Jump to content

Cyberjustice

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cyberjustice is 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

[edit]

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, these court records as well as judgements[39][40][41] can be made available electronically to members of the public.

Online dispute resolution

[edit]

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

[edit]

Cyberjustice has been integrated into the legal systems of several jurisdictions worldwide, including as of 2019 the European Union, Australia, the United States of America, and Canada. Several other international initiatives have been made.

The European Union

[edit]

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. The United Kingdom runs Money Claim Online (MCOL), 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 offers Trial Online,[57] which is essentially both an electronic filing system and a case management system. Spain has passed 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

[edit]

Australia offers e-filing services, online courtroom and online case management services,[59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68] and is 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

[edit]

The United States of America has several electronic courtrooms. For example, the McGlothlin Courtroom, located at the William and Mary College of Law, is one of the few to possess technology making 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

[edit]

Several developments have been made in Canada for electronic access to court records and judgments and electronic case management systems, but its only fully electronic courtroom is on the premises of the University of Montreal. Known as the Cyberjustice Laboratory, this courtroom employs some of the most advanced courtroom technologies, such as audio-visual technology allowing for multi-videoconferencing, and 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 (Platform to Assist in the Resolution of Litigation electronically), which aids in the resolution of low-intensity disputes via the Internet.[73]

International initiatives

[edit]

Several international cyberjustice initiatives have been made. They include ICANN’s Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), which was created to settle disputes regarding trademark infringement in domain names and issues arising out of cybersquatting and typosquatting.[74][75] The ICANN Electronic Consumer Dispute Resolution (ECODIR) 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; but this service has been terminated.[1] The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) was as of 2015 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

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Benyekhlef, Karim; Gélinas, Fabien (2005). "Online Dispute Resolution". Lex Electronica (10:2): 5. SSRN 1336379.
  2. ^ Schultz, Thomas (2006). "Human Rights: A Speed Bump For Arbitral Procedures? An Exploration of Safeguards in the Acceleration of Justice". International Arbitration Law Review. 9 (1): 8. SSRN 896535.
  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. Archived from the original on January 7, 2015. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  8. ^ Solomon, Samuel H.; Gruen, Martin. "The High Tech Courtroom" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on May 18, 2005. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  9. ^ a b Lederer, Frederic I. (2004). "Courtroom Technology: A Status Report" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 12, 2015. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  10. ^ "Federal Court(Canada)". cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca. Archived from the original on 2015-09-06. 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. ^ "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. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 27, 2014. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  25. ^ "Welcome to the Commonwealth Courts Portal" (PDF). Commonwealth Courts Portal. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  26. ^ "eLodgment". www.fedcourt.gov.au. Federal Court of Australia. 2012-09-27. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  27. ^ "eFiling". Family Court of Australia. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  28. ^ "eFiling and case management". www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au. Supreme Court of Victoria. Archived from the original on 2016-02-27. Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  29. ^ "Guide to eFiling". Supreme Court of Victoria. Archived from the original on March 17, 2015. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  30. ^ CITEC (2013-09-06). "VIC County Court eFiling". www.confirm.com.au. Retrieved 2019-07-05.
  31. ^ "CITEC Confirm Court eFiling". CITEC Confirm. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  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. Archived from the original on 2017-02-02. 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". Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. 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. ^ "CanLII". Canadian Legal Information Institute.
  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 (5:7). doi:10.5539/ass.v5n7p113.
  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". doi:10.2139/ssrn.998865. S2CID 154492064. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  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. ^ "Online Services". www.fedcourt.gov.au. Federal Court of Australia. 2012-09-27. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
  60. ^ "eCourtroom". www.fedcourt.gov.au. Federal Court of Australia. 2012-09-27. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
  61. ^ "High Court of Australia". www.hcourt.gov.au. The High Court of Australia. Retrieved 2016-02-05.
  62. ^ "eServices". Family Court of Australia. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  63. ^ "eCourt". New South Wales Land and Environment Court. Archived from the original on February 9, 2015. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  64. ^ "eCallover". New South Wales Land and Environment Court. Archived from the original on February 9, 2015. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  65. ^ "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). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 12, 2015. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  72. ^ "Discover the Cyberjustice Laboratory in 8 min". Cyberjustice Laboratory. Retrieved March 8, 2015.[permanent dead link‍]
  73. ^ "Software". Cyberjustice Laboratory. Archived from the original on January 7, 2015. 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.[permanent dead link‍]
  77. ^ "Possible Future Work on Online Dispute Resolution in Cross-Border Electronic Commerce Transactions" (PDF). United Nations, General Assembly. Retrieved March 20, 2015.[permanent dead link‍]
  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.[permanent dead link‍]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyberjustice&oldid=1184502474"