Jump to content

Cyberjustice

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NVermeys (talk | contribs) at 02:56, 5 February 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Cyberjustice is a term that refers to the incorporation of technology into the justice system, either through offering court services electronically or through the use of electronics within courtrooms or for other dispute resolution purposes.[1]  One of the most crucial goals of cyberjustice is increasing access to justice through both reducing the costs associated with administering justice as well as reducing the burden on the judges and the court system as a whole.[2][3][4]

Electronic Justice Services

At present, several electronic services are available in various court systems worldwide. For example, there are several electronic courtrooms[5][6][7][8][9] that have integrated information and communications technologies such as video-conferencing, holographic evidence presentation technology[9] or other communications technologies in addition to various systems or applications meant to aid in the conduction of the proceedings as well as the presentation of evidence.  Additionally, throughout the entire process there is what is known as an electronic case management system available to the parties, their lawyers and judges, that allow them to keep track of what is taking place in the case through the Internet and permit them to file court documents and proceedings electronically[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] or access information relative to the case. Furthermore, many jurisdictions allow for the discovery of documents to be done electronically through the use of electronic discovery systems.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38]  Once a case has been finalized and has become public information, it is even further possible for these court records as well as judgments[39][40][41] to be electronically accessed by members of the public.

Online Dispute Resolution

In addition to the use of technology for the purposes of litigation, the term cyberjustice also encompasses the domain of online dispute resolution,[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] whose aim is to aid in the resolution of disputes prior to having to resort to the courts.  Several mechanism for this type of electronic dispute resolution are available, namely cyber-negotiation, cyber-mediation and cyber-arbitration.  The first can be classified as either assisted, which employs technologies for the purposes of communication, agenda development and adoption of solutions, or automated, where specialized software acts as a negotiator between the parties.[42]  For its part, cyber-mediation will often be an alternative where cyber-mediation was unfruitful and it involves a third party’s intervention to assist the parties in reaching an agreement.[42][54]  Finally, cyber-arbitration is different from the preceding two types of dispute resolution in that it is adjudicatory, and therefore must adhere to specified formal rules, as well as that parties never contact one another but rather communicate via an arbitrator.[42]

Cyberjustice Initiatives

At present, cyberjustice has been integrated into the legal systems of several jurisdictions worldwide, including (1) the European Union, (2) Australia, (3) the United States of America, (4) Canada. Additionally, several (5) international initiatives have been made as well.

The European Union

The European Union, for example has created the e-Justice Portal through which legislation case law and legal information may be accessed.[55]  The European Union also offers two other cyberjustice services, namely e-CODEX, which simplifies cross-border litigations by providing access to electronic delivery services, electronic signatures, electronic payments, electronic authentication and electronic documents, and e-CURIA, which is essentially just an e-filing system.  Additionally, other countries within the European Union have incorporated certain technologies into their adjudication of justice, such as the United Kingdom, Italy and Spain.  For its part, the United Kingdom is most renowned for its Money Claim Online (MCOL), which is a service that allows a claim to be instituted online against two people at most who owe up to a maximum of £100,000 that they refuse to pay.[56]  Italy, on the other hand, offers Trial Online,[57] which is essentially an electronic filing and case management system simultaneously.  Finally, Spain has passed particular laws whose aim is to regulate technology used in conjunction with the legal system[58] and has ultimately resulted in the incorporation of technology in the legal system for the purposes of treating data and managing legal files,[58] not the least of which is LexNET which enables the secure transfer of judicial data.[58]

Australia

Australia has also been at the forefront of cyberjustice, and, in addition to offering e-filing services, online courtroom and online case management services,[59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68] they are also the first jurisdiction to have used a fully electronic courtroom for the hearing of a high profile criminal case.[69]

The United States of America

For its part, the United States of America also has several renowned electronic courtrooms to speak of.  For example, the McGlothlin Courtroom, located at the William and Mary College of Law, is one of the few to possess technology rendering it possible to publish court transcripts online in real time[70] and was the first to use holographic evidence display and immersive technology.[71]

