En/Simplified Arbitration

Simplified Arbitration
	WikiDeal's Conflict Resolution Framework
Type	Socio-technical innovation
Legal basis	Swiss PILA (Ch. 12), Swiss CPC (Part 3), New York Convention (1958)
Scope	Peer-to-peer transactions on WikiDeal
Binding	Yes (with consent at contract signature)
Status	Framework — Draft
Category	Legal Framework · Socio-Technical Innovations

💡 In simple words: If people have a disagreement, we want a simple and fair way to help them figure it out. This page shares our idea for how to solve problems peacefully and quickly together.

🎯 In 20 seconds (scientific summary): This page introduces our working concept for a Simplified Arbitration process. It outlines the intended mechanisms for dispute resolution, offering a flexible hypothesis rather than rigid legal dictates, to ensure fair and accessible outcomes for all participants.

Resolving a dispute between strangers should not require a lawyer, a court, or months of waiting. WikiDeal's Simplified Arbitration is ultimately a trust-rebuilding machine — a fast, binding, evidence-based process that lifts the burden of enforcement from individuals.

The result: a platform where strangers can transact with a degree of confidence usually reserved for known relationships.

Grounded in Swiss law and internationally enforceable under the New York Convention.

At a glance

What it is — Simplified Arbitration is WikiDeal's fast, binding, evidence-based dispute-resolution framework: a trust-rebuilding machine grounded in Swiss law (Ch. 12 PILA, Part 3 CPC) and enforceable internationally under the 1958 New York Convention. Consent is given explicitly at contract signature.
The process in 4 steps — Expression of non-compliance → Documentation into an evidence-based file → Compensation Request Activation → Default Activation if the other party does not respond in time.
Right of appeal in 2 stages — Stage 1 (procedural): verifies the arbitration process itself was sound (overlooked evidence, unavailable arbitrator, formal defects). Stage 2 (substantive/political): reserved for cases of social utility, aiming to set a precedent and update policies or compensatory measures for everyone.
Who decides — The people (a jury drawn by lot, a popular vote, or a combination of both) take the final decision on policy evolution; the Supreme Court judges contribute procedural analysis, a technical pre-opinion, an impact description, and the exact wording of any policy update. Rights evolve through this combination of popular support and judicial expertise — a right is not bought, it is supported.

Legal Foundation — Swiss Law & International Framework

WikiDeal's Simplified Arbitration is grounded in two distinct Swiss legal frameworks and reinforced by an international treaty — providing a robust, internationally recognized foundation for binding peer-to-peer dispute resolution.

1. Chapter 12 PILA — International Arbitration

Chapter 12 of the Private International Law Act (PILA / LDIP — Loi fédérale sur le droit international privé) governs international arbitration in Switzerland. In force since 1989 and updated in 2021, it provides a highly liberal framework with minimal court interference. Challenges go directly to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court — and only ~7% of awards are overturned, and only for serious irregularities such as due process violations.

Source: Swiss Arbitration Association

2. Part 3 CPC — Domestic Arbitration

Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC / Code de procédure civile) governs domestic arbitration in Switzerland, in force since 2011. It provides procedural guidance and includes explicit protections for weaker parties (employees, tenants) — which is precisely why certain domains cannot use simplified arbitration (see the Eligibility section below).

The Waiver Principle

Under both frameworks, arbitration is only valid if all parties have explicitly and voluntarily agreed to waive their right to civil litigation (Convention d'arbitrage / Arbitration Clause). This agreement must be in writing.

WikiDeal implements this through a clear clause in every contract where arbitration is enabled: members explicitly consent to the Simplified Arbitration process as their sole dispute resolution mechanism for matters covered by that contract. Consent is given at contract signature — not buried in general terms.

International Framework — The New York Convention

The 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards — ratified by 170+ countries including Switzerland — provides the international framework under which arbitral awards are mutually recognized between member states. This ensures that a WikiDeal arbitration award is not merely a platform decision, but a legally enforceable instrument across borders.

Source: UNCITRAL — New York Convention

It is important to distinguish two related but fundamentally different mechanisms:

Mechanism	Binding?	Nature
Mediation	❌ Non-binding	Facilitator helps parties reach agreement; either party may walk away at any time.
Arbitration	✅ Binding	Arbiter's decision is enforceable, equivalent in effect to a court ruling. Requires prior explicit consent.

WikiDeal's approach is unambiguously arbitration: consent is given at contract signature, making each contract subject to this framework where arbitration is enabled.

