💡 In simple words: if two people on WikiDeal disagree, this page explains how the argument could be settled fairly. Most of the time, asking for a fair compensation and saying yes is enough. A neutral helper would only decide at the very end, when nothing else worked.

🎯 In 20 seconds (expert summary): Simplified arbitration is the dispute resolution concept WikiDeal is exploring: a fast, affordable and traceable alternative to civil litigation for contract disputes, working by successive refinement (informal compensation request, then formal request with evidence, then a human decision only as a last resort). The people who read and decide would range from enlightened amateurs to professionals with strong expertise (judges, judge-negotiators, lawyers, auditors) in case of contestation, under a co-opted supervision chamber. The parties would explicitly waive civil recourse in favour of the arbitration, a sensitive commitment presented here with precaution: its validity is being studied, with Swiss law (Chapter 12 PILA, Part 3 CPC) as a first legal environment and the 1958 New York Convention as a track for cross-border recognition. The operational device, costs, timelines and the generic model agreement are drafted in Market:Arbitration.

Simplified Arbitration

Original framework, WikiDeal concept (credits)

WikiDeal is exploring Simplified Arbitration as one of its core socio-technical innovations. Far from being a legal loophole, it would be a revitalization of an existing, internationally recognized legal mechanism, reimagined for everyday citizen transactions. This page explains the concept and the philosophy; the concrete device (steps, costs, timelines, the model agreement, country adaptations, how to join) is drafted on the Arbitration page of the Markets space.

The concept

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

Mediation: facilitative and non-binding. The mediator helps the parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement but cannot impose a decision. Either party may walk away.
Arbitration: binding. The arbiter's decision would be enforceable, equivalent in effect to a court ruling. It is only possible when all parties have explicitly consented to waive civil litigation rights in favor of this process.

The approach explored by WikiDeal is unambiguously arbitration: consent would be given at contract signature, making each contract subject to this framework where arbitration is enabled. But the philosophy is that a full arbitration should almost never be needed: the device is designed so that most disputes end long before an arbitrator is involved, through a simple, fair compensation.

Resolution by successive refinement

The concept works as a ladder, from the lightest gesture to the heaviest one, and stops at the first step that succeeds:

Informal compensation request: one signatory asks the other for a compensation, directly, without any third party. Evidence is encouraged but not required. If the other party accepts, the dispute is closed; this is not even a mediation.
Formal compensation request: if refused, the same request is made official, with evidence attached as mandatory annexes.
Human decision: only if the request is refused again would arbitration begin, with a person reading the file and deciding, in proportion to the amount at stake. The arbitrator intervenes at the end, on the basis of arguments formulated in a semi-automated way by the parties themselves, with AI assistance for the formulation and the documentation of evidence.

By default, the outcome of every step is a compensatory measure agreed or decided, formalized in a short closure agreement drafted by one party, the other, or both together.

An earlier draft of this concept described the same logic as a four-step flow, which remains a useful reading:

Expression: a party expresses a sense of contract non-compliance, independently or with the assistance of a human advisor or AI assistant. No formal legal knowledge would be required at this stage.
Documentation: the complaint is formalized into an evidence-based file. This is not merely a feeling: AI tools would help structure and verify the evidence, so that the claim is grounded in concrete facts and contract terms before it proceeds.
Compensation request activation: the documented complaint would trigger 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 would be activated by default. Appeals would remain possible in cases of proven unavailability (illness, unreachability, force majeure), so that the process remains equitable without allowing indefinite delay.

Levels of expertise

Simplified arbitration would not rely on a single class of professional arbitrators. The people who read the files and contribute to decisions would have a declared level of expertise, forming a progression:

Enlightened amateurs: experienced, trusted people (active retirees, community leaders, social entrepreneurs) trained by practice. The procedure itself is intended as a form of legal school for them.
People in training: law students, jurists and lawyers starting their career, mediators, project assistants, who would conduct most procedural steps as assistants, under supervision.
Professionals with strong expertise: judges, judge-negotiators, lawyers, auditors, who would intervene in case of contestation, for higher amounts, or for questions of principle.

Two accompanying principles are part of the concept:

both parties could always obtain a second evaluation or contribution, at very low rates;
the whole device would be accompanied by a co-opted chamber of supervising experts, in which senior members co-opt junior ones and make the rules evolve.

A related exploration, the Arbitration Chambers, describes a three-level escalation system inspired by Wikimedia's Arbitration Committee.

