ELECTRONIC ARBITRATION AS A MEANS OF RESOLVING TOURIST DISPUTES 549 (like the most faithful exponent, the mediation/conciliation)11. Of these three figures of extrajudicial conflict resolution, arbitration is the most formal institution and the system that gives its organ the greatest decision-making power12. This last technique, following Montero Aroca13, can be defined as that of “juridical institution, by virtue of which a third person, objective, impartial and named by the parts mediating the agreement or any other legally authorized form, makes a resolution on the basis of a specific power regarding the intersubjective conflict of juridical interests, in case of the matter being susceptible to free disposition by the persons affected by the discrepancy”. The advantages of the arbitration institution in terms of consumption are numerous: firstly, speed, since the resolution of the dispute takes place in a much shorter time than in the judicial system; secondly, voluntariness, since both parties freely submit to the system; thirdly, enforceability, given that awards are binding; fourthly, economy, both in terms of time and money; and finally, unidirectionality, since the consumer arbitration process can only begin if the consumer or user, and never the businessman or professional begins the procedure, beyond the fact that the latter may, in the course of the process, raise questions or claims directly linked to the dispute14. Arbitration, in turn, can be of different types depending on the criterion used. If we consider its scope of application, we can distinguish between national or internal arbitrations and international arbitrations; because of its object, we find ordinary arbitrations and special arbitrations; depending on the way of resolving the controversy, there are arbitrations of law and arbitrations in equity; because of the organ in charge of deciding, the arbitration can be ad hoc or institutional. Finally, by virtue of the means through which arbitration can be resolved, a distinction is made between on-line and off-line arbitrations15. 11 GARCÍA VILLALUENGA, L./TOMILLO URBINA, J. L./VÁZQUEZ DE CASTRO, E./FERNÁNDEZ CANALES, C., Mediación, arbitraje y resolución extrajudicial de conflictos en el siglo XXI, Madrid, Ed. Reus, 2010, p. 46; ESTAVILLO CASTRO, F., “Medios alternativos de solución de controversias”, en Jurídica Anuario del Departamento de la Universidad Iberoamericana, No. 26, 1996, pp. 376 & ff. 12 ARIAS POU, M., Manual práctico de comercio electrónico, Las Rozas (Madrid), Ed. La Ley, 2006, pp. 703- -705. 13 MONTERO AROCA, J./GÓMEZ COLOMER, J. L./BARONA VILAR, S./MONTÓN REDONDO, A., Derecho jurisdiccional II. Procesal Civil, Valencia, Ed. Tirant lo Blanch, 2002, p. 884. 14 VEGA VEGA, J. A., “El arbitraje en el comercio electrónico”, en Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho, No. 28, 2010, pp. 214-215. 15 ARIAS POU, M., Manual… cit., pp. 715 & ff.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==