Anne Wallace, K. Laster
求助PDF
{"title":"Courts in Victoria, Australia, During COVID: Will Digital Innovation Stick?","authors":"Anne Wallace, K. Laster","doi":"10.36745/IJCA.389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We present a case-study of the swift digital response to COVID-19 restrictions by the courts in the State of Victoria, Australia’s second-largest jurisdiction. We analyse the extent to which the management of this crisis (Step 1 in John Kotter’s model of innovation) can serve as the catalyst for digital innovation in these courts. We contend that the history of innovation in Australia is of quick, pragmatic fixes which do not translate into systematic change. For example, although Australian courts are often credited with being pioneers in court technology, recourse to apparent ‘virtual courts’ before and during COVID is probably not truly innovative. Applying Boschma’s theory about the 5 ‘proximities’ which promote innovation — geographical, social, cognitive, institutional and organisational — we maintain that for these courts, those factors have, paradoxically, worked in the opposite direction to undermine technological innovation. However COVID has seen critical changes in a number of these elements, supported by ideological and practical concerns for courts. Taken together, we are cautiously optimistic that post-COVID, Kotter’s final stage of “Making it Stick” through a technologically friendly legal culture which supports systematic and sustained court innovation, might just be possible if government is willing to fund a grander innovation agenda and has confidence in the courts’ ability to carry it through. © 2021 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.","PeriodicalId":37676,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Court Administration","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Court Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36745/IJCA.389","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
引用
批量引用
新冠疫情期间,澳大利亚维多利亚州法院:数字创新会持续吗?
我们介绍了澳大利亚第二大司法管辖区维多利亚州法院对新冠肺炎限制措施的快速数字反应的案例研究。我们分析了这场危机的管理(John Kotter创新模型中的步骤1)在多大程度上可以成为这些法院数字创新的催化剂。我们认为,澳大利亚的创新历史是快速、务实的解决方案,不会转化为系统性的变革。例如,尽管澳大利亚法院经常被认为是法院技术的先驱,但在新冠肺炎之前和期间,诉诸明显的“虚拟法院”可能并不是真正的创新。应用Boschma关于促进创新的5个“接近性”的理论——地理、社会、认知、制度和组织——我们认为,对于这些法院来说,矛盾的是,这些因素朝着相反的方向破坏了技术创新。然而,在法院的意识形态和实际关切的支持下,新冠肺炎在许多方面发生了重大变化。总之,我们谨慎乐观地认为,如果政府愿意资助一项更大的创新议程,并对法院的能力有信心,那么在新冠疫情后,科特通过支持系统和持续的法院创新的技术友好的法律文化“坚持下去”的最后阶段可能是可能的。©2021作者。这是一篇根据知识共享署名4.0国际许可证(CC-BY 4.0)条款分发的开放获取文章,该许可证允许在任何媒体上不受限制地使用、分发和复制,前提是原始作者和来源可信。看见http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。