Access to justice

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Access to justice is a basic principle in rule of law which describes how citizens should have equal access to the justice system[1] and/or other justice services so that they can effectively resolve their justice problems. Without access to justice, people are not able to fully exercise their rights, challenge discrimination, or hold decision-makers accountable for their actions.[2]

"Providing access to justice for all" was adopted as a universal ambition, when it became part of SDG16, one of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015. In the context of SDG16 a conceptual model for the global Justice Gap was developed[3] and it was estimated that "5.1 billion people - or two thirds of the world population - do not have meaningful access to justice globally".[4] Recognizing the size of the justice gap, an approach to justice sector governance and reform was developed call people-centered justice.

The manner in which countries ensure that all people have access to justice varies. Access to justice may be increased through properly funded and staffed legal aid organizations that provide free legal services to the poor,[5] and through pro bono programs through which volunteer attorneys provide services and representation,[6] or through other programs designed to help people gain. Access to justice is a broad concept that includes legal remedies in courts but also in other institutions of justice.[7]

Empirical research into access to justice has increased in the past decade,[8] by academics in the field of sociology of law, by researchers working for national or global policy-makers and through legal needs surveys and other efforts to collect people-centered justice data.[9]

International initiatives

Free Access to Law Movement

Main article: Free Access to Law Movement

The Free Access to Law Movement (FALM) was founded in 1992, with the goal of providing free online access to basic legal information and resources. In 2002, FALM adopted the Declaration on Free Access to Law. The goal of the movement has been to ensure that legal information is freely available to everyone. The declaration declared public legal information to be the common heritage of mankind.

The member organizations of FALM, primarily through the Internet, engaged in widespread publication of primary and secondary legal information. Early examples include the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School and the Australasian Legal Information Institute, a joint project of the University of Technology Sydney and the University of New South Wales. The latter involved early adoption of hypertext technology to represent laws as a network of nodes, each representing a section.[10][11]

In 2013, Cornell Law School established the Journal of Open Access to Law, to promote international research on the topic of open access to law.[12]

Initiatives by country

Japan

Japan Legal Support Center, which is abbreviated as JLSC, provides a legal access to justice in any place in Japan.[13] JLSC was founded on April 10, 2006 and started its operation on October 2, 2006.

JLSC has 50 local offices and 11 branch offices of the local offices.

Myanmar

MyJustice is a European Union-funded Access to Justice Initiative aiming to equip the people of Myanmar with the knowledge, confidence and opportunities to resolve conflicts fairly, equitably and justly.[14] Since 2015 they have setting up a number of "justice centres" across Myanmar to improve access to justice by offering free legal advice to low-income and marginalised people, as well as being involved in projects relating to the introduction of legal aid and legal training.[15]

Pakistan

Access to Justice Initiatives (AJI) are a cluster of projects carried out by the Sarhad Rural Support Programme (SRSP) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, which aim at enhancing legal awareness and empowering citizens at the grass-roots level by enabling them to lobby for their rights and seek remedies for their legal problems.[16][17][18]

Configuration

Access to Justice Initiatives comprises the following projects:[19]

  1. Legal Empowerment
  2. Aitebaar Alternate Dispute Resolution
  3. Aitebaar Awareness Rising
  4. Strengthening Rule of Law in Malakand
  5. Community Based Conflict Resolution

Features

A common feature of the projects is that they all aim at

rights and to participate and hold public institutions accountable.[20] In traditional hierarchical societies, civil society organisations face challenges in promoting access to services for marginalized and vulnerable groups.[21][22]

The projects seek to addresses issues of weak links among justice mechanisms and a lack of reliable legal support.

public at large is reluctant in trusting the police or lawyers but shows greater inclination in trusting notables of their own communities,[26] who often resolve disputes via the Jirga system.[27] The paralegals and mediators are briefed about human rights, legal system and the limits of their authority in solving complicated disputes.[28][29][30] This ensures that rights of the participants are not forfeited. The Dispute Resolution Councils (DRC’s) set up in this respect are required to work in collaboration the local police to ensure transparency and efficiency.[31][32][33] A significant number of women have been trained as mediators and paralegal to make the programme more receptive to women.[34][35]

Legal aid is provided to individuals whose troubles cannot be resolved through negotiation, conciliation, mediation or other informal method's. Very often, case which merit legal aid involve issues of child marriage, forced marriage, matrimonial cruelty, child custody, deprivation of inheritance, discrimination etc.[36][37]

