在线法院:弥合获取和司法之间的差距

Ignacio Oltra Gras
{"title":"在线法院:弥合获取和司法之间的差距","authors":"Ignacio Oltra Gras","doi":"10.14324/111.444.2052-1871.1214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the introduction of online court proceedings through the prism of access to justice. It distinguishes between the two major recent developments in terms of justice and court accessibility – ie the institutionalisation of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and the expansion of online dispute resolution within public courts. Whilst both movements appear to be driven by similar theoretical forces, the practical adoption of fully online judicial proceedings constitutes a step towards a different direction, opening up new opportunities for attenuating the apparently intrinsic efficiency-fairness trade-off. Due to the unique features of digital technology, the emergence of state-provided online courts and tribunals for the resolution of minor civil disputes could significantly improve the efficiency of formal adversarial litigation processes, without the risk of sacrificing proper procedural protections. Overall, this article advocates that the balanced combination offered by online court systems, albeit not a panacea, may be translated into a potential enhancement of both ‘access’ and ‘justice’.","PeriodicalId":283494,"journal":{"name":"UCL Journal of Law and Jurisprudence","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Online Courts: Bridging the Gap Between Access and Justice\",\"authors\":\"Ignacio Oltra Gras\",\"doi\":\"10.14324/111.444.2052-1871.1214\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article analyses the introduction of online court proceedings through the prism of access to justice. It distinguishes between the two major recent developments in terms of justice and court accessibility – ie the institutionalisation of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and the expansion of online dispute resolution within public courts. Whilst both movements appear to be driven by similar theoretical forces, the practical adoption of fully online judicial proceedings constitutes a step towards a different direction, opening up new opportunities for attenuating the apparently intrinsic efficiency-fairness trade-off. Due to the unique features of digital technology, the emergence of state-provided online courts and tribunals for the resolution of minor civil disputes could significantly improve the efficiency of formal adversarial litigation processes, without the risk of sacrificing proper procedural protections. Overall, this article advocates that the balanced combination offered by online court systems, albeit not a panacea, may be translated into a potential enhancement of both ‘access’ and ‘justice’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":283494,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"UCL Journal of Law and Jurisprudence\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"UCL Journal of Law and Jurisprudence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.2052-1871.1214\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"UCL Journal of Law and Jurisprudence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.2052-1871.1214","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文从司法渠道的角度分析了网络诉讼的引入。它区分了最近在司法和法院可及性方面的两个主要发展,即替代性争端解决机制的制度化和公共法院内在线争端解决的扩大。虽然这两种运动似乎是由类似的理论力量驱动的,但实际采用完全在线的司法程序构成了朝着不同方向迈出的一步,为减轻明显内在的效率-公平权衡开辟了新的机会。由于数字技术的独特性,国家提供的解决轻微民事纠纷的网上法院和法庭的出现可以显著提高正式对抗性诉讼程序的效率,而不会有牺牲适当程序保护的风险。总之,这篇文章主张,在线法院系统提供的平衡组合,虽然不是万灵药,但可能转化为“获取”和“正义”的潜在增强。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Online Courts: Bridging the Gap Between Access and Justice
This article analyses the introduction of online court proceedings through the prism of access to justice. It distinguishes between the two major recent developments in terms of justice and court accessibility – ie the institutionalisation of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and the expansion of online dispute resolution within public courts. Whilst both movements appear to be driven by similar theoretical forces, the practical adoption of fully online judicial proceedings constitutes a step towards a different direction, opening up new opportunities for attenuating the apparently intrinsic efficiency-fairness trade-off. Due to the unique features of digital technology, the emergence of state-provided online courts and tribunals for the resolution of minor civil disputes could significantly improve the efficiency of formal adversarial litigation processes, without the risk of sacrificing proper procedural protections. Overall, this article advocates that the balanced combination offered by online court systems, albeit not a panacea, may be translated into a potential enhancement of both ‘access’ and ‘justice’.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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