Transformation of dispute resolution mechanisms in public-private partnership: from traditional to digital adjudication

Subject. Public-private partnership (PPP) is an important tool for infrastructure development in the 21st century, providing synergy between public resources and private capital. Currently, there is an increase in the number and complexity of PPP projects, which inevitably leads to an increase in the number of disputes between partners. Traditional dispute resolution methods – litigation and international arbitration – have significant drawbacks: the average litigation period in infrastructure disputes is 12-18 months, and costs can reach 5-10% of the project value. This necessitates the development of prompt and transparent mechanisms for dispute resolution. Adjudication, as a process where an independent expert renders a binding decision within a short timeframe (usually 28-40 days), represents a promising alternative mechanism that has proven its effectiveness in countries with developed PPP systems.
The purpose of the study. This article examines adjudication as a tool for rapid conflict resolution in PPP, evaluates its application in international and Russian practice, and proposes an innovative model of digital adjudication that integrates blockchain technologies, Internet of Things (IoT) and online platforms. The research aims to analyze the potential of digital adjudication as an innovative dispute resolution mechanism in PPP and to develop practical recommendations for its implementation in the Russian jurisdiction. The author seeks to answer the following questions: what is the legal nature and features of adjudication in the PPP context; what advantages and limitations does digital transformation of adjudication have; what are the prospects for implementing digital adjudication in the Russian legal system.
Methodology. The methodological basis of the research consists of comparative legal analysis, case study method, and systematic approach. The research is based on the analysis of legislative acts and practices of applying adjudication in countries with common law systems (Great Britain, Australia, Singapore) and continental law systems, as well as the study of successful cases of digital technologies implementation in dispute resolution. The author examines the doctrinal foundations of adjudication, analyzes the classification of disputes in PPP projects (financial, technical, operational, political, and digital disputes), and evaluates the effectiveness of various dispute resolution mechanisms depending on the type of conflict.
Results. Based on the conducted analysis, it was established that digital adjudication can reduce the dispute resolution period to 28-40 days, ensuring transparency and objectivity of the process through the use of modern technologies. Blockchain technology ensures immutability of data and transparency of procedures, IoT provides objective indicators of project implementation, and online platforms eliminate geographical barriers and reduce costs. The author has developed a comprehensive model of digital adjudication for PPP projects, which includes: an online platform for submitting claims and document management; integration with IoT sensors for objective data collection on project implementation; use of blockchain for storing evidence and decisions; automated preliminary analysis of disputes; digital selection and appointment of adjudicators; secure video conferencing for hearings. The implementation of digital adjudication can lead to a reduction in the time for dispute resolution by 40-50% compared to traditional methods, a decrease in costs by 30-40%, an increase in transparency and objectivity of decisions, and improvement in the overall efficiency of PPP project implementation.
Conclusions. The author has developed practical recommendations for the implementation of digital adjudication in the Russian jurisdiction, taking into account legal and technological features. It is necessary to adopt legislative amendments to the Federal Law “On PublicPrivate Partnership” and the Law on Concessions, establishing adjudication as a mandatory pre-trial dispute resolution mechanism in PPP projects. The formation of a specialized pool of digital adjudicators with certification requirements and the creation of a unified digital platform based on domestic technologies with integration into existing information systems is required. The implementation requires a phased approach: starting with pilot projects in several regions, gradual expansion of the geography and types of projects, training of specialists and development of methodological materials. The results of the study can be useful for improving the legislation and practice of implementing PPP projects in Russia, where annual losses from delays in PPP projects amount to billions of rubles.

1. Allen M. Global construction disputes. International In-House Counsel Journal, 2016, vol. 9, no. 36, pp. 1–13.

2. Jones D., Walker J. Resolving Infrastructure Disputes: The Interplay between International Commercial Courts and International Arbitration. Available at: https://dougjones.info/content/uploads/2023/04/SCL-International-Paper.pdf.

3. Kemalov O.A. Blockchain and the Internet of Things (IoT): Interaction and integration prospects. Innovatsii i investitsii = Innovations & Investment, 2024, no. 8, pp. 393–397. (In Russ.).

4. El Issa Y. International construction contracts. Liabilities and applicable law, Doct. Diss. Paris, 2022. 512 p. (In French).