Canada

On the Canadian front, several developments have been made in terms of electronic access to court records and judgments as well as electronic case management systems, but its only fully electronic courtroom is found on the premises of the University of Montreal.  Known as the Cyberjustice Laboratory, the courtroom in question employs some of the most advanced courtroom technologies, such as audio-visual technology allowing for multi-videoconferencing as well as the presentation of evidence in different forms, including 3D evidence via a digital retro-projector and the option of live annotation of evidence while it is being presented.[72]  One of the particular developments of the Cyberjustice Laboratory is the platform known as PARLe, which is an anagram for Platform to Assist in the Resolution of Litigation electronically, and which aids in the resolution of low-intensity disputes via the Internet.[73] 

International Initiatives

Furthermore, several international initiatives have been made to this effect as well. This includes ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), which was created to settle disputes regarding trademark infringement in domain names as well as issues arising out of cybersquatting and typosquatting,[74][75] as well as Electronic Consumer Dispute Resolution (ECODIR), which has been terminated but which offered a free and voluntary dispute resolution service that began with negotiation and, if not successful, proceeded to mediation and ultimately the recommendation of a solution by the mediator should the parties not otherwise agree.[1]  Finally, it is of note to point out that the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) is currently exploring the possibility of developing an online dispute resolution system to take care of cross-border disputes resulting from e-commerce.[76][77][78]

