Market:Arbitration

Welcome to the arbitration page of the WikiDeal markets space. Arbitration is intended to become one of the foundational options of the Markets home: a simple, affordable and fast way to resolve a disagreement around a signed contract, without going to court. The device explored here, called simplified arbitration, would work by successive refinement: most disagreements would be settled by a simple compensation request between the parties themselves, and a human arbitrator would only step in at the very end, for the few cases where no agreement is found.

Everything on this page is a draft and a basis for discussion. Nothing here is an operational service yet. WikiDeal is exploring this device together with a generic reference model derived from a pilot draft agreement. For the concept and the philosophy behind it, see the Simplified Arbitration explanation in the governance space.

A concrete example

Before any theory, here is what the device would look like in daily life:

Two people sign a contract, for example a tool rental between neighbours. Something goes slightly wrong: the tool comes back damaged.
The person who suffered the damage simply tells the other: "I suffered a small damage. I think I deserve a compensation, and I am asking you for it: for example, the cost of the repair."
If the other person says yes, that is the end of the story. This is not even a mediation, just a compensation request that was accepted. The contract is closed elegantly and both people keep a good relationship.
Only if the other person says no does the process continue: the request is repeated in an official form, this time with the evidence attached.
If the answer is still no, arbitration would start: a neutral person reads the file and decides, at a cost proportionate to the amount at stake.

How it works

The process WikiDeal is exploring can be summarized as arbitration by successive refinement. By default, what applies are compensatory measures: the whole device aims at agreeing on a fair compensation, not at declaring a winner (see the compensation rules in the Toolbox).

Step 1, informal request. A signatory would send a compensation request to the other signatory, without any third party. Evidence would be encouraged at this stage, but not required. With the help of an AI assistant, the requesting person could look up examples of compensatory measures, usual price ranges and modes of compensation, and submit a very simple draft agreement, in the form of a mediation proposal.
Step 2, formal request. If the informal request is refused, the request could be made official: "I asked for a compensation, it was refused informally, and I am now requesting it officially." At this stage, evidence would be mandatory, attached as annexes.
Step 3, arbitration. If the requested person refuses again, arbitration would begin, with human intervention: a person reads the file and decides, in a way proportionate to the amount at stake. There would be no need to appoint an arbitrator at the start of the process, which keeps things much simpler. The person who reads would have a declared level of expertise: enlightened amateur, person in training, experienced professional, and so on (see the levels of expertise).
Second evaluation. Both parties could always obtain a second evaluation or contribution, at very low rates.
The closure agreement. The guiding principle is the closure agreement: a short document formalizing a compensation or an elegant exit, drafted by one party, the other, or both parties confronting their points of convergence and divergence. The arbitrator would only intervene at the very end, deciding on the basis of the arguments provided in a semi-automated way by the parties themselves, with AI assistance helping to formulate the positions and document the evidence.
Where it would be useful. Simplified arbitration is intended for complex, non-binary contracts: a volunteering agreement, a cooperation between two people to create a company, and similar situations. For simple, binary contracts, such as a transport or a room for a night, it would rarely be needed. Where it applies, it could save precious time compared with civil litigation.

Costs

The cost model is not defined yet; the working direction is that the cost of an arbitration would always be proportionate to the dispute.

The remuneration of the people involved would not be a fixed sum: it would be a percentage of the disputed value, with a cap.
A typical example being discussed: around 10 percent maximum, with a cap. For a dispute over a value of 100, the arbitration would cost at most about 10.
The exact rates, percentages and caps would be defined later, through open discussion.
A second recourse could be available by paying something more, when the amounts at stake are higher, or for questions of principle.

Timelines

The following schedule is a first track, taken from the pilot draft presented below. The numbers of days are indicative: what matters is the order of magnitude of the process, not the exact dates.

Day 1: announcement of the arbitration request.
Days 2 to 30: search for an arbitrator by consensus between the parties. If no arbitrator is found within 30 days, the supervision team would designate the single arbitrator or the group of arbitrators, according to the competences and availability required.
Days 31 to 90: final mediation attempts by the delegated arbitrator: proposals of solutions, conversations, meetings, provision and reading of documents and arguments.
Days 91 to 110: last conciliation attempt, with a final decision discussed between the parties and the arbitrator or arbitrators in a shared online document.
Days 111 to 120: final decision, consensual if the parties find a final agreement, otherwise rendered by the arbitrator.
Maximum duration: 120 days, extendable once by 30 additional days by decision of the arbitrator.
Diligence: responses to formal requests during the procedure within 15 calendar days; arbitrators respond to arbitration invitations within 5 days.

