addition to these, we can distinguish other interfaces between dispute resolution
and technology, which do not easily fall into either of these categories, such as
technology-specific procedural rules as well as the buzz-words ‘legal technology’.
It should be noted that these categories often overlap and should not be
understood as exclusive. In this study, the term ‘dispute resolution technology’ is
used when referring to all technology applications related in some way to conflict
management, regardless of the public or private nature of the resolution model.
Courtroom technology
Courtroom technology refers to different applications of technology used in
courts and the digitalisation of these existing practices, which often includes civil
justice reforms. These applications include videoconferencing technology, case
management systems, service of documents by email, access to legal information
by electronic means, automated document generation, and e-archiving, to name
but a few. Most of these applications of dispute resolution technology depend on
legislative approval before implementation. These technological applications preserve their close connection with the nation-state, as they are publicly funded and
incorporated into the court system.
3 The role of technology is mainly auxiliary, as
it is used to facilitate the adjudicative procedure, although exceptions do exist.
From the legislators’ perspective, technology might provide a variety of effective
measures to combat the shortcomings of national court systems, such as inefficiency, time and costs. Implementing digital technologies might seem especially
tempting as one-time investments and relatively low maintenance costs may
permanently reduce labour costs.
Issues related to technology-enhanced trials are extensively regulated by and
conform to national procedural rules. As it is, the public court system looks
towards procedural jurisprudence to tackle technology-related issues of
interpretation, and jurisprudence may deliver some insight by applying the
methodology of legal dogmatics. Many of these interpretative problems can be
answered by ex analogia interpretation of the existing provisions. For example,
privacy of email correspondence could be compared with traditional letters by
way of analogy. Another example of analogy is comparing presence via videoconference to actual presence in the courtroom.
Also, the intersection of courtroom technology is often designed to serve the
needs of national courts and the legal system of a specific country. Thus, the
applications of courtroom technology are not necessarily targeted to the needs of
cross-border disputes. However, some cross-border instruments do exist. For
example, the EU’s Evidence Regulation encourages the use of videoconference
when evidence is obtained from another Member State.
4
Online dispute resolution
Private conflict management augmented by technology is often called online
dispute resolution (ODR), although the term is slowly falling out of fashion and
6 Theoretical implications of dispute resolution technology
and technology, which do not easily fall into either of these categories, such as
technology-specific procedural rules as well as the buzz-words ‘legal technology’.
It should be noted that these categories often overlap and should not be
understood as exclusive. In this study, the term ‘dispute resolution technology’ is
used when referring to all technology applications related in some way to conflict
management, regardless of the public or private nature of the resolution model.
Courtroom technology
Courtroom technology refers to different applications of technology used in
courts and the digitalisation of these existing practices, which often includes civil
justice reforms. These applications include videoconferencing technology, case
management systems, service of documents by email, access to legal information
by electronic means, automated document generation, and e-archiving, to name
but a few. Most of these applications of dispute resolution technology depend on
legislative approval before implementation. These technological applications preserve their close connection with the nation-state, as they are publicly funded and
incorporated into the court system.
3 The role of technology is mainly auxiliary, as
it is used to facilitate the adjudicative procedure, although exceptions do exist.
From the legislators’ perspective, technology might provide a variety of effective
measures to combat the shortcomings of national court systems, such as inefficiency, time and costs. Implementing digital technologies might seem especially
tempting as one-time investments and relatively low maintenance costs may
permanently reduce labour costs.
Issues related to technology-enhanced trials are extensively regulated by and
conform to national procedural rules. As it is, the public court system looks
towards procedural jurisprudence to tackle technology-related issues of
interpretation, and jurisprudence may deliver some insight by applying the
methodology of legal dogmatics. Many of these interpretative problems can be
answered by ex analogia interpretation of the existing provisions. For example,
privacy of email correspondence could be compared with traditional letters by
way of analogy. Another example of analogy is comparing presence via videoconference to actual presence in the courtroom.
Also, the intersection of courtroom technology is often designed to serve the
needs of national courts and the legal system of a specific country. Thus, the
applications of courtroom technology are not necessarily targeted to the needs of
cross-border disputes. However, some cross-border instruments do exist. For
example, the EU’s Evidence Regulation encourages the use of videoconference
when evidence is obtained from another Member State.
4
Online dispute resolution
Private conflict management augmented by technology is often called online
dispute resolution (ODR), although the term is slowly falling out of fashion and
6 Theoretical implications of dispute resolution technology