References

  1. ^ a b Benyekhlef, Karim; Gélinas, Fabien (2005). "Online Dispute Resolution". Lex Electronica (10:2): 5.
  2. ^ Schultz, Thomas (2006). "Human Rights: A Speed Bump For Arbitral Procedures? An Exploration of Safeguards in the Acceleration of Justice". Intl. A.L.R.: 1.
  3. ^ Lupo, Giampiero; Bailey, Jane (2014). "Designing and Implementing e-Justice Systems: Some Lessons Learned from EU and Canadian Examples". Laws: 354.
  4. ^ Vermeys, Nicolas (2010). "Code source et sources codifiées: pour une cyberjustice québécoise ouverte et accessible". Lex Electronica (14:3): 2–4.
  5. ^ Macdonald, Ros; Wallace, Anne (2004). "Review of the Extent of Courtroom Technology in Australia". Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  6. ^ "Effective Use of Courtroom Technology: A Judge's Guide to Pretrial and Trial" (PDF). The Federal Judicial Center. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  7. ^ "Software". Cyberjustice Laboratory. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  8. ^ Solomon, Samuel H.; Gruen, Martin. "The High Tech Courtroom" (PDF). Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  9. ^ a b Lederer, Frederic I. (2004). "Courtroom Technology: A Status Report" (PDF). Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  10. ^ "Federal Court(Canada)". cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  11. ^ "Court Services Online - e-Filing: Frequently Asked Questions" (PDF). British Columbia, Ministry of Justice. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  12. ^ "E-Filing | Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador". www.court.nl.ca. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  13. ^ "Wills, Estates, and Guardianship E-Filing: Quick Reference Guide" (PDF). Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  14. ^ "E-File Notice of Charter Application". albertacourts.ca. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  15. ^ "Welcome to CT Judicial Branch e-services". www.jud.ct.gov. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  16. ^ dietzconsulting.com. "Florida Courts E-Filing Portal". www.myflcourtaccess.com. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  17. ^ "Case Type and Document Exceptions to Electronic Filing" (PDF). Connecticut Judicial Branch. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  18. ^ "eFileTexas.Gov | Official E-Filing System for Texas". www.efiletexas.gov. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  19. ^ "E-Filing Instructions". nvcourts.gov. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  20. ^ "EFlex eFile Online Training Registration with the Delaware Courts". courts.delaware.gov. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  21. ^ "Court of Common Pleas Judicial Officers". courts.delaware.gov. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  22. ^ "eFiling in the Delaware Supreme Court". courts.delaware.gov. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  23. ^ "Superior Court of Delaware eFiling". courts.delaware.gov. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  24. ^ "User Guide to eFiling: Divorce Applications in family law" (PDF). Family Law Courts. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  25. ^ "Welcome to the Commonwealth Courts Portal" (PDF). Commonwealth Courts Portal. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  26. ^ Australia, c\=AU\; co\=Commonwealth of Australia\; ou\=Federal Court of (2012-09-27). "eLodgment". www.fedcourt.gov.au. Retrieved 2016-02-04.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  27. ^ "eFiling". Family Court of Australia. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  28. ^ ou2=Registry, c=AU; st=Victoria; ou1=Supreme Court;. "eFiling and case management". www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au. Retrieved 2016-02-04.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  29. ^ "Guide to eFiling". Supreme Court of Victoria. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  30. ^ CITEC (2013-09-06). "VIC County Court eFiling". www.confirm.com.au. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  31. ^ "CITEC Confirm Court eFiling" (PDF). CITEC Confirm. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  32. ^ "Guidelines for the Discovery o Electronic Documents in Ontario" (PDF). eDiscovery Guidelines. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  33. ^ Arent, Lisa M.; Brownstone, Robert D.; Fenwick, William A. (2002). "Ediscovery: Preserving, Requesting and Producing Electronic Information". Santa Clara High Tech L.J. (19): 133.
  34. ^ Foggo, Gavin; Grosso, Suzanne; Harrison, Brett; Rodriguez-Barrera, Jose Victor. "Comparing E-Discovery in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Mexico" (PDF). p. 2.
  35. ^ "Download publication | The Sedona Conference®". thesedonaconference.org. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  36. ^ "Civil Justice Reform Project - Ministry of the Attorney General". www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  37. ^ Manning, Kathryn J. (July 29, 2011). "E-Discovery in Canada". Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  38. ^ Prince, Tamara R. (June 2009). "Electronic Discovery in Alberta - Applying the Rules and Standards: From Collection to Exchange" (PDF). Retrieved March 11, 2015.
  39. ^ "Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII)". www.austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  40. ^ Canadian Legal Information Institute https://www/canlii.org/en. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  41. ^ "British and Irish Legal Information Institute". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  42. ^ a b c d Gillieron, Philippe (2007). "From Face-to-Face to Screen-to-Screen: Real Hope or Tue Fallacy?". Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. (23): 302.
