From ethical principles to certified practice: a tiered regulatory model for artificial intelligence in online dispute resolution

This article explores the lack of effective mechanisms for ensuring the ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI) in online dispute resolution (ODR) systems.Introduction: The rapid development and implementation of AI-powered ODR platforms are significantly outpacing the formation of adequate legal and ethical frameworks.This creates substantial risks to the fundamental rights of citizens, particularly the right to a fair trial, equality of arms, and due process.Existing international documents, such as the Council of Europe's Charter and UNESCO's Recommendations, establish important high-level principles (transparency, non-discrimination, human control).However, these are largely declarative and do not offer concrete tools for their practical implementation and verification.Consequently, a dangerous gap emerges between proclaimed ethical goals and the actual functioning of ODR platforms, which can lead to systemic errors, the amplification of societal biases, and the erosion of trust in digital justice.The core problem is the absence of a verifiable and enforceable bridge between principle and practice, leaving users vulnerable to opaque, potentially biased algorithmic decision-making.The Purpose of this article is to develop and substantiate a comprehensive regulatory model capable of bridging the gap between ethical principles and the practical application of AI in ODR.The objective is to propose a concrete, actionable framework that moves beyond abstract guidelines to create enforceable standards for ODR platform certification.The research methodology includes the dialectical method of cognition, a systematic analysis of existing ethical and legal frameworks, a comparative legal method to study regulatory approaches in other high-stakes domains (specifically, the EU AI Act and the U.S. FDA model for medical devices), and a modeling method to design the new regulatory structure.This multi-faceted approach allows for a thorough examination of the problem's theoretical underpinnings and the formulation of a practical, evidence-based solution.The research demonstrates that existing principle-based approaches are insufficient.As a key element of scientific novelty, a model of mandatory, differentiated (tiered) technical-procedural certification for ODR platforms is proposed.This model is risk-based and envisions three tiers of certification, with requirements escalating in stringency according to the legal complexity and social significance of the disputes.Tier 1 (low risk, e.g., e-commerce disputes) mandates basic transparency and data security.Tier 2 (medium risk, e.g., consumer credit disputes) adds requirements for regular bias audits and the use of Explainable AI (XAI) tools.Tier 3 (high risk, e.g., court-annexed ODR) mandates a crucial shift from mere explainability to full model interpretability, ensuring the legal coherence of decisions, and guarantees an unconditional right to review by a human judge.The study further distinguishes between post-hoc explainability and the more rigorous standard of interpretability, arguing the latter is essential for satisfying the principles of a reasoned legal decision in high-stakes contexts.The proposed certification model allows for the transformation of abstract ethical principles into specific, verifiable, and legally meaningful standards.It offers a flexible and scalable approach to regulation that fosters innovation while safeguarding fundamental rights.It is proposed to codify the duties of the ODR platform as the Fourth Party in the dispute, establishing a regime of legal accountability.This framework creates a foundation for building trust in digital justice and ensuring its sustainable development, balancing efficiency with the non-negotiable demands of due process.