5. Butenko R.N. Adjudication as an alternative method of resolving international commercial disputes, Cand. Diss. Moscow, 2018. 224 p. (In Russ.).

6. Lessambo F.I. Alternative Dispute Resolution, in: Lessambo F.I. International Project Finance: The PublicPrivate Partnership, Cham, Palgrave Macmillan Publ., 2022, pp. 99–125. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-96390-3_9.

7. Stewart J., Cook R., Kim I. Adjudicator jurisdiction across jurisdictions. Construction Law International, 2021, vol. 16, iss. 3, pp. 17–23.

8. Weinstock N.N. Expert opinion and reform in Anglo-American, Continental, and Israeli adjudication. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 1986, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 9–55.

9. Yescombe E.R., Farquharson E. Risk Analysis – Theory and Methodologies, in: Yescombe E.R., Farquharson E. Public-Private Partnerships for Infrastructure: Principles of Policy and Finance, 2nd ed., Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann Publ., 2018, pp. 139–149. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-100766-2.00011-5.

10. Lekkas Z. Disputes in the Digital era: The evolution of dispute resolution and the model ODR system, Doct. Diss. Toulouse, 2015. 455 p.

11. Chern C. The law of construction disputes, 3rd ed. London, Informa Law from Routledge Publ., 2020. 710 p. DOI: 10.4324/9780429027246.

12. Bailey J. Construction law, 2nd ed. London, Informa Law from Routledge Publ., 2016. 3670 p. DOI: 10.4324/9781315755465.

13. Hwang M. Commercial Courts and International Arbitration – Competitors or Partners?. Arbitration International, 2015, vol. 31, iss. 2, pp. 193–212. DOI: 10.1093/arbint/aiv038.

14. Shang G., Pheng L.S., Zhong Xia R.L. Adoption of smart contracts in the construction industry: an institutional analysis of drivers and barriers. Construction Innovation: Information Process Management, 2024, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1401–1421. DOI: 10.1108/CI-03-2022-0066.

15. Ast F., Deffains B. When Online Dispute Resolution Meets Cryptoeconomics: The Birth of Decentralized Justice. Stanford Journal of Blockchain Law & Policy, June 30, 2021, available at: https://stanford-jblp.pub-pub.org/pub/birth-of-decentralized-justice/release/1.

16. Ghosh A., Edwards D.J., Hosseini M.R. Patterns and trends in Internet of Things (IoT) research: future applications in the construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 2021, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 457–481. DOI: 10.1108/ecam-04-2020-0271.

17. Helberger N. The rise of technology courts, or: How technology companies reinvent adjudication for a digital world. Computer Law & Security Review, 2025, vol. 56, art. 106118. DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106118.

18. Rajendra J.B., Thuraisingam A.S. The deployment of artificial intelligence in alternative dispute resolution: the AI augmented arbitrator. Information & Communications Technology Law, 2022, vol. 31, iss. 2, pp. 176–193. DOI: 10.1080/13600834.2021.1998955.

19. Castro-Jiménez V. Overview of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Revista de Investigaciones Universidad del Quindío, 2021, vol. 33, no. S2, pp. 213–218. DOI: 10.33975/riuq.vol33nS2.453. (In Spanish).

20. Moreno J.P.G. Dispute Boards in Latin America: Resolution of Infrastructure Disputes. USFQ Law Review, 2023, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 102–128. DOI: 10.18272/ulr.v10i2.3023. (In Spanish).

21. Taran K.K. Approaches Determining the Applicable Law Using Internet Technologies in the Digital Economy, in: Ashmarina S., Vochozka M., Mantulenko V. (eds.). Digital Age: Chances, Challenges and Future (ISCDTE 2019), Conference proceedings, Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems; vol. 84, Cham, Springer Publ., 2020, pp. 622–629. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-27015-5_74.

22. Branovitsky K.L., Rents I.G., Neznamov Al.V., Neznamov An.V., Yarkov V.V. Digital Technology and Civil Procedure: Some Problems and Prospects. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa = Herald of Civil Procedure, 2019, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 52–95. DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2019-9-4-52-95. (In Russ.).

23. Savelyev A.I. Some legal aspects of implementation of smart contracts and blockchain technologies under Russian law. Zakon, 2017, no. 5, pp. 94–117. (In Russ.).