DOI: https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990x.149.201782

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

Тетяна Андріївна Цувіна

Abstract


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.

Keywords


e-justice; cyberjustice; digital justice; Online Dispute Resolution; online court; online ADR; access to justice

References


Rule, C. (2016). Is ODR ADR: A Response to Carrie Menkel-Meadow. International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, 3 (1), 8–11.

Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (2015), Resolution 2081 (2015) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe “Access to justice and the Internet: potential and challenges”. URL: http://semantic-pace.net/tools/pdf.aspx?doc=aHR0cDovL2Fzc2VtYmx5LmNvZS5pbnQvbncveG1sL1hSZWYvWDJILURXLWV4dHIuYXNwP2ZpbGVpZD0yMjI4MyZsYW5nPUVO&xsl=aHR0cDovL3NlbWFudGljcGFjZS5uZXQvWHNsdC9QZGYvWFJlZi1XRC1BVC1YTUwyUERGLnhzbA==&xsltparams=ZmlsZWlkPTIyMjgz.

Rabinovich-Einy, O. (2006). Balancing the Skales: The Ford-Firestone Case, the Internet, and the Future Dispute Resolution Landscape. Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 6, 1–53.

Aubert, B.A. (2014). Providing an Architecture Framework for Cyberjustice. Laws, 3 (4), 721–743.

Kastner, Ph. (2017). Transitional Justice + Cyberjustice = Justice. Leiden Journal of International Law, 30 (3), 753-770.

Lupo, G., Bailey, J. (2014). Designing and Implementing e-Justice Systems: Some Lessons Learned from EU and Canadian Examples. Laws, 3 (2), 353–387.

Van den Hoogen, R. (2008). Will E-Justice Still be Justice - Principles of a Fair electronic Trial. International Journal for Court Administration, 1 (1), 65–73.

Velicogna M., Errera, A. (2013). Building e-Justice in Continental Europe: The TeleRecours Experience in France. Utrecht Law Review, 9 (1), 38–59.

Rabinovich-Einy, O., Katsh, E. (2017). Access to Digital Justice: Fair and Efficient Processes for the Modern Age. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 18 (3), 637–658.

Cashman, P., Ginnivan, E. (2019). Digital Justice: Online Resolution of Minor Civil Disputes and the Use of Digital Technology in Complex Litigation and Class Actions. Macquarie Law Journal, 19, 39–80.

European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) (2017). Guidelines on How to Drive Change towards Cyberjustice: Stock-taking of Tools Deployed and Summary of Good Practices. As adopted at the 28th meeting of the CEPEJ on 7 December 2016. URL: https://edoc.coe.int/en/efficiency-of-justice/7501-guidelines-on-how-to-drive-change-towards-cyberjustice-stock-taking-of-tools-deployed-and-summary-of-good-practices.html.

Schmitz, A.J. (2019). Expanding Access to Remedies through E-Court Initiatives. Buffalo Law Review, 67 (1), 89–163.

Fredriksen, H.H., Strandberg, M. (2016). Is E-Justice Reform of Norwegian Civil Procedure Finally Happening. Oslo Law Review, 3 (2), 72–88.

Dimitrov, G.G. (2013) E-Justice as Adopted in Bulgaria. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 10, 97–103.

Boscheinen-Duursma, H.Ch., Khanyk-Pospolitak, R. (2019). Austrian and Ukrainian Comparative Study of E-Justice: Towards Conference of Judicial Rights Protection. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 4, 42–59.

Sourdin, T. (2018). Judge v. Robot: Artificial Intelligence and Judicial Decision-Making. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 41 (4), 1114–1133.

Seda, F. (2020). Artificial Intelligence and the Law: Will Judges Run on Punch Cards. Common Law Review, 16, 4–6.

Gideon, C. (2019). Predictive Coding: Adopting and Adapting Artificial Intelligence in Civil Litigation. Canadian Bar Review, 97 (3), 486–525.

Thompson, D. (2015). Creating New Pathways to Justice Using Simple Artificial Intelligence and Online Dispute Resolution. International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, 2 (1), 4–53.

