scholarly journals Online Courts: Bridging the Gap Between Access and Justice

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ignacio Oltra Gras

This article analyses the introduction of online court proceedings through the prism of access to justice. It distinguishes between the two major recent developments in terms of justice and court accessibility – ie the institutionalisation of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and the expansion of online dispute resolution within public courts. Whilst both movements appear to be driven by similar theoretical forces, the practical adoption of fully online judicial proceedings constitutes a step towards a different direction, opening up new opportunities for attenuating the apparently intrinsic efficiency-fairness trade-off. Due to the unique features of digital technology, the emergence of state-provided online courts and tribunals for the resolution of minor civil disputes could significantly improve the efficiency of formal adversarial litigation processes, without the risk of sacrificing proper procedural protections. Overall, this article advocates that the balanced combination offered by online court systems, albeit not a panacea, may be translated into a potential enhancement of both ‘access’ and ‘justice’.

2020 ◽  
pp. 62-79
Author(s):  
Тетяна Андріївна Цувіна

The article is devoted to the analysis of the problem issues of the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) through the prism of international standard of access to justice in civil matters. The first part of the article refers to terminological inconsistency, which is connected with using of three synonyms refering to IT-technologies in the area of civil justice, in particular cyberjustice, digital justice and e-justice. The author proposes to use term “e-justice”, which involves e-filing, electronic systems of assignment of cases, e-case-management, eDiscovery, ODR, electronic systems of court practice, using of Artificial Intelligence in civil proceedings. In the second part of the article the narrow and wide approach to the ODR are described. According to narrow approach ODR is described as online ADR. Wide approach to ODR includes online ADR as well as online courts. Today wide approach is more valid taking into account recent developments in the field of online courts in foreign countries. The third part of the article describes different types of online courts, in particular, online Civil Resolution Tribunal (British Columbia, Canada), Online Solutions Court (Great Britain) etc. The author analyzes current innovations in the structure of online courts, connected with integration of information systems and online ADR into the online courts platforms. Special attention is paid to the use of Artificial Legal Intelligence in courts with references to advantages and challenges of such innovations.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-100
Author(s):  
Giampiero D'Alessandro

The topic of Alternative Dispute Resolution is comprehensively presented in Italy because of two different demands. The first is a demand presented at the European level to adopt measures that are meant to align the legal and regulatory provisions of different member States, even through the development of alternative methods for dispute resolution, in order to guarantee better access to justice at large, and this can be done through the use of supplemental and alternative dispute resolution methods which are of equal dignity to court proceedings. The second demand is presented at the national level and aims respond to the slowness of local court proceedings through so-called de-juridicalization, where legislations pertaining to A.D.R were supplemented with emergency measures that now include alternative tools among them. This complex tableau led to the creation of very detailed tools for dispute resolution on the civil front, tools that were often borrowed from foreign experiences. This paper wishes to offer a general framework of the principal players, without necessarily being exhaustive. In fact, in addition to Arbitration, which finds its origins in the Civil Code, Italian regulators have added over time procedures for civil and commercial mediation, assisted negotiation, settlement procedures for overindebtedness crisis and mediation on matters of energy and telecommunications and, more in general, on consumer matters. Some of these tools take on a principally deflationary function on matters of civil disputes where these same tools are considered necessary and constitute a condition of admissibility to be able to start legal proceedings. Faced with this complex tableau, in 2016 the Italian Ministry of Justice established a research committee, composed of professors, judges, lawyers and notaries who were entrusted with the task reassessing organically the matter with the aim of developing “de-juridicalization” tools using mediation, assisted negotiations and arbitration. In January 2017, this Commission, at the end of its tenure, presented a series of proposal to modify the legislation that was then in force. These proposals are to this day still under consideration by the Ministry of Justice. The establishment of the aforementioned Commission seemed justified because of the imminent termination of the implementation period for the compulsory mediation required by law for some disputes on civil and commercial matters, pursuant to Article 5, para. 1-bis, of Legal Decree 28/20106 that, instead, found a solution after changes made to convert Legislative Decree No. 50, April 24, 2017,7 through the so-called corrective action of 2017, into Law No. 96 of June 21, 2017.


Author(s):  
Inmaculada Barral-Viñals

This paper examines consumer access to justice in the EU by analysing how Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) can improve this access, especially in the case of low-value cross-border disputes, which constitute the majority of consumer contract complaints. The discussion is based on a widened concept of open justice that not only seeks to provide greater transparency, but also greater participation and collaboration as a means to improve consumer access to justice. The approach deals with the subjective and objective obstacles to accessing justice and the role of participatory justice. Finally, the paper examines the decisions taken by the EU in its attempt to foster both ADRs and ODRs for consumer disputes and determines which obstacles have been eliminated in promoting access to justice.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-196
Author(s):  
Sue Prince

AbstractIn England and Wales, the judiciary, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Services (HMCTS) and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) have embarked on an ambitious reform whose aims are to radically transform and restructure court services and introduce digital justice for the overall purpose of improving access to justice in relation to the resolution of disputes. The reality in the courts of England and Wales is that the current reform means automation of processes. Digital transformation offers a real chance to improve access to justice particularly for low-value claims where a simplified process is more proportionate to the value of the dispute. This paper argues therefore that, for everyday low-value civil disputes, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes should be at the core of any design. In addition, fashioning new means to deliver access to justice should not just be about increasing government efficiency, but also about using technology to design and create innovative, new, agile and ‘user-centric’ pathways.