The model: Simplified Arbitration Agreement

The following generic model, "the concept", is translated and adapted from a pilot draft agreement written in 2024 for public-benefit projects. It has been neutralized: names of people and organizations, places, currencies, specific amounts and domain-specific lists have been removed, so that it can serve as a generic reference. It is a draft: it has not been validated by lawyers, and it is not in force anywhere within WikiDeal. It is offered as a basis for discussion.

Intention

This simplified arbitration procedure, together with the arbitrators and assistants who carry it (below "the pool of arbitrators"), aims at preventing conflicts and simplifying their resolution between organizations (foundations, associations, cooperatives), their members and their partners (suppliers and clients), in projects where agreements and service contracts are diverse and can be the object of disputes. Over time, the same structure could also serve civil disputes between individuals: loans of money between friends, commercial disputes between or within micro enterprises, sharing of a holiday house between relatives, and similar situations.

The pool of arbitrators starts from the following observations:

pioneering initiatives often step outside legal habits while respecting the law, for example a lease that includes shared supplies and a shared internet connection;
arbitration, although in theory more useful than a civil trial, is unusual for small organizations, given costs that are rarely justified below high amounts, and given the heaviness of standard arbitral procedures, which do not include a simplified track by default;
in civil procedures, judges frequently remind the parties that a modest amicable arrangement is often better than a good trial;
the superposition of several bodies of law makes some social innovation projects legally delicate to conduct, and an arbitration path would be welcome in case of conflict.

The procedure aims at a "wiki" style formula: simplified, affordable, fast, accessible to all and traceable. It would offer arbitration for modest amounts, on condition that the contracts are presented to the pool of arbitrators for validation before arbitration.

The pool of arbitrators

The pool would be self-managed, on a friendly basis, without a formal federating structure, and composed of people bound to full confidentiality, in three groups:

Arbitrators experienced in the resolution of contractual conflicts, such as active retirees, community leaders and social entrepreneurs.
Assistants, who assist the arbitrators and in practice conduct the vast majority of the procedural steps under their supervision: law students, jurists and lawyers starting their career, project assistants, public writers, mediators.
A supervision team, in charge of administrative logistics, which does not get involved in the resolution of conflicts and assumes no legal responsibility.

Senior arbitrators co-opt junior arbitrators and make these rules evolve. Arbitrators of the pool decide by co-optation and consensus on internal governance. In this concept, there would always be a co-opted chamber of supervising experts accompanying the device.

Members of the pool have no obligation to accept an arbitration. They undertake to respond to arbitration invitations within 5 days, and decide on a minimum number of arbitrations per period, for example at least one per year.

The supervision team keeps an up-to-date list of available arbitrators and assistants, prospects to keep the pool active, receives and registers the requests, transmits them to the pool, and provides the secretariat of the arbitration (copies of files and invoicing).

Fundamental principles

Definition: any divergence in the interpretation or application of a contract, convention or agreement is considered a conflict, leading to a decision, if possible consensual, through mediation or conciliation. Only in the absence of consensus is a decision finally imposed by one or several arbitrators.

Discretion and confidentiality: from the beginning of the mediation and arbitration, and during their whole duration, both parties undertake not to inform third parties of the ongoing procedure, so as not to inflame the conflict. The fundamental objective of the procedure is a written agreement, stating the decision taken by common agreement, and the consequences in case of non-application or divergence in the interpretation of that agreement. Both parties undertake to communicate the outcome to those concerned in a general form: "we had a disagreement on this theme, we settled it as follows, and we are satisfied with the solution found." Aspects touching the privacy of the persons concerned can remain confidential.

Moderation: at any time, a user of a product or service can ask any other user to adopt a more moderate behaviour. This rule is inspired by the Ecopol social contract.

Prior waiver of civil claims

To avoid a final arbitration decision being contested, the arbitration would begin with the signature, by both parties, of a document:

describing the perimeter of the procedure, generally the reference to the contract or other agreement that generated the dispute;
confirming the waiver of any civil claim for any aspect of an arbitration able to deploy its effect;
mentioning, if necessary, the financial situation of the parties and evidence that no active measure would make the arbitration inoperative (guardianship, residence abroad, and so on).

