Technology, the Global Economy and other New Challenges for Civil Justice

This is a fresh and stimulating book on new challenges for civil justice. It brings together leading experts from across the world to discuss relevant topics of civil justice from regional, cross-border, international and comparative perspectives. <i>Inter alia</i>, this book will focus on multinational rules and systems of dispute resolution in the era of a global economy, while also exploring accountability and transparency in the course of civil justice. Transnational cooperation in cross-border insolvency, regionalism in the process of recognition and enforcement of foreign titles, and the application of electronic technologies in judicial proceedings, including new types of evidence also play a major role. <br><br><i>Technology, the Global Economy and other New Challenges for Civil Justice</i> is a compact and accessible overview of new developments in the field from across the world and written for those with an interest in civil justice.

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

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.

The Application of Artificial Intelligence Technology in the US Civil Court System

Introduction: in the era of the active introduction of digital technologies, more and more processes are being automated and smart machines are taking over the work of people. Even at the end of the 20th century, automatic spell-checking and search engines were perceived by many as “highly intelligent” information technologies. Currently, such processes have become completely trivial for most people and have given way to more advanced technologies. The intelligent face recognition systems installed in public places and airports allow you to verify a person’s identity, as well as assist in the capture of criminals. The smart assistants in mobile devices, for example, Google Maps, provide additional information about the destination (working hours, the name of the organization). However, there is more and more debate about the introduction of artificial intelligence technologies in the judicial process. Many experts in the field of information and communication technologies, as well as practicing lawyers, argue that thanks to the accumulated experience and judicial practice, it is possible to predict and make court decisions based on certain algorithms for certain categories of cases. This practice already exists in the system of alternative settlement of civil disputes. The first such decision was made by a robot mediator back in 2019 in the High Court of England and Wales. To resolve the dispute, the Smartsettle ONE system developed by the Canadian company iCan Systems was used. The use of artificial intelligence technology allowed resolving the dispute between the parties and coming to an agreement in less than an hour. The legislator approaches the issues of the introduction of artificial intelligence technology in the system of state courts more carefully. However, court cases do not always require a comprehensive individual approach to decision-making and many cases can be processed automatically, at least, partially. In this regard, it seems appropriate to explore in the paper the main opportunities and risks of using artificial intelligence through the example of the civil justice system of the United States of America. The purpose of the study is achieved by answering several questions: how can artificial intelligence be useful for courts? What mechanisms of the justice system need to be improved for the effective operation of artificial intelligence systems? What forms of artificial intelligence exist in the US civil court system? How can courts and judges work with artificial intelligence under the standards of a fair procedure for considering civil disputes? The methodology is based on a theoretical approach to the study of the most commonly used artificial intelligence technologies in the US civil justice system, as well as a number of national laws and other regulations. Based on the analysis of the theoretical data obtained, in the paper, the author analyzes the current trends and mechanisms for resolving civil disputes using artificial intelligence systems and also highlights some related problems. The results of the research can be used in determining the key goals and objectives of a procedural nature, improving the functioning of judicial and non-judicial organizations, law enforcement, research activities, as well as in teaching activities, in particular, during lectures and seminars on courses of private international law and civil procedure. Conclusions: increasing the level of awareness of participants in civil law disputes about current trends and tools for the administration of justice contributes to the development of the institution of civil proceedings, as well as contributes to increasing transparency and increasing the degree of trust of citizens in the judicial system as a whole.

‘Give me neither wealth nor poverty but appoint for me what is necessary and sufficient’ (Proverbs 30:8 LXX): But Necessary for What and Sufficient for What?

For the Life of the World ( FLW), part IV, offers a thought-provoking discussion about the problems of poverty, wealth and civil justice. Poverty, basic needs and a living wage are central to the concerns and proposed goals for action in this part. While understandably referred to in a general sense since FLW is ‘a preliminary step for further discussion’, in the contemporary world, these issues are highly ambiguous, controversial and difficult to measure. Hence, to promote further dialogue, I explore and highlight critical issues that must be addressed. I also offer a brief discussion of the stigmatization of poverty that cruelly affects many who are poor. I argue that to develop a more expansive theological and normative discourse about poverty and wealth, we should first aim to clearly understand key terms such as poverty in a fully multidimensional, holistic manner that explicitly considers the dynamics of the stigmatization of poverty.

The Rule of Law as an Emergent Social Norm: Evidence from Qualitative Research in Russia

We study attitudes to legality and the rule of law in Russia through analysis of interviews with legal and business professionals conducted in 2013–14, the high point of the stabilisation of the Russian economy and polity following the transition of the 1990s. The annexation of Crimea occurred during the course of our fieldwork but the effects of the cooling of relations with the west and the introduction of sanctions were yet to be felt. We observed a perception that the administration of civil justice was not uniformly corrupt, but that in ‘political’ cases, that is, those involving state officials or powerful private interests, judicial decisions could in effect be bought and sold. This commodification of civil justice was the result of an empowered but predatory state. While the state was strong enough to engage in predation, however, it was seen as lacking the capacity to manage the economy in an effective way or to deliver essential public goods. We consider the implications of our findings for a conception of the rule of law as an emergent social norm. We conclude that the 1990s policy of weakening the state through privatisation and the removal of regulatory controls, a policy designed to ensure that the command economy did not return, has left Russia with a dysfunctional public order, under which the ‘normality’ envisaged by the reforms of the 1990s is a distant prospect.

About the Issue 3/2021 and the Evolution of Justice in Ukraine during the period of independence

This issue of Access to Justice in Eastern Europe consists of the collection of research articles focused on the evolution of justice in independent Ukraine. This year, we celebrate an outstanding event – 30 years ago, Ukraine became an independent state, and now, we have a great occasion to summarise some of our challenges and achievements. AJEE was finally fully indexed in Scopus, Elsevier, and, on this occasion, I want to thank all our team – my excellent managing editors, respectful Editorial Board members, attentive reviewers and language editors, and authors, who helped us to share the results of research in the area of judiciary and civil justice, as well as criminal procedure among the wide audience of professional scholars and practitioners.