The 4-Step Simplified Arbitration Process

When a dispute arises, WikiDeal's resolution process follows a structured four-step flow designed to be fast, evidence-based, and fair:

Expression — A party expresses a sense of contract non-compliance. This can be done independently or with the assistance of a human advisor or AI assistant. No formal legal knowledge is required at this stage.
Documentation — The complaint is formalized into an evidence-based file. AI tools help structure and verify the evidence, ensuring the claim is grounded in concrete facts and contract terms before it proceeds.
Compensation Request Activation — The documented complaint automatically triggers a formal compensation request. The opposing party is notified and given a fixed response time to acknowledge, contest, or resolve the claim.
Default Activation — If the opposing party does not respond within the deadline, compensation is automatically activated. Appeals remain possible in cases of proven unavailability (illness, unreachability, force majeure), ensuring the process remains equitable without allowing indefinite delay.

Abuse Prevention Mechanisms

Simplified Arbitration is designed to be used in good faith. To prevent gaming or misuse of the system, several safeguards are built in:

Abuse scoring — Users who repeatedly file excessive or unfounded claims are flagged. Their scoring is tracked over time and factored into platform trust ratings.
Profile transparency — Alerts are displayed on a flagged user's public profile showing their claims history, giving other users visibility before entering a contract.
Guarantor requirement — Insolvent parties must find a guarantor before any contract becomes active — even for low-stakes exchanges such as a bicycle loan. This ensures that compensation commitments are always backed by real capacity to fulfill them.

The Cultural Impact — Trust Through Compensation

Beyond its legal function, Simplified Arbitration changes how people behave — and how they relate to one another within the platform. Its deeper effect is cultural.

Concrete example: "I can lend my bicycle knowing that if it comes back broken, an affiliated repair shop will fix it within 3 days — I don't have to chase the borrower myself." The burden of enforcement is lifted from the individual.
Removes "I must be perfect" anxiety — People can offer services, lend belongings, or take on work knowing that honest errors will be compensated fairly, not punished harshly or ignored.
Enables high-trust, high-risk offerings — Even for complex or higher-risk situations (e.g., pool access, shared housing, expensive equipment loans), the framework provides clarity and fairness that would otherwise require expensive legal contracts.

The result is a platform where strangers can transact with a degree of confidence usually reserved for known relationships.

Participatory Compensation Framework

The specific list of compensatory measures — what is owed, in what form, and within what timeframe — will not be imposed top-down. Instead, it will be debated and co-created with two groups of influence:

Provider groups (prestataires) — those offering services, who need measures that are proportionate, achievable, and do not expose them to unlimited liability.
Consumer groups — those using services, who need measures that are genuine, timely, and meaningful in the context of real harm or inconvenience.

This participatory process ensures the measures are fair, balanced, and grounded in real use cases and concrete situations — not abstract legal theory. Each User Group and Community of Practice on WikiDeal may adapt the framework to their domain, subject to platform-wide minimums.

WikiDeal's Simplified Arbitration is ultimately a trust-rebuilding machine.

Arbitration Eligibility

Not all domains or contract types can activate Simplified Arbitration. Swiss law mandates specific protections in certain domains that cannot be contractually waived — including by an arbitration clause. Each WikiDeal contract will explicitly display a clear indicator:

[Arbitration: Enabled / Disabled / Mediation Only]

Domains where Simplified Arbitration CAN be used

Peer-to-peer services (babysitting, tutoring, repairs, etc.)
Street fundraising
Cooperative goods exchange
Consulting and freelance services (non-employment contracts)
Real estate restoration mandates (cooperative model)
Any WikiDeal marketplace domain not covered by mandatory protective law

Domains where Simplified Arbitration CANNOT be used (Swiss law)

Employment contracts → covered by mandatory labor law (CCT / Convention Collective de Travail) and the Prud'hommes (labor courts). These protections cannot be waived by arbitration clause.
Residential lease contracts → covered by Swiss droit du bail (Titre VIII CO, Art. 253–274g). Special tenant protections cannot be waived by an arbitration clause.
Consumer contracts with mandatory protective provisions → certain protections cannot be contractually waived under Swiss law (Art. 192 LDIP, Art. 354 CPC).

Two types of arbitration clauses in WikiDeal

Type	Description
Permanent / Final Arbitration (Arbitrage définitif)	Full binding resolution, enforceable as a court judgment. A right of appeal on form and substance nonetheless remains, opened by popular support — see Right of Appeal below.
Temporary / Interim Arbitration (Arbitrage provisoire)	Fast, short-term compensation decisions while a longer process may run in parallel (e.g., during an ongoing mediation).

Complex disputes, or those exceeding the scope of the Simplified process, may escalate to higher arbitration chambers. WikiDeal intends to operates a 2-level or ideally 3-level arbitration system.

Right of Appeal — The Popular Support Mechanism

In simplified arbitration, a decision is final in the sense that it takes effect immediately and settles the dispute at hand. But "final" does not mean "beyond all recourse." The proposed framework envisions a genuine right of appeal, organized in two distinct stages — one procedural, one substantive — complemented by a Supreme Court–type instance with a deliberately narrow mandate.

