Also, the disruptive qualities of dispute resolution technology need to be
explored further in order to understand the transformation of legal practice
taking place, the digitalisation of law. The promise of improved access to justice
presented by some applications is contrasted with malicious irritants that some
new forms of dispute resolution technology represent. In order to distinguish
between these contrary consequences, we need a deeper understanding of these
diverse phenomena and to address them simultaneously separately and as a
whole. A holistic and contextual approach to the digitalisation of law requires a
framework formed by legal technology studies which take the challenge of
technology seriously. Legal technology studies need to actively engage in interdisciplinary dialogue in order to ensure the development of legally sustainable
dispute resolution technology.
In order to see beyond these fumbling first steps of theory formation, we
need to look at the present while simultaneously keeping an open mind
about the future. The ways in which we conceptualise technology, the
discourses we use, the threats and challenges as well as the hopes and
opportunities we attribute to technology, shape the use and future development of dispute resolution technology. Without the holistic approach to
technology suggested here, we face the danger that unconscious assumptions
about technology impact on how we design the legal framework for the
future development of dispute resolution technology. For example, we could
assume that technology can duplicate human shortcomings, as was the case
with the xenophobic and malicious HAL 9000 computer in Arthur C
Clarke’s novel 2001: A Space Odyssey, or ground our understanding on the
benevolent central computer of the Star Trek: The Next Generation series,
where technology transcends limited human capabilities and provides shelter
and care for its humans. Such assumptions lead to very divergent evaluations
of the feasibility of technology, the potential and the threat. In short,
unconscious assumptions are dangerous. Still, assumptions can be set right
with critical insights into legal technologies.
We need to understand the challenge posed by private enforcement as the
result of fast-paced societal and technological change. Use of dispute resolution technology increasingly automates legal practices, starting from routine
cognitive labour, with the potential of transforming conflict management
altogether. Surprisingly, there are similarities between legal digitalisation and
the Luddite uprising which originated from the automation of routine
manual labour. Although the pejorative descriptions would lead us to believe
Luddites were against technology per se as well as against all progress, it is
necessary to understand that the uprising criticised the social implications of
automation that hit the underprivileged groups of society the hardest, the
untrained manual labourers. Ridiculing such concerns and calls for action as
supposedly backward attitudes demonstrates ignorance of the negative
consequences of automation. In order to avoid dramatic negative effects of
legal automation, we need to be conscious of the on-going societal and legal
transformation.
196 New ways forward?
explored further in order to understand the transformation of legal practice
taking place, the digitalisation of law. The promise of improved access to justice
presented by some applications is contrasted with malicious irritants that some
new forms of dispute resolution technology represent. In order to distinguish
between these contrary consequences, we need a deeper understanding of these
diverse phenomena and to address them simultaneously separately and as a
whole. A holistic and contextual approach to the digitalisation of law requires a
framework formed by legal technology studies which take the challenge of
technology seriously. Legal technology studies need to actively engage in interdisciplinary dialogue in order to ensure the development of legally sustainable
dispute resolution technology.
In order to see beyond these fumbling first steps of theory formation, we
need to look at the present while simultaneously keeping an open mind
about the future. The ways in which we conceptualise technology, the
discourses we use, the threats and challenges as well as the hopes and
opportunities we attribute to technology, shape the use and future development of dispute resolution technology. Without the holistic approach to
technology suggested here, we face the danger that unconscious assumptions
about technology impact on how we design the legal framework for the
future development of dispute resolution technology. For example, we could
assume that technology can duplicate human shortcomings, as was the case
with the xenophobic and malicious HAL 9000 computer in Arthur C
Clarke’s novel 2001: A Space Odyssey, or ground our understanding on the
benevolent central computer of the Star Trek: The Next Generation series,
where technology transcends limited human capabilities and provides shelter
and care for its humans. Such assumptions lead to very divergent evaluations
of the feasibility of technology, the potential and the threat. In short,
unconscious assumptions are dangerous. Still, assumptions can be set right
with critical insights into legal technologies.
We need to understand the challenge posed by private enforcement as the
result of fast-paced societal and technological change. Use of dispute resolution technology increasingly automates legal practices, starting from routine
cognitive labour, with the potential of transforming conflict management
altogether. Surprisingly, there are similarities between legal digitalisation and
the Luddite uprising which originated from the automation of routine
manual labour. Although the pejorative descriptions would lead us to believe
Luddites were against technology per se as well as against all progress, it is
necessary to understand that the uprising criticised the social implications of
automation that hit the underprivileged groups of society the hardest, the
untrained manual labourers. Ridiculing such concerns and calls for action as
supposedly backward attitudes demonstrates ignorance of the negative
consequences of automation. In order to avoid dramatic negative effects of
legal automation, we need to be conscious of the on-going societal and legal
transformation.
196 New ways forward?