United States

Because the traditional model for delivery services demanded all legal work to be done in a bespoke manner the supply of legal services is generally

inelastic. Households that are ineligible for legal aid but are not able to easily afford bespoke legal services are effectively underserved by the traditional model. A report by the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services found that "among moderate-income households, 39% used the legal system to attempt resolution of their legal problems, 23% attempted resolution without legal help, and 26% took no action."[38]

Technological solutions

Lawyers, designers, and computers scientists have considered ways to use technology to improve access to justice for people who cannot afford a lawyer.[39] Often called justice technology, this "refers to a technology or data project that is used in the administration of a justice system or service, creates access to that system or service, or increases the agency of justice system-involved people through support, like information or assistance." [40] While there is increased attention and funding going into the justice technology sector,[41] it has yet to see large scale successes.[42]

There are numerous university-based programs working at the intersection of access to justice and technology:

The Georgetown University Law Center started a Judicial Innovation Fellowship program in the fall of 2022. The novel program will place private industry technologists in state and tribal courts to develop new software that improves the public's access to justice and court administration. [43]

The

CodeX, the Stanford Center for Legal Informatics, hosts projects such as Legal.io and Ravel Law, addressing the application of legal informatics to access to justice issues, and convenes a community bringing researchers, lawyers, entrepreneurs and technologists together to work side-by-side to advance the frontier of legal technology.[45]

Chicago-Kent College of Law collaborated on a multi-year redesign of self-represented litigants' court experience. Their 2002 report documented their investigation of current assistance systems, creation of a new design protocol, and plan for a new system design.[46]
The report also puts forward a number of concept designs, reimagining how the court system may work and people may access it. Some of their proposals include:

  • "CourtNet", a network inside the court building, to link together judicial staff and the public;
  • "Interactive Translator", a software tool that can be used in interviewing and court exchanges, able to translate verbal and text communications into different languages;
  • "Archetypes", a diagnosis platform that models users' legal problems, classifies them, and offers referral services;
  • "Pursuit Evaluator", an online tool to allow potential litigants evaluate whether pursuing a case would be worth their time, money, and effort
  • "Complaint Formulator", an electronic interface to let litigants extract data from their problem situation and assemble it into various legal documents;
  • "Informer", software that uses sample cases to help litigants model their own forms and teaches them how to file correctly; and
  • "Case Tracker", an interactive searchable archive of a litigant's case history, that provides a clear timeline and reference to past actions.