Waiving civil recourse, with precaution

Simplified arbitration would rest on a sensitive commitment: the parties would renounce civil court recourse in favour of the arbitration, for the matters covered by their contract. This is presented here with precaution, and in the conditional:

the waiver would only be valid if all parties have explicitly and voluntarily agreed to it, in writing, at contract signature, never buried in general terms;
its legal validity and scope depend on the law of each country, and would require validation by legal professionals before any use;
protections that the law grants to weaker parties cannot be waived by such a clause (see eligibility below);
the counterpart of the waiver is a process intended to be far faster and cheaper than a civil trial, with a decision that would constitute an extrajudicial title.

Under the Swiss frameworks studied first (see below), arbitration is only valid if all parties have explicitly and voluntarily agreed to waive their right to civil litigation, through a written arbitration agreement.

Legal foundations being studied

The initial hypothesis is grounded in two distinct Swiss legal frameworks, studied as a first legal environment, and reinforced by an international treaty. Other countries would require their own studies (see the country adaptations on the Markets page).

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 about 7 percent of awards are overturned, only for serious irregularities such as due process violations.

Source: Swiss Arbitration Association

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 could not use simplified arbitration (see eligibility).

The New York Convention

The 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (172 parties according to the UNCITRAL status page, Switzerland included) provides the international framework under which arbitral awards are mutually recognized between contracting states. The track being studied: an award issued through simplified arbitration could then be not merely a platform decision, but a legally enforceable instrument across borders. This is a study track, not a guarantee; see the legal studies section of the Markets page.

Source: UNCITRAL, New York Convention

Arbitration eligibility

Not all domains or contract types could activate simplified arbitration. Swiss law, taken here as the first studied example, mandates specific protections in certain domains that cannot be contractually waived, including by an arbitration clause. Each WikiDeal contract would explicitly display a clear indicator: [Arbitration: Enabled / Disabled / Mediation Only].

Domains where simplified arbitration could be used

Peer-to-peer services (babysitting, tutoring, repairs, and similar)
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 could not be used (Swiss law example)

Employment contracts: covered by mandatory labor law (CCT / Convention Collective de Travail) and the Prud'hommes (labor courts). These protections cannot be waived by an arbitration clause.
Residential lease contracts: covered by Swiss droit du bail (Titre VIII CO, Art. 253 to 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

Permanent / final arbitration (arbitrage définitif): full binding resolution, intended to be enforceable like a court judgment.
Temporary / interim arbitration (arbitrage provisoire): for fast, short-term compensation decisions while a longer process may run in parallel, for example during an ongoing mediation.

Complex disputes, or those exceeding the scope of the simplified process, could escalate to higher arbitration chambers: see the three-level Arbitration Chambers exploration.

Abuse prevention mechanisms

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

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

The cultural impact: trust through compensation

Beyond its legal function, simplified arbitration is intended to change how people behave, and how they relate to one another within the platform. Its deeper effect would be cultural.

Concrete example: "I can lend my bicycle knowing that if it comes back broken, an affiliated repair shop would fix it within 3 days; I do not have to chase the borrower myself." The burden of enforcement is lifted from the individual.
Removing the "I must be perfect" anxiety: people could offer services, lend belongings, or take on work knowing that honest errors would be compensated fairly, not punished harshly or ignored.
Enabling high-trust, high-stakes offerings: even for complex or higher-risk situations (pool access, shared housing, expensive equipment loans), the framework would provide a clarity and fairness that would otherwise require expensive legal contracts.

The result aimed at 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) would not be imposed top-down. It is intended to be debated and co-created with two groups of influence:

Provider groups: 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 aims at measures that are fair, balanced, and grounded in real use cases and concrete situations, not abstract legal theory. Each User Group and Community of Practice could adapt the framework to its domain, subject to platform-wide minimums. In this sense, simplified arbitration is intended as a genuine tool for rebuilding social trust between strangers transacting on the platform, shaped by the very people it serves.

The device and the model

The operational side of simplified arbitration is drafted in the Markets space, on the Arbitration page:

a concrete example and the step-by-step process;
the cost principles (a percentage of the disputed value, with a cap);
the indicative timelines;
the generic Simplified Arbitration Agreement (the neutralized model), with planned country adaptations;
the legal studies, how to join as arbitrator, and the statistical register.

Gov/en/Portal:Justice/Arbitration