The legal validity and scope of such a waiver depend on the law of each country: this is one of the main questions of the legal studies and of the governance explanation.

Procedure

1. Activation. The procedure begins with an arbitration request, addressed by one party to the other, with copy to the arbitrators defined by default, by simple email and copy by registered mail. The request also mentions whether a prior mediation attempt failed.

2. Mediation attempt. Before any arbitration, a mediation is attempted, in order to reach a signed agreement between the parties and a consensual exit from the conflict. The mediation consists of one or two sessions, aiming to settle the conflict without a formal and complete evaluation of the documents. It mainly accompanies the resolution of the conflict directly between the parties, with only a service of facilitation and formalization of a closure agreement. The mediation is led by an arbitrator who proposes a closure agreement, or at least a sketch of one. If one party rejects the principle of mediation, or does not cooperate within short deadlines of 10 days per request, arbitration applies directly, at the request of at least one party.

3. Choice of the arbitrator and of the procedure. The parties, directly or through a representative (lawyer, coach, trusted friend, consultant), try by negotiation to define an arbitration procedure coherent with the type of dispute (conduct, deadlines, coverage of fees), to name an arbitrator suiting both of them, and to propose a closure agreement serving as a basis of discussion, leading either to an amicable agreement, with or without the good offices of the arbitrator, or to a direct decision of the arbitrator in the absence of agreement. If they do not succeed within 30 days, the pool determines internally who will act as arbitrator.

4. Conduct of the arbitration. In plain words: kind and attentive people, for whom remuneration is secondary, try to bring the parties to understand each other, to express moderate compensation needs, and to accept an imperfect but fast closure of the dispute, by signing an amicable agreement that is realistic and applicable. The parties are encouraged to cooperate actively, by formulating concrete solutions themselves from existing lists, a weak cooperation being one of the criteria of a proportionally less favourable decision. The assistants advise the parties and remind them of their rights and obligations; the procedure is also a form of legal school for enlightened amateurs.

The assistants, designated by the supervision team to instruct the request, conduct and document the mediation or conciliation steps, in order to know the priority expectations of both parties. They organize the procedure as closely as possible to the usages of a civil court, with greater flexibility on schedules, admission of documents, communication modes and compensation options, under the procedural supervision of the arbitrators of the pool.
To aim at the fast signature of an amicable closure agreement, they rely as much as possible on model closure agreements, usual compensation scales and precedents comparable to case law. Their role is above all to inform the parties about the options for an amicable closure.
In the absence of a conciliation proposal from the parties, the decision is prepared by the assistants and can be submitted for comments in a shared online text, allowing both parties to comment and defend their positions in a transparent and cooperative way.
When no amicable agreement is reached, which is where arbitration really begins, the assistants refer the case to the pool with a request for the conduct of an arbitration. Their first mission is to explain why the proposed arbitrator is the best available person for the situation, so that the arbitration can start. The arbitrators take knowledge of the file.
The arbitrator can define extensions of deadlines up to 30 days maximum for the whole procedure, without the agreement of the parties, or longer with the acceptance of both parties.
The contracts and their annexes are integral parts of the arbitration. Unlike a purely legal civil decision, the arbitrators can take into account the fundamental intentions of the agreements, the signed contracts and their annexes remaining preponderant over other elements such as instant messages.

5. Deadlines. See the indicative schedule in Timelines above.

6. Diligence of the parties. The parties have the obligation, under penalty of foreclosure, to respond to formal requests within 15 calendar days. If a party does not respond to a summons, does not attend a meeting, or does not respond within this deadline without justification, it is considered that the absent party does not wish to add elements, authorizing the arbitrator to decide immediately. The lack of diligence of either party (unavailability, refusal to provide documents, deception, refusal to name a representative in case of personal difficulty) is part of the criteria of the final arbitration decision.

7. Final decision. On the basis of the documentation provided by both parties and the interviews conducted, the arbitrator first tries to conciliate the conflict by seeking an agreement between the parties. If the conciliation attempt fails, the arbitrator relies, where possible, on the elements of agreement already sketched (aspects considered by both parties as acceptable, admitted or secondary) to render a final decision. This final decision is irrevocable, binding for both parties, and constitutes an extrajudicial title, also valid as an acknowledgement of debt.