References

  1. ^ Rashid, Norul Mohamed. "Access to Justice". United Nations and the Rule of Law. Retrieved 2022-03-21.
  2. ^ "Access to Justice". United Nations and the Rule of Law. United Nations. Retrieved 12 May 2019.
  3. ^ "Task Force on Justice ¦ Justice for All Report". Justice Task Force. Retrieved 2023-03-29.
  4. ^ "Measuring the Justice Gap". World Justice Project. Retrieved 2023-03-29.
  5. ^ "Resource Center for Access to Justice Initiatives". American Bar Association. Retrieved 12 May 2019.
  6. ^ "Pro Bono and Volunteer Programs". Center on Court Access to Justice for All. National Center for State Courts. Archived from the original on 12 May 2019. Retrieved 12 May 2019.
  7. ^ "Necessary Condition: Access to Justice". United States: Institute of Peace. Retrieved 12 May 2019.
  8. ^ Catherine R. Albiston; Rebecca L. Sandefur, "Expanding the Empirical Study of Access to Justice," Wisconsin Law Review 2013, no. 1 (2013): 101-120
  9. ^ "Grasping the Justice Gap: Opportunities and Challenges for People-Centered Justice Data". World Justice Project. Retrieved 2023-03-29.
  10. ^ Legal_Information_Institutes.htm
  11. ^ "AustLII - Publications: AustLII - Libs Paper". austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 26 December 2016.
  12. ^ "Journal of Open Access to Law". cornell.edu. Retrieved 26 December 2016.
  13. ^ "Japan Legal Support Center｜法テラス". www.houterasu.or.jp. Retrieved 2022-04-20.
  14. ^ "About | MyJustice Myanmar". myjusticemyanmar.org. Retrieved 2020-04-17.
  15. ^ "Union Legal Aid Board to provide help for poor people in pilot project". The Myanmar Times. 2018-05-07. Archived from the original on 2021-11-29. Retrieved 2020-04-17.
  16. ^ Kundi, Asma (26 July 2016). "Call to enhance role of paralegals for protection of human rights". DAWN. Archived from the original on 30 October 2016. Retrieved 29 October 2016.
  17. ^ "Global Legal Empowerment Initiative" (PDF). Open Society Justice Initiative. 2014.
  18. ^ "Training in basic laws & alternative dispute resolution concludes". The News International. 27 December 2016.
  19. ^ "Access to Justice Initiatives". Sarhad Rural Support Programme. 2016. Archived from the original on 2017-08-19. Retrieved 2016-10-29.
  20. ^ Sarhad Rural Support Programme Annual Review 2014-2015. Islamabad: M.R Printers, Islamabad. 2015. p. 16.
  21. ^ "Legal Empowerment: A platform for resilience, innovation and growth" (PDF). WANA Institute. 12 June 2014.
  22. ^ Teale, Lotta (2016-12-01). "How to pay for legal empowerment: alternative structures and sources". Open Democracy. Archived from the original on 2017-12-24. Retrieved 2016-12-01.
  23. ^ "Conference: Practical steps to protect legal rights of rural communities". The Express Tribune. 2013-04-30.
  24. ^ "Initiative to strengthen alternative dispute resolution system". DAWN. 25 September 2014.
  25. ^ "Marc-André Franche, Country Director, UNDP in Pakistan visited Swat". Relief Web. 2013-07-08.
  26. ^ Kundi, Asma (2016-07-26). "Call to enhance role of paralegals for protection of human rights". DAWN.
  27. ^ "SRL arranges workshop for capacity building of DRCs representatives". Daily Times. 24 December 2016.
  28. ^ "DRCs' members briefed about legal system". DAWN. 2016-12-23.
  29. ^ "Dir nazim assures DRCs of his support". DAWN. 2016-12-24.
  30. ^ "Role of DRCs highlighted". The Nation. 28 December 2016.
  31. ^ "Training for DRC members concludes". DAWN. 27 December 2016.
  32. ^ "Work of Shangla DRCs reviewed". DAWN. 1 January 2016.
  33. ^ "Role of DRCs in people's access to justice highlighted". DAWN. 30 December 2016.
  34. ^ "Step aside men: Women mediators trained in alternative dispute resolution". The Express Tribune. 2014-10-04.
  35. ^ "Dispute Resolution Council training workshop ends". Pakistan Observer. 31 December 2016. Archived from the original on 2 January 2017.
  36. ^ "Starting a New Story: How Access to Justice Is Untangling Women's Lives in Northern Pakistan". Open Society Foundations. 28 May 2014.
  37. ^ "Linking Justice to Development in Northern Pakistan". Open Society Foundations. 9 June 2014.
  38. ^ "Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services - Standing Committee / Delivery of Legal Services". abanet.org. Archived from the original on 14 February 2009. Retrieved 26 December 2016.
  39. ^ See CodeX Techindex. Stanford Law School, n.d. Web. 16 June 2017. <https://techindex.law.stanford.edu/>.
  40. ^ Tashea, Jason. "Justice-as-a-Platform | MIT Computational Law Report". MIT Computational Law Report. Retrieved August 22, 2022.
  41. ^ Capital. "Justice Tech for All |". Village Capital. Retrieved August 22, 2022.
  42. ^ Sandefur, Rebecca. "LEGAL TECH FOR NON-LAWYERS: REPORT OF THE SURVEY OF US LEGAL TECHNOLOGIES | American Bar Foundation" (PDF). American Bar Foundation. Retrieved August 22, 2022.
  43. ^ "Creating a Judicial Innovation Fellowship to Strengthen America's Court Infrastructure and Improve Access to Justice | Day One Project". Day One Project. Retrieved August 22, 2022.
  44. ^ "Technology and Access to Justice - Berkman Klein Center". harvard.edu. Archived from the original on 5 February 2014. Retrieved 26 December 2016.
  45. ^ School, Stanford Law. "CodeX | Stanford Law School". Stanford Law School. Retrieved May 31, 2016.
  46. ^ "Charles L. Owen, Edward B. Pedwell, and Ronald W. Staudt, "Access to Justice: Meeting the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants", 2002" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2019-05-12.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Access_to_justice&oldid=1214197649"