This two-stage architecture keeps everyday arbitration fast and lightweight, while ensuring that no participant is ever locked out of justice, and that important cases can shape the rules for everyone.

Stage 1 — Procedural appeal (form)

The first stage is an appeal tribunal for procedural error — the right to appeal on procedural grounds. It does not re-judge the merits of the case; it verifies that the arbitration process itself was sound.

Typical technical grounds include:

A piece of evidence was not taken into account (a document, message, or exhibit was overlooked or never reached the arbitrator).
The arbitrator disappeared or was unavailable during the proceedings.
A formal defect (vice of form): deadlines, notifications, or required steps were not respected.

If the procedural appeal succeeds, the case is reheard under correct conditions. This is the first — and in most cases the only — level of appeal a party will ever need.

Stage 2 — Substantive / political appeal (substance)

The second stage is an appeal on the merits, reserved for fundamental or political grounds. Its purpose is not merely to reverse an individual outcome, but to make the case set a precedent (faire école): to obtain a policy update and/or a revision of the compensatory measures applicable to that class of situations, creating jurisprudence useful to the whole community.

The guiding principle: an appeal at this stage must serve a social utility, not only a private interest. A right is not bought — it is supported.

Two decision paths are envisioned, which may be used separately or in combination:

(a) Popular vote — a political stance taken by the users themselves. Possible modalities include:

a random sample of users drawn by lot,
weighted voting,
the Condorcet method,
or other deliberative voting schemes defined by policy.

(b) Supreme Court — a court of last instance with a strictly limited mandate: it may rule only on the exact wording of the proposed policy update, never on the political desirability of the change itself. The community decides the direction; the court guarantees the precision of the text.

Mobilizing community support. Support for a substantive appeal is gathered through federations of User Groups — an unlimited number of groups organized by region, domain of activity, or portal. The threshold of votes required to open a substantive appeal is proportional to the damages at stake: from roughly 5 votes for small matters, to tens of thousands, up to 1 million for major systemic issues. Thresholds are computed by distribution codes and analysis policies. Casting a vote is designed to take one click, one second.

Worked examples

1. The taxi and the forgotten handbag. A couple steps out of a taxi, forgetting a handbag on the back seat. They call the driver back immediately — no answer. The next passenger takes (steals) the bag. The arbitral decision clears the driver: he did not see the call, it was not his fault, and it was the following customer who took the bag. On the individual level, the ruling may well be correct. But a substantive (political) appeal can change the rule itself: drivers should remain reachable and available for a few minutes after the end of a ride, for the benefit of the previous customer. The case sets a precedent → a new policy is adopted for everyone.

2. The broken bicycle. A user who rides their bicycle every day gets it back broken. A repair "within 15 days" is deemed insufficient compensation: the user requests, included in the compensation, a replacement bicycle lent by a professional company for the duration of the repair. A substantive appeal leads to a revision of the compensatory measures applicable to this type of case — daily-use equipment now comes with a loaner guarantee during repairs.

Roles: who decides what

The evolution of rights through substantive appeals rests on a deliberate combination of two complementary roles: the people, who choose; and the judges, who analyze.

The people choose. The final decision on whether a policy or a set of compensatory measures should evolve belongs to the users themselves. This popular decision can take the form of:

a jury — a random sample of users drawn by lot (sortition),
a popular vote among users,
or — most often — a combination of both.

The Supreme Court judges analyze. The judges of the Supreme Court do not decide the political direction. Their contribution is procedural and technical:

they verify that the request is technically well formulated;
they assess that the intention serves the interests of users and of the majority, and contributes to a more positive climate for "fair deals with nice people" — WikiDeal's motto;
they issue a technical pre-opinion (préavis technique) and a description of the impact of the proposed change;
they guarantee the exact wording of the resulting policy update or jurisprudence.

How the two combine. The popular jury or vote takes the final decision — but in practice it is most often a jury assisted by the judges: the Supreme Court's pre-opinion and impact description inform the deliberation, while the political choice itself remains with the people. Judicial expertise clarifies; popular support decides.

The evolution of rights cannot be bought through appeals: a right is not bought, it is supported. The right to see interpretation policies and rules evolve — through jurisprudence born of collective decision — rests on a combination of popular support and the expertise of a Supreme Court regarding the societal meaning of these changes, their procedural interpretation, and their exact wording.

Examples of Arbitration Agreements

Generic arbitration closure agreements and contract templates that implement Simplified Arbitration are documented here:

Freelance Service Contract (Hybrid Cash/Rewards) — Example template for WikiDeal deployment work.