  43. ^ "Recommended Best Practices For Online Dispute Resolution Service Providers" (PDF). American Bar Association Task Force on eCommerce and ADR. Retrieved March 15, 2015.
  44. ^ "Fields of work". www.cen.eu. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  45. ^ "OECD Recommendation on Consumer Dispute Resolution and Redress - OECD". www.oecd.org. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  46. ^ "European Commission - European Judicial Network - Alternative dispute resolution - Community law". ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
  47. ^ Katsh, Ethan; Rifkin, Janet; Gaitenby, Alan (2000). "E-Commerce, E-Disputes, and E-Dispute Resolution: In the Shadow of "eBay Law"". Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution (15:3).
  48. ^ Petrauskas, Feliksas; Kybartiene, Egle (2011). "Online Dispute Resolution in Consumer Disputes". Jurisprudence (18:3).
  49. ^ Kao, Chi-Chung (2009). "Online Consumer Dispute Resolution and the ODR Practice in Taiwan - A Comparative Analysis". Asian Social Science (5:7).
  50. ^ Calliess, Gralf-Peter (2009). "Online Dispute Resolution: Consumer Redress in a Global Market Place". German Law Journal (7:8).
  51. ^ Cortes, Pablo (2007). "The potential of Online Dispute Resolution as a Consumer Redress Mechanism". Retrieved January 30, 2015.
  52. ^ Ponte, Lucille M. (2001). "Boosting Consumer Confidence in E-Business: Recommendations for Establishing Fair and Effective Dispute Resolution Programs for B2C Online Transactions". Alb. L.J. Si. & Tech. (12).
  53. ^ Cortes Dieguez, Juan Pablo (2008). "An Analysis of the UDRP Experience - Is it time for reform?". Computer Law & Security Report (24).
  54. ^ Cole, Sarah Rudolph; Blankley, Kristen M. (2006). "Online Mediation: Where We Have Been, Where We Are Now, and Where We Should Be". U. Tol. L. Rev. (38).
  55. ^ "European e-Justice Portal". e-justice.europa.eu. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
  56. ^ "Make a money claim online - GOV.UK". www.gov.uk. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
  57. ^ Fabri, Marco (2012). "Some European and Australian e-Justice services" (PDF). Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  58. ^ a b c Martinez, Agusti Cerrilo i (2009). "E-Justice in Spain". In Martinez, Agusti Cerrilo i; Abat, Pere Fabra i (eds.). E-Justice: Information and Communication Technologies in the Court System. New York: Information Science Reference. pp. 101–102.
  59. ^ Australia, c\=AU\; co\=Commonwealth of Australia\; ou\=Federal Court of (2012-09-27). "Online Services". www.fedcourt.gov.au. Retrieved 2016-02-05.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  60. ^ Australia, c\=AU\; co\=Commonwealth of Australia\; ou\=Federal Court of (2012-09-27). "eCourtroom". www.fedcourt.gov.au. Retrieved 2016-02-05.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  61. ^ email=enquiries@hcourt.gov.au, corporateName=High Court of Australia; address=PO Box 6309, KINGSTON, ACT, 2604, Australia; contact=02 6270 6811;; Australia, c=AU; o=Commonwealth of Australia; ou=The High Court of. "High Court of Australia". www.hcourt.gov.au. Retrieved 2016-02-05. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  62. ^ "eServices". Family Court of Australia. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  63. ^ "eCourt". New South Wales Land and Environment Court. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  64. ^ "eCallover". New South Wales Land and Environment Court. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  65. ^ rosalind.speirs. "NSW Supreme, District & Local Courts Online Registry". www.service.nsw.gov.au. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
  66. ^ "VCAT Online: Lodge applications via the internet (Residential Tenancies registered users only)". Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal. Retrieved March 20, 2015.
  67. ^ "Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII)". www.austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
  68. ^ Jackson, Sheryl; Macdonald, Ros. "Using the Internet to Assist Court Processes: Delivery of Justice in an Electronic Age" (PDF). Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  69. ^ Potter, Sandra; Farrelly, Phil; Begg, Derek (2009). "The E-Court Roadmap: Innovation and Integration An Australian Case Study". In Martinez, Agusti Cerrilo i; Abat, Pere Fabra i (eds.). E-Justice: Information and Communication Technologies in the Court System. New York: Information Science Reference.
  70. ^ "McGlothlin Courtroom | Center for Legal & Court Technology". www.legaltechcenter.net. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
  71. ^ Lederer, Frederic I. (2004). "Courtroom Technology: A Status Report" (PDF). Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  72. ^ "Discover the Cyberjustice Laboratory in 8 min". Cyberjustice Laboratory. Retrieved March 8, 2015.
  73. ^ "Software". Cyberjustice Laboratory. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  74. ^ "Resources - ICANN". www.icann.org. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
  75. ^ Cortes Dieguez, Juan (2008). "An Analysis of the UDRP Experience - Is it time for reform?". Computer Law & Security Report (24).
  76. ^ "Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law" (PDF). United Nations. Retrieved March 20, 2015.
  77. ^ "Possible Future Work on Online Dispute Resolution in Cross-Border Electronic Commerce Transactions" (PDF). United Nations, General Assembly. Retrieved March 20, 2015.
  78. ^ "Report of Working Group III (Online Dispute Resolution) on the work of its thirty-first session (New York, 9-13 February 2015)" (PDF). United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. Retrieved March 20, 2015.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyberjustice&oldid=703370325"