Susskind, R.E. (1986). Expert Systems in Law: A Jurisprudential Approach to Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning. Modern Law Review, 49 (2), 168–194.

Baumann, B. (2002). Electronic Dispute Resolution (EDR) and the Development of Internet Activities. Syracuse Law Review, 52 (4), 1227–1242.

Bordone, R.C. (1998). Electronic Online Dispute Resolution: A Systems Approach – Potential, Problems, and a Proposal. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 3, 175–212.

Thornburg, E.G. (2000). Going Private: Technology, Due Process, and Internet Dispute Resolution. U.C. Davis Law Review, 34 (1), 151–220.

Victorio, R.M. (2001). Internet Dispute Resolution (iDR): Bringing ADR into the 21st Century. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 1 (2), 279–300.

Haloush, H.A., Malkawi, B. (2008). Internet Characteristics and Online Alternative Dispute Resolution. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 13 (2), 327–348.

Haloush, H.A. (2008) Internet Infrastructure and Online Alternative Dispute Resolution. John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law, 25 (2), 217-240.

Rabinovich-Einy, O., Katsh, E. (2014) Digital Justice: Reshaping Boundaries in an Online Dispute Resolution Environment. International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, 1 (1), 5–36.

Tan, V. (2019). Online Dispute Resolution for Small Civil Claims in Victoria: A New Paradigm in Civil Justice. Deakin Law Review, 24, 101–138.

Sourdin, T., Li, B., Burke, T. (2019). Just, Quick and Cheap: Civil Dispute Resolution and Technology. Macquarie Law Journal, 19, 17–38.

Salter, Sh. (2017). Online Dispute Resolution and Justice System Integration: British Columbia's Civil Resolution Tribunal. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, 34 (1), 112–129.

Rabinovich-Einy, O., Katsh, E. (2017). The New New Courts. American University Law Review, 67 (1), 165–215.

Salter, Sh., Thompson, D. (2017). Public-Centered Civil Justice Redesign: A Case Study of the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal. McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution, 3, 113–153.

Online Dispute Resolution Advisory Group (2015). Online Dispute Resolution for Low Value Civil Claims: Report. URL: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Online-Dispute-Resolution-Final-Web-Version1.pdf.

Lord Justice Brigs (2016). Civil Courts Structure Review: Final Report. Judiciary of England and Wales. URL: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/civil-courts-structure-review-final-report-jul-16-final-1.pdf.

Consultative Council Of European Judges (2011). Opinion № (2011)14 of the CCJE “Justice and information technologies (IT)”, adopted by the CCJE at its 12th plenary meeting (Strasbourg, 7-9 November 2011), CCJE(2011)2 Final. URL: https://rm.coe.int/168074816b.

Fischer v. Austria, № 16922/90, 26 April 1995. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57916.

Salomonsson v. Sweden, № 38978/97, 12 November 2002. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-60736.

Miller v. Sweden, № 55853/00, 08 February 2005. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-68178.

Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, № 14518/89, 24 June 1993. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57840.

Carneiro, D. (2014). Online Dispute Resolution: An Artificial Intelligence Perspective. Artificial Intelligence Review, 41, 211-240.

Aletras, N., Tsarapatsanis, D. (2016). Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective. PeerJ Computer Science. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310615519_Predicting_Judicial_Decisions_of_the_European_Court_of_Human_Rights_A_Natural_Language_Processing_Perspective.

Harvey, D. (2016). From Susskind to Briggs: Online Court Approaches. Journal of Civil Litigation and Practice, 5 (2), 84–95.

European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (2019). European Ethical Charter on the use of AI in the judicial systems and their environment. Adopted at the 31st plenary meetingof the CEPEJ (Strasbourg, 3-4 December 2018). URL: https://rm.coe.int/ethical-charter-en-for-publication-4-december-2018/16808f699c.


GOST Style Citations




Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM




Copyright (c) 2020 Тетяна Андріївна Цувіна

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ISSN 2224-9281