IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aag/wpaper/v25y2021i2p105-157.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating ASEAN E-commerce Laws Using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Ali Alibeigi

    (Faculty of Law, University of Malaya, Malaysia, Department of Law, Faculty of Law and Humanities, Isfahan (Khorsagan), Islamic Azad University, Iran)

  • Adeleh Asemi

    (Faculty of Computer Science & IT, University of Malaya, Malaysia)

  • Abu Bakar Munir

    (Faculty of Law, International Islamic University, Malaysia, Faculty of Law, University of Malaya, Malaysia)

  • Mohd Sapiyan Baba

    (Faculty of Computer Science & IT, University of Malaya, Malaysia)

Abstract

An evaluation of the ASEAN Electronic Commerce Acts (ECAs) is a specific primary step toward their harmonization. This evaluation is complex due to multiple criteria and uncertain information, especially in the case of electronic contracts. This study aims to evaluate and rank the ECAs of the ASEAN countries using a fuzzy multi-criteria decision making method. Seven criteria are determined for the evaluation of ASEAN ECAs. The Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) is applied for weighting of the criteria as well as the evaluation of alternatives. We applied the judgment of 10 experts to fill out the FAHP comparison matrices. The experts’ opinions are fuzziefied and aggregated using the fuzzy set theory. We found the weight of criteria, rank of ECAs in each criterion and the final rank on overall comprehensiveness of the ASEAN ECAs. The results show that the FAHP address the multi criteria evaluation of the laws and regulations. The recognition of the Electronic Message with a weight of 0.216684 is the most important criterion in the evaluation of ECAs, and the Place of Dispatch with a weight of 0.0276018 is the least important. This study has the potential to harmonize the ECAs among ASEAN countries which in turn will increase the number of online transactions and reduce the number of legal disputes.

Suggested Citation

  • Ali Alibeigi & Adeleh Asemi & Abu Bakar Munir & Mohd Sapiyan Baba, 2021. "Evaluating ASEAN E-commerce Laws Using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making," Advances in Decision Sciences, Asia University, Taiwan, vol. 25(2), pages 105-157, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:aag:wpaper:v:25:y:2021:i:2:p:105-157
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://iads.site/Evaluating-ASEAN-E-commerce-Laws-Using-Fuzzy-Multi-Criteria-Decision-Making
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R. E. Bellman & L. A. Zadeh, 1970. "Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 141-164, December.
    2. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chen, Lisa Y. & Wang, Tien-Chin, 2009. "Optimizing partners' choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects: The strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 233-242, July.
    2. Wenyao Niu & Yuan Rong & Liying Yu & Lu Huang, 2022. "A Novel Hybrid Group Decision Making Approach Based on EDAS and Regret Theory under a Fermatean Cubic Fuzzy Environment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(17), pages 1-30, August.
    3. Dilşad Güzel & Hamit Erdal, 2015. "A Comparative Assesment of Facility Location Problem via fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy VIKOR: A Case Study on Security Services," International Journal of Business and Social Research, MIR Center for Socio-Economic Research, vol. 5(5), pages 49-61, May.
    4. Pandey, Mukesh Mohan, 2016. "Evaluating the service quality of airports in Thailand using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making method," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 241-249.
    5. Manuel Casal-Guisande & Alberto Comesaña-Campos & Alejandro Pereira & José-Benito Bouza-Rodríguez & Jorge Cerqueiro-Pequeño, 2022. "A Decision-Making Methodology Based on Expert Systems Applied to Machining Tools Condition Monitoring," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-30, February.
    6. Sánchez-Lozano, J.M. & García-Cascales, M.S. & Lamata, M.T., 2016. "GIS-based onshore wind farm site selection using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making methods. Evaluating the case of Southeastern Spain," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 86-102.
    7. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Jankowski, Jarosław & Ziemba, Paweł & Karczmarczyk, Artur & Zioło, Magdalena, 2019. "Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-124.
    8. Abbas Mardani & Ahmad Jusoh & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Zainab Khalifah, 2015. "Sustainable and Renewable Energy: An Overview of the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Techniques and Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-38, October.
    9. Dilşad Güzel & Hamit Erdal, 2015. "A Comparative Assesment of Facility Location Problem via fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy VIKOR: A Case Study on Security Services," International Journal of Business and Social Research, LAR Center Press, vol. 5(5), pages 49-61, May.
    10. Engin ÇAKIR, 2017. "Application of Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods on Six Sigma Projects Selection," Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, KSP Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 132-138, March.
    11. Heidary Dahooie, Jalil & Qorbani, Ali Reza & Daim, Tugrul, 2021. "Providing a framework for selecting the appropriate method of technology acquisition considering uncertainty in hierarchical group decision-making: Case Study: Interactive television technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    12. Pandey, Mukesh Mohan, 2020. "Evaluating the strategic design parameters of airports in Thailand to meet service expectations of Low-Cost Airlines using the Fuzzy-based QFD method," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    13. Alireza Shahrasbi & Mehdi Shamizanjani & M. H. Alavidoost & Babak Akhgar, 2017. "An Aggregated Fuzzy Model for the Selection of a Managed Security Service Provider," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(03), pages 625-684, May.
    14. Lin, Sheng-Wei, 2016. "The critical success factors for a travel application service provider evaluation and selection by travel intermediaries," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 126-141.
    15. Zunhao Luo & Zexin Li, 2019. "A MAGDM Method Based on Possibility Distribution Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Set and Its Application," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-32, November.
    16. Adil Baykasoğlu & İlker Gölcük, 2019. "An Interactive Data-Driven (Dynamic) Multiple Attribute Decision Making Model via Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Functions," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-31, June.
    17. Yuly Andrea Franco Gómez & John Freddy Moreno Trujillo & Carlos Andres Zapata Quimbayo, 2022. "Optimal Portfolio Selection Using the Black-Litterman Model With Fuzzy Views," Lecturas de Economía, Universidad de Antioquia, Departamento de Economía, issue 97, pages 369-393, July-Dece.
    18. Yongming Song & Jun Hu, 2017. "Vector similarity measures of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and their applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-13, December.
    19. Chui-Hua Liu & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng & Po-Yen Lee, 2019. "Combined CFPR and VIKOR Model for Enhancing the Competencies of Domestic Chain Hotel Groups," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(03), pages 901-927, May.
    20. Colubi, Ana & Ramos-Guajardo, Ana Belén, 2023. "Fuzzy sets and (fuzzy) random sets in Econometrics and Statistics," Econometrics and Statistics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 84-98.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aag:wpaper:v:25:y:2021:i:2:p:105-157. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Vincent Pan (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dfasitw.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.