CES Derecho ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-17
Author(s):  
Shamaise Peters

The evolution of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) as an augmentation from Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) may lead to an authentic paradigm shift in the way disputes are handled beyond the traditional court systems. To assess state of the art and convey awareness, this paper explores the regulatory landscape of the European Union (EU) using the United Kingdom and Estonia to illustrate the key advancements and shortcomings of the supranational strategy. It discusses the relationships between ADR capabilities and its productive use in ODR, the ODR deployment and adoption, and the consequences that may arise if dispute resolution technologies leapfrog. The paper also speaks of automation and suggests the need to build integrative models into Artificial Intelligence (AI) - powered ODR platforms. It is apparent that the early challenges in the development of the ADR culture in the EU are still unresolved, affecting the proper integration of ADR principles and ODR technologies. A more effective coupling could be expected to smooth digital trade interactions by increasing access to justice and consumer trust in the redress capacities of the Dispute Resolution System (DRS) as a whole. 


2011 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 1-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicki Waye ◽  
Ping Xiong

AbstractAfter a period of decline, judicial mediation has been recently revived in China. The revival has occurred as a result of a combination of political and juridical forces. China's courts have been struggling to meet demand for access to justice and the revival of judicial mediation is part of a broader policy to promote mediation as a mainstream dispute resolution mechanism. At the same time, the revival of judicial mediation also reflects the disaffection of China's political elite with an emphasis upon adversarial, western style legal process. China's establishment appears to be seeking a more responsive multi-door style of court system. This article traces recent developments in China which track the rise, fall and rise of judicial mediation.


2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 39-74
Author(s):  
Urša Jeretina ◽  
Alan Uzelac

Traditional court proceedings do not always offer practical and cost-appropriate way of resolving consumer disputes. Some authors consider that, in disputes between consumers and businesses, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is more effective, faster and cheaper. Insofar, consumer ADR (CADR) is seen as a useful instrument that helps consumers realize their right of access to justice. It is argued that the CADR is a flexible and faster method of enforcement of consumers’ rights, and that CADR systems provide valuable information on the needs of applicants, while preserving confidentiality and increasing consumer satisfaction. However, while praised in theory, the CADR in real life has not reached the desired levels. It seems that both sides, businesses and consumers, lack awareness of ADR schemes and their benefits. In this paper we analyze the concept of CADR through compensatory collective redress, and explore whether current legal initiatives of the European Union (EU) are ultimately contributing to increasing consumer confidence in the internal market of the EU Member States. Special attention is paid to different barriers for the development of various ADR schemes. They are reflected not only in different ADR schemes, but also in the evaluation methods used to measure efficiency of the use of the (C)ADR. The EU Directive on Consumer ADR and Regulation on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) have attempted to set flexible rules that would assure quality of dispute resolution between entities in the EU. However, the EU initiatives so far leave many questions unanswered, in particulars the questions about supervision and financing of consumer ADR schemes, as well as the issues regarding purely internal harmonization of CADR practices. An example for considerable divergences are CADR proceedings in the neighboring Western Balkan states, such as Slovenia and Croatia.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-194
Author(s):  
Anna Rogacka-Łukasik

ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution), as a non-judicial resolution of disputes, is a wide range of mechanisms that aim to put an end to a conflict without the need of conducting a trial before the court. On the other hand, the modern form of ADR is ODR (Online Dispute Resolution) – an online dispute resolution system that is the expression of the newest means of communication and technical innovations in order to help in non-judicial dispute resolving. The goal of this publication is to present the ODR platform and, in particular, to describe the process of filing a complaint by the consumer by means of it.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Weinberg

<p>Over the last 30 years alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has become more prominent in Australian legal practice due to the need to reduce the cost of access to justice and to provide more expedient and informal alternatives to litigation. As legal educators, we need to ask: how should we be preparing law students entering practice for these changes? How can we ensure that once they become lawyers, our students will not rely entirely on litigious methods to assist their clients but instead look at alternatives for dispute resolution?</p><p>In this paper, I argue that there is no alternative to teaching ADR in clinic in order to address client needs and to ensure that students engaged in clinical education are prepared for changes in legal practice today. I show that the increasing focus upon ADR in Australian legal practice represents a challenge for law schools, and that legal educators need to ensure they are educating students about ADR.</p><p>I argue that it is important to determine whether ADR is being taught to students undertaking clinical legal education in ways that will enhance their preparation for legal practice. I will show that there is a need to explore: whether ADR is being taught within clinical legal education, the strengths and weaknesses of existing approaches, and how the teaching of ADR within clinics can be improved.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document