Alternative dispute resolution in digital government

Minbaleev Vladimirovich, Evsikov Sergeevich
{"title":"Alternative dispute resolution in digital government","authors":"Minbaleev Vladimirovich, Evsikov Sergeevich","doi":"10.52028/rbadr.v4i7.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A significant number of people around the world have difficulties with access to justice, and most of the legal conflicts do not reach the consideration by public authorities. Nowadays e-justice and law tech are removing some barriers. The workload in the courts has increased all over the world. The problem of “not everyone can go to the court” turns into a problem of “not everyone will receive a quality service in the court”. The solution can be Digital Dispute Resolution (DDR) as an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) option. The analysis of ADRs in different countries showed that most states use classical conflict resolution methods. However, some countries are implementing online dispute resolution (ODR) which is not able to change the situation significantly and prevent a “docket explosion” in the justice. One possible way to change the situation is to integrate ADR into digital government. The authors have substantiated the necessity of developing DDR and analyzed the difference between this technology and e-justice. The DDR systems are being tested in some countries, but it used in the highly specialized cases, for example, in the smart contract disputes. The proposed ADR system describing in the article has to be integrated with digital government. The authors present main DDR principles and prove that the Artificial Intelligence disputes conclusion is not a part of justice and should be regarded exclusively as ADR.","PeriodicalId":101933,"journal":{"name":"REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION","volume":"78 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52028/rbadr.v4i7.8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

A significant number of people around the world have difficulties with access to justice, and most of the legal conflicts do not reach the consideration by public authorities. Nowadays e-justice and law tech are removing some barriers. The workload in the courts has increased all over the world. The problem of “not everyone can go to the court” turns into a problem of “not everyone will receive a quality service in the court”. The solution can be Digital Dispute Resolution (DDR) as an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) option. The analysis of ADRs in different countries showed that most states use classical conflict resolution methods. However, some countries are implementing online dispute resolution (ODR) which is not able to change the situation significantly and prevent a “docket explosion” in the justice. One possible way to change the situation is to integrate ADR into digital government. The authors have substantiated the necessity of developing DDR and analyzed the difference between this technology and e-justice. The DDR systems are being tested in some countries, but it used in the highly specialized cases, for example, in the smart contract disputes. The proposed ADR system describing in the article has to be integrated with digital government. The authors present main DDR principles and prove that the Artificial Intelligence disputes conclusion is not a part of justice and should be regarded exclusively as ADR.
数字政府的替代性争议解决
世界上有相当多的人在诉诸司法方面有困难,大多数法律冲突没有得到公共当局的考虑。如今,电子司法和法律技术正在消除一些障碍。全世界法院的工作量都在增加。“不是每个人都能去法院”的问题变成了“不是每个人都能在法院得到优质服务”的问题。解决方案可以是数字争议解决(DDR),作为替代争议解决(ADR)选项。对不同国家adr的分析表明,大多数国家使用经典的冲突解决方法。然而,一些国家正在实施网上争议解决(ODR),这并不能明显改变这种情况,也不能防止司法中的“案卷爆炸”。改变这种状况的一个可能方法是将ADR整合到数字政府中。作者论证了发展DDR的必要性,并分析了DDR技术与电子司法的区别。DDR系统正在一些国家进行测试,但它用于高度专业化的案例,例如智能合约纠纷。本文提出的ADR系统必须与数字政府相结合。作者提出了DDR的主要原则,并论证了人工智能争议结论不是正义的组成部分,而应完全视为ADR。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书