Expert Systems, 1(1): 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Waterman, D.A., Paul, J. and Peterson, M. 1986. Expert Systems for Legal Decision Making. Expert Systems, 3(4): 212–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wertheim, E., Love, A., Littlefield, L. and Peck, C. 1992. I Win: You Win, Ringwood: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Wettig, S. and Zehendner, E. 2003. The Electronic Agent: A Legal Personality under German Law? in: Oskamp, A. and Weitzenböck, E. (eds.), Proceedings of the Law and Electronic Agents Workshop (LEA '03).

Wildeboer, Gwen R., Klein, Michel C.A. and Uijttenbroek, Elisabeth M. 2007. Explaining the Relevance of Court Decisions to Laymen, in: Lodder, A.R. and Mommers, L. (eds.), Proceedings of JURIX 2007, Amsterdam and Berlin: IOS Press, pp. 129–138.Google Scholar

Wilkenfeld, J., Kraus, S., Holley, K.M. and Harris, M.A. 1995. GENIE: A Decision Support System for Crisis Negotiations. Decision Support Systems, 14(4): 369–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Williams, G.R. 1983. Legal Negotiation and Settlement, St. Paul: West Publishing Co.Google Scholar

Wright, R.W. 1999. Principled Adjudication: Tort Law and Beyond. Canterbury Law Review, 7: 265–296.Google Scholar

Wright, R. and Miller, M. 2002. The Screening/Bargaining Tradeoff. Stanford Law Review, 55: 29–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wright, R. and Miller, M. 2003. Honesty and Opacity in Charge Bargains. Stanford Law Review, 55: 1409–1417.Google Scholar

Zartman, I.W. 1993. Decision Support and Negotiation Research: A Researcher's Perspective. Theory and Decision, 34(3): 345–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zeleznikow, J. 2000. Building Judicial Decision Support Systems in Discretionary Legal Domains. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 14(3): 341–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zeleznikow, J 2002a. Risk, Negotiation and Argumentation – a Decision Support System Based Approach. Law, Probability and Risk, 1: 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zeleznikow, J 2002b. Using Web-based Legal Decision Support Systems to Improve Access to Justice. Information and Communications Technology Law, 11(1): 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zeleznikow, J 2004. The Split-Up Project: Induction, Context and Knowledge Discovery in Law. Law, Probability and Risk, 3: 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zeleznikow, J 2006a. Using Toulmin Argumentation to Support Dispute Settlement in Discretionary Domains, in: Hitchcock, D. and Verheij, B. (eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 261–272.Google Scholar

Zeleznikow, J 2006b. Using an Argumentation Based Approach to Manage Legal Knowledge, in: Schwartz, D.G. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management, Hershey: Idea Group Inc, pp. 638–642.Google Scholar

Zeleznikow, J 2009. Beyond Interest Based Bargaining – Incorporating Interests and Justice in the Development of Negotiation Support Systems. Proceedings of GDN2009, the 10th Annual Meeting INFORMS Section on Group Decision and Negotiation, Toronto, Ontario, 14–17 June. Online, available at: http://info.wlu.ca/~wwwmath/faculty/kilgour/gdn/papers.htm (last accessed 26 August 2009).Google Scholar

Zeleznikow, J. and Abrahams, B. 2009. Incorporating Issues of Fairness into the Development of a Multi-agent Negotiation Support System. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Barcelona: ACM Press, pp. 177–185.Google Scholar

Zeleznikow, J. and Bellucci, E. 2003. Family_Winner: Integrating Game Theory and Heuristics to Provide Negotiation Support. Proceedings of Sixteenth International Conference on Legal Knowledge Based System, Amsterdam: IOS Publications, pp. 21–30.Google Scholar

Zeleznikow, J 2006. Family_Mediator – Adding Notions of Fairness to those of Interests. Proceedings of Nineteenth International Conference on Legal Knowledge Based System, Amsterdam: IOS Publications, pp. 121–130.Google Scholar

Zeleznikow, J. and Hunter, D. 1994. Building Intelligent Legal Information Systems: Knowledge Representation and Reasoning in Law, Kluwer Computer/Law Series, 13.Google Scholar

Zeleznikow, J. and Stranieri, A. 1998. Split Up: The Use of an Argument Based Knowledge Representation to Meet Expectations of Different Users for Discretionary Decision Making. Proceedings of IAAI '98 – Tenth Annual Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, AAAI/MIT Press, pp. 1146–1151.Google Scholar

Zeleznikow, J. and Vincent, A. 2007. Providing Decision Support for Negotiation: The Need for Adding Notions of Fairness to Those of Interests. University of Toledo Law Review, 38: 101–143.Google Scholar

Zeleznikow, J., Bellucci, E. and Hodgkin, J. 2002. Building Decision Support Systems to Support Legal Negotiation. Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Law and Technology (LawTech2002), Anaheim: ACTA Press, pp. 112–117.Google Scholar

Zeleznikow, J., Stranieri, A. and Gawler, M. 1996. Split-Up: A Legal Expert System which Determines Property Division upon Divorce. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 3: 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zeleznikow, J., Bellucci, E., Schild, U. and Mackenzie, G. 2007a. Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law – Using Utility Functions to Support Legal Negotiation, in: Winkels, R. (ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Palo Alto.Google Scholar

Zeleznikow, J., Bellucci, E., Vincent, A. and Mackenzie, G, 2007b. Bargaining in the Shadow of a Trial: Adding Notions of Fairness to Interest-Based Negotiation in Legal Domains, in: Kersten, G., Rios, J. and Chen, E. (eds.), Proceedings of Group Decision and Negotiation Meeting 2007, Volume II, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar

Zeleznikow, J., Meersman, R., Hunter, D. and Helvoort, E. 1995. Computer Tools for Aiding Legal Negotiation. ACIS95 – Sixth Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia, pp. 231–251.Google Scholar