scholarly journals Streamlining Justice: How Online Courts Can Resolve the Challenges of Pro Se Litigation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayelet Sela
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Policy Design ◽  
Empirical Test ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Technological Properties ◽  
Online Dispute Resolution ◽  
Efficient Access ◽  
Procedural Reform

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy: Vol. 26 : Iss. 2 , Article 3. The tide of pro se litigation in the American justice system imposes significant constraints on self-represented litigants’ (SRLs) access to justice and courts’ ability to administer justice. Mitigating the challenges requires a systemic institutional and procedural reform. Advancing this approach, the Article proposes that online courts would alleviate many of the challenges associated with pro se litigation, and puts this proposition to an empirical test. To that end, the Article analyzes the challenges experienced by SRLs and courts and models the procedural and technological properties that would promote SRLs’ “day in court” as well as courts’ provision of fair and efficient access to justice. Based on the analysis and on a review of successful implementations of judicial online dispute resolution (JODR) systems, the Article proposes a detailed policy design framework for a JODR system for pro se litigation. Finally, the Article reports and discusses the results of an experiment evaluating the effect of the proposed framework on SRLs’ procedural justice experiences.

The Past, Present, and Future of Online Dispute Resolution

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Orna Rabinovich-Einy
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Court System ◽  
Current Application ◽  
Online Systems ◽  
Form And Function ◽  
Online Dispute Resolution ◽  
And Function ◽  
Ongoing Evaluation ◽  
Careful Design

Abstract This article chronicles the evolution of the field of online dispute resolution from its inception in the mid-1990s to its current application in and outside the court system. While originally ODR played a modest role in the limited domain of e-commerce, over the years its application has expanded significantly, as have its form and function: from processes that have sought to replicate online equivalents to ones that reimagine the design of procedures to better fit party needs and to address the justice system’s longstanding problems. The article predicts that the future of ODR lies in increased automation, which includes artificial intelligence and various forms of structured negotiation, and, consequently, a reduced role for human third parties. This will require a rethinking of the ways in which access to justice, procedural justice and substantive justice can be realized. The key for realizing the values and goals of the justice system lies in the careful design and ongoing evaluation of online systems, activities that have themselves been transformed by technology and the availability of big data.

Prospects of an online dispute resolution framework for Islamic Banks in Malaysia

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Umar A. Oseni ◽  
Sodiq O. Omoola
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Internet Banking ◽  
Internet Survey ◽  
Islamic Banking ◽  
Financial Services Industry ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Online Dispute Resolution ◽  
Services Industry

Purpose This study aims to examine the prospects of using an online dispute resolution (ODR) platform for resolving relevant Islamic banking disputes in the usual banker–customer relationship in Malaysia. It is argued that through proper regulation, such innovative dispute management mechanism would not only address some legal risks associated with banking disputes but could also prevent reputational risks in the Islamic financial services industry. Design/methodology/approach Based on an internet survey, responses were obtained from about 109 respondents in Malaysia. The data obtained were subjected to multivariate statistical analyses considering factors such as access to justice, attitude of stakeholders, resolving disputes, practical issues and understanding of ODR. Findings The results obtained showed that “access to justice”, “attitude of stakeholders” and “resolving disputes” are the most influencing factors affecting the intention to use ODR among stakeholders, particularly customers and bankers in the Islamic financial services industry in Malaysia. Practical implications This study provides a way in which the recently introduced Islamic Financial Services (Financial Ombudsman Scheme) Regulations 2015 can be better enhanced to cater for internet banking disputes which might require an ODR framework. Originality/value Though there have been numerous studies on the dispute resolution framework in the Islamic banking industry in Malaysia generally, the current study focuses on a less explored framework – ODR– a new framework for handling banking disputes.

scholarly journals Online courts and Online Dispute Resolution in terms of the international standard of access to justice: international experience

2020 ◽  
pp. 62-79
Author(s):  
Тетяна Андріївна Цувіна
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Electronic Systems ◽  
International Standard ◽  
Online Dispute Resolution ◽  
The Third ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Recent Developments

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.

scholarly journals A critical analysis of the inefficacy of Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) in South Africa – lessons from Nigeria

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 25-54
Author(s):  
EC Muller ◽  
◽  
CL Nel
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
South African ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Civil Justice ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Development ◽  
Optimal Functioning ◽  
Civil Justice System

As a result of defects in the South African civil justice system, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development introduced voluntary court-annexed mediation (CAM) in the magistrates’ courts in 2014. CAM was chosen under the broader need for greater access to justice because it has the potential to make dispute resolution efficient, amicable, and affordable. It can, therefore, contribute to access to justice for all members of society. Since the amendment of the Magistrates’ Court Rules to provide for CAM, the uptake of mediation in terms of the CAM system has unfortunately been inadequate. The aim of this article is to identify reasons for the inefficacy of CAM since its implementation. We use normative research to critically analyse existing court rules and authority. We conclude that there are several reasons for CAM’s inefficacy which are elucidated in the main text. It is important to understand these reasons, as the legislature presents CAM as a mechanism to improve access to justice. From this platform, we evaluate the mechanisms for court-connected alternative dispute resolutions provided by the Nigerian Multi-Door Courthouse (MDC) system. This reveals policies and practices that could potentially improve the efficacy of CAM in South Africa, as these relate to the factors identified as impediments to the optimal functioning of CAM in our civil justice system. As such, we identify valuable lessons that can be learned from this comparison. Building hereon, and on the conclusions reached elsewhere in the article, we postulate that the mediation scheme, as contemplated by Rule 41A of the Uniform Rules of Court (as applied in the superior courts), should also be implemented in the magistrates’ courts. The article concludes that improving CAM in South Africa is of critical importance to advancing access to justice and departing from a culture of conventional adversarial dispute resolution.

Consumer “Access to Justice” in EU in Low-Value Cross-Border Disputes and the Role of Online Dispute Resolution

2017 ◽  
pp. 191-208
Author(s):  
Inmaculada Barral-Viñals
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Consumer Contract ◽  
Online Dispute Resolution ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Consumer Access ◽  
The Eu

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.

Encouragement of mediation in England and Wales has been futile: is there now a role for online dispute resolution in settling low-value claims?

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-196
Author(s):  
Sue Prince
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Digital Transformation ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Online Dispute Resolution ◽  
The Core ◽  
Current Reform ◽  
Improve Access ◽  
Real Chance

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.

scholarly journals Civil courts and COVID-19: Challenges and opportunities in Australia

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 195-201
Author(s):  
Joe McIntyre ◽  
Anna Olijnyk ◽  
Kieran Pender
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Digital Space ◽  
Online Dispute Resolution ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
Technological Limitations ◽  
Civil Courts

This article provides an overview of the response of Australian courts to the COVID-19 crisis, and critically examines a number of structures and systemic issues that arise from the shift to the online deliver of justice. It places the current responses in the context of the emerging literature regarding online dispute resolution, and draws upon that literature to consider issues including open justice, symbolism and ‘court architecture’ in the digital space, technological limitations, access to justice and issues of systemic bias. It argues that by examining these issues, the present crisis will help map opportunities for future reform.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document