8. Fees. The parties aim at a low-cost arbitration, with assistants and arbitrators accepting modest allowances where possible, and both parties can propose an offer of arbitral decision from the beginning of the procedure. The remuneration would not be a fixed sum: it would be a percentage of the disputed value, with a cap (see Costs). The invoice of the arbitration would by default be split into equal parts between the two parties, or split differently if the arbitrator or arbitrators so decide.

Contract templates

The generic model: the Simplified Arbitration Agreement above is the generic reference template, "the concept", from which concrete templates would be derived.
Country adaptations: under construction. Arbitration law, the limits of what can be arbitrated, and the protections that cannot be waived differ from one country to another. Adapted templates would be produced country by country, with local legal professionals, before any use. No country adaptation exists yet.

Legal studies

A first track of legal study concerns the international recognition of arbitral awards.

The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958), known as the New York Convention, entered into force on 7 June 1959. It seeks to provide common standards for the recognition of arbitration agreements, and for the court recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards: contracting states undertake to recognize and enforce such awards in the same way as domestic awards, and their courts must give effect to valid arbitration agreements. According to the official status page maintained by UNCITRAL, the Convention has 172 parties (figure checked at the source in July 2026; the authoritative record is the United Nations Treaty Collection).

References:

This is presented as a study track for enforceability, not as a guarantee. Whether a decision issued through a simplified arbitration would qualify as an arbitral award recognizable under the Convention, and under which formal conditions, is exactly the kind of question these legal studies would examine, country by country, together with the domains that national laws exclude from arbitration. For the legal foundations studied so far, see the governance explanation.

Join as arbitrator

The future pool of arbitrators would welcome experienced arbitrators, assistants and enlightened amateurs in training. If you would like to be part of it, the first step is simple: write to info@wikideal.net, presenting your experience with conflict resolution, mediation or law, and the role you would like to play. For the general contribution paths, see Get started: how to contribute.

Statistical register

The device would be accompanied by an anonymized statistical register of the cases treated, updated and published periodically. It would show, in particular, the proportion of disputes resolved without an arbitrator, the duration of the procedures, and the estimated amounts at stake. This register belongs to the data WikiDeal intends to publish by design: aggregated contract and dispute statuses (signed, completed, in dispute) and aggregated usage statistics. The private variables entered in a contract would remain private by default.

Strengths and open challenges

The following points have been identified as discussion points, looking at the concept from the perspective of experienced legal professionals. They are an open analysis, proposed as a basis for discussion, not a settled assessment.

Strengths identified so far:

De-escalation by compensation before any procedure. The device starts with a simple compensation request between the parties themselves. Most disagreements would be closed at that stage, without even a mediation, which preserves the relationship between the signatories and keeps human intervention for the few remaining cases.
Costs proportionate to the dispute. The working direction, a percentage of the disputed value with a cap and a second evaluation available at very low rates, aims at making arbitration accessible for modest amounts, where standard arbitral procedures are rarely justified.
Anchoring in existing legal mechanisms. The concept does not invent a new legal category: it would rely on arbitration as an internationally recognized mechanism, with the 1958 New York Convention (172 parties) as a study track for cross-border recognition, and Swiss law (Chapter 12 PILA, Part 3 CPC) as the first legal environment studied (see the governance explanation).

Open challenges identified so far:

The prior waiver of civil claims. The validity and scope of a waiver of civil recourse depend on the law of each country, and protections granted to weaker parties (in the Swiss example: employment, residential leases, certain consumer protections) cannot be waived by such a clause. This is one of the main questions of the legal studies.
The enforceability of low-amount decisions. Whether a decision issued through simplified arbitration would qualify as an arbitral award recognizable under the New York Convention, and whether the qualification as an extrajudicial title, also valid as an acknowledgement of debt, holds in each jurisdiction, remains to be examined country by country. The model above has not been validated by lawyers yet.
Levels of expertise versus independence and qualification requirements. A pool including enlightened amateurs, self-managed by co-optation, with a supervision team assuming no legal responsibility, would need to be confronted with the independence, impartiality and qualification standards that arbitration laws and case law expect from arbitrators.

These points go in the direction of the legal studies above: they would be submitted to legal professionals, together with the country adaptations, before any use.