Esta tese trata da resolução online de controvérsias. Parte-se da hipótese de que sua expansão para múltiplas jurisdições e vários tipos de conflitos, incluindo os complexos e de alto valor, provocará mudanças significativas no direito. São analisados, das perspectivas jurídica e econômica, as condições para a resolução extrajudicial de disputas, por meios alternativos (adequados), inclusive online, com atenção para o design orientado à prevenção e à resolução massificada de conflitos e para o emprego de tecnologias persuasivas com esta finalidade. Examinam-se os desafios conexos a tecnologias de informação e comunicação, os conflitos deles derivados e as instituições e partes envolvidas em sua resolução. Descreve-se o potencial dos mecanismos de resolução online de controvérsias a partir de três estudos de caso eBay, prefeitura de Nova York e Wikipedia. Investigam-se as consequências jurídicas da disseminação de mecanismos de resolução online de controvérsias à luz das experiências públicas e privadas e projetos existentes. Por fim, os impactos destas novas formas de dirimir conflitos são analisados nos planos nacional em relação a devido processo legal, direitos de terceiros e ordem pública e internacional, com destaque para as alternativas que se apresentam a Estados e organizações internacionais. Conclui-se apontando, por um lado, as preocupações relativas ao controle jurisdicional sobre a resolução online de controvérsias; por outro, as promessas desta decorrentes, traduzidas em especial em eficiência e acesso à justiça. / This dissertation discusses online dispute resolution. Its hypothesis is that the expansion of this form of dispute resolution across jurisdictions and towards many types of conflict, including complex and high-value ones, will promote substantive legal changes. The conditions for outof-court dispute resolution are analyzed, from the normative and economic perspectives, covering alternative (adequate) and online dispute resolution, with attention to its design focused on the scalable resolution of controversies and to the use of persuasive technologies to that end. The challenges connected to information and communication technologies, the conflicts deriving from them and the institutions and parties involved in their resolution are examined. The potential for online dispute resolution is described through three case studies eBay, New York City and Wikipedia. The legal consequences of the dissemination of online dispute resolution are studied in light of the existing public and private experiences and projects. Finally, the impacts of these new forms of solving conflicts are analyzed at the national with respect to due process, third party rights and public policy and international levels, highlighting the alternatives available to states and international organizations. The dissertation concludes by noting the concerns related to jurisdictional control over online dispute resolution and the prospects arising out of it, especially prominent in terms of efficiency and access to justice.

Tarybos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 1346/2000 dėl bankroto bylų yra keturiasdešimties metų pastangų harmonizuoti tarpvalstybinio bankroto jurisdikcijos taisykles Europos Sąjungos kontekste rezultatas. Derinant dviejų tarptautinio bankroto reguliavimo modelių – universalaus ir teritorinio – principus, reglamente įtvirtinamos skirtingos jurisdikcijos taisyklės priklausomai nuo to, ar keliama pagrindinė ar šalutinė (teritorinė) bankroto byla. Magistriniame darbe aptariamas jurisdikciją iškelti pagrindinę bankroto bylą lemiančio kriterijaus – pagrindinių turtinių interesų vietos – turinys. Darbe daroma išvada, jog reglamente nėra nustatyta aiškaus pagrindinių turtinių interesų vietos turinio. Tai skatina nevienodą reglamento nuostatų, susijusių su teismo jurisdikcija iškelti skolininkui pagrindinę bankroto bylą, aiškinimą ir taikymą Europos Sąjungos valstybėse narėse. Jurisdikcijų kolizijos problema reglamente sprendžiama įtvirtinant pirmumo taisyklę, pagal kurią sprendimas iškelti bankroto bylą turi būti automatiškai pripažįstamas visose kitose valstybėse narėse nuo tada, kai sprendimas įsiteisėja bankroto bylą iškėlusio teismo valstybėje narėje. Darbe aptariamos palankesnės teisinės padėties ieškojimo galimybės. Autorius daro išvadą, jog pasirinktu reguliavimu vienas iš reglamento tikslų – panaikinti tiesines prielaidas palankesnės teisinės padėties ieškojimui perkeliant turtą ar teismo procesą iš vienos valstybės narės į kitą – nėra iki galo pasiektas. Šią prielaidą lemia dvi... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / Council Regulation 1346/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings is the outcome of forty years of efforts to harmonize the rules regarding the jurisdictional issues on cross-border insolvency in the context of European Union. By combining the two models of international insolvency proceedings – universality and territoriality – the Regulation provides different jurisdictional rules on cross-border insolvency proceedings depending on whether the main insolvency proceedings or the secondary insolvency proceedings are going to be opened. The Master thesis deals with the content of the category determining the jurisdiction to open the main insolvency proceedings, i.e. the centre of main interests. As a result the Thesis concludes that the Regulation does not provide the explicit content of the centre of main interests’ category. Therefore it encourages the different interpretation and application of Regulation’s provisions related to the opening the main insolvency proceedings by the courts of Member States. Regulation deals with issue regarding the jurisdictional conflicts by determining the priority rule under which the judgment opening the insolvency proceeding should be automatically recognized in all other Member States from the time that it becomes effective in the State of the opening of proceedings. Master thesis deals with the issues regarding the seeking to obtain a more favorable legal position (forum shopping). The Author concludes that on of the main aims of this Regulation –... [to full text]