Mabelle Palacio, Juan Francisco Mercado Cespedes, Hernando Caraballo
Ante la irrupción de las TecnologÃas de la Información y Comunicación (TIC’S) en las labores que realizan las personas de forma cotidiana, se ha visto la necesidad de ir generando normas que permitan adaptar estas nuevas dinámicas en el funcionamiento de la sociedad. AsÃ, paÃses como Colombia en los últimos años han puesto en marcha la implementación de normas que han impulsado el uso de estas herramientas digitales en los diferentes escenarios jurÃdicos, tales como los procesos judiciales. Es por ello que el objetivo principal del presente artÃculo es identificar la viabilidad y eficacia de la implementación de los NFT´'s (Non-Fungible Tokens) como medio de notificación judicial en procesos de arbitraje en Colombia, los cuales permiten llevar a cabo un seguimiento para que la notificación pueda llegar apropiadamente a los correos electrónicos de las partes, teniendo la certeza de que han sido recibidos por el respectivo destinatario, de forma segura, eficaz y descentralizada.
The increase in international trade relations and the opportunities offered by the digital world raise great concern about the number of resources and time invested in dispute resolution. The creation of new markets and digital disruption bring with them an unprecedented kind of disputes, which require agile and accessible mechanisms for their resolution. Web3 brings a new dimension to the business world: the Metaverse overflows all existing boundaries for companies, brands, and social relationships. However, new opportunities for social and economic interaction necessarily bring legal challenges: How to deal with the potential disputes brought about by the synergy between the real world and the digital sphere? What kind of disputes are we facing? What is the most efficient method for their resolution? Is arbitration flexible enough to consolidate itself as the main solution? Considering the challenges brought by Web3, disputes rising both within and as a result of the Metaverse require resolution methods that are up to their challenges. In the absence, at present, of a universal law applicable to digital relations and of a global meta-jurisdiction,arbitration is postulated as a mechanism that could play a central role. However, the arbitration legal community will have to rethink fundamental issues in the face of this paradigmshift.
The law speaks clearly on the standards of proof, but listeners often misunderstand its words. This article tries, with some common sense, to explain how the law expects its standards to be applied, and then to show how the law thereby avoids such complications as the conjunction paradox. First, in accordance with belief function theory, the factfinder should start at zero belief. Given imperfect evidence, the factfinder will end up retaining a fair amount of uncommitted belief. As evidence comes in, though, the factfinder will form a belief in the truth of the disputed fact but also form a disbelief, or a belief in the fact’s falsity. At the close of evidence, the standard of proof requires only comparing belief and disbelief. For example, the civil standard, rather than asking whether a fact more likely than not happened according to traditional probability theory, asks whether the factfinder believes the fact more than the factfinder believes that the fact did not happen. The burdened party need not push proof above 50% by dispelling the phantoms of every possibility, while the opponent need not generate a competing version of truth but can instead rely on denial to demand that the burdened party generate a belief.Second, belief and disbelief being nonadditive partial truths, the mathematical result is that one cannot combine beliefs by traditional probability theory, as by using the product rule designed for conjunction of betting odds. Instead, one must use multivalent logic, including its rule that conjoined likelihood equals the likelihood of the least likely element. Linking the elements in a chain tells a story that is as likely as its weakest link. Consequently, if each element of a claim or defense passes the standard of proof, the conjunction of elements will pass the standard of proof. The conjunction paradox thus vaporizes for factfinding, just as the law has always maintained. The law has found the way to decide in accord with our best knowledge of the facts.
Million of dollars are moved worldwide by electronic contracting daily, obviously its legal regulation has been the subject of considerable debates within the contemporary commercial and procedural law. It is not only about analyzing the substantial perspective of electronic contract, but also the possibility of its demand and effectiveness in procedural stages. This article analyzes the principles that impact electronic contracting, with its own jurisprudential and normative development in the Colombian context; this requires a brief overview about the importance of the principles in law and their functions, secondly, an introduction to the phenomenon of electronic contracting, and finally with the detailed study of the principles. Later it will be analyzed its application in bitcoins.
The public administration of the environment in Colombia is characterized by decentralized\n. Based on this form of organization , renewable natural resources are\norganized under criteria ecosystem unit subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the\nregional autonomous corporations CAR. The CAR is part of what in Colombia\nis called the National Environmental System, SINA, and although they are not\nsubject to administrative hierarchies by the Ministry of environment, discusses the\ntrue scope of its administrative autonomy. The discussion about the autonomy of\nthe CAR has created tensions between the central level and the decentralized level\nto the point of being necessary the intervention of the constitutional court to set\nlimits to the possibility for the Ministry to intervene in the proceedings of the CAR,\nand to define those competencies that the CAR can act autonomously.