organization’s high-priority goals’. Matthew W Seeger, Timothy L Sellnow and
Robert R Ulmer, ‘Communication, Organization, and Crisis’ in Michael E Roloff
(ed), Communication Yearbook 21 (Routledge 1998) 233. Within the same context of
crisis communication, Venette attaches an element of change into the definition:
‘Thus, crisis is a process of transformation where the old system can no longer be
maintained’. See Steven James Venette, ‘Risk Communication in a High Reliability
Organization: APHIS PPQ’s Inclusion of Risk in Decision Making’ (North Dakota
State University 2003) 43. These definitions reflect the uncertainty and element of
change inherent in crises, although they deal with a context other than the legal
system. Hence, they provide a sufficient starting point. I return to the description of
the justificatory crisis and deal with it in more detail in Chapter 4.
37 Martti Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal
Argument. Reissue with a New Epilogue (Cambridge University Press 2005) 59.
38 On pluralism, see e.g., John Griffiths, ‘What Is Legal Pluralism?’ (1986) 18 The
Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 1; Surya Prakash Sinha, ‘Legal Polycentricity’ in Hanne Petersen and Henrik Zahle (eds), Legal Polycentricity: Consequences of Pluralism in Law (Dartmouth 1995) 31; Günther Teubner, ‘The Two Faces
of Janus: Rethinking Legal Pluralism’ (1992) 13 Cardozo Law Review 1443.
39 Similarly, on the conceptual dominance of the nation-state within the legal system, see
Günther Teubner, ‘Global Bukowina: Legal Pluralism in the World Society’ in
Günther Teubner (ed), Global Law Without a State (Dartmouth 1997).
40 See e.g., Fredric I Lederer, ‘The Road to the Virtual Courtroom? A Consideration of
Today’s – and Tomorrow’s – High-Technology Courtrooms’ (2009) 50 South Carolina
Law Review 799; Lederer, ‘Wired, What We Have Learned About Courtroom Technology’ (n 3); Lederer, ‘The Courtroom 21 Project: Creating the Courtroom of the TwentyFirst Century’ (n 3); Lederer, ‘Technology-Augmented Courtrooms: Progress Amid a Few
Complications, or the Problematic Interrelationship Between Court and Counsel’ (n3).
41 For scientific articles, see, e.g., Benyekhlef, Amar and Callipel (n 3); Nicolas Vermeys,
‘Fostering Trust and Confidence in Electronic Commerce: Will the EU-Canada
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Really Effect Change?’ (2015) 20
Lex Electronica 63; Karim Benyekhlef and Nicolas Vermeys, ‘ODR and the Courts’,
Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice. A Treatise on Technology and Dispute
Resolution. (Eleven International Publishing 2012); François Senécal and Karim
Benyekhlef, ‘Groundwork for Assessing the Legal Risks of Cyberjustice’ (2010) 7
Canadian Journal of Law and Technology 41.
42 Dory Reiling, Technology for Justice: How Information Technology Can Support Judicial
Reform (Leiden University Press 2009).
43 See e.g. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), ‘Use of
Information Technology in European Courts’ (Council of Europe) 24, available at
https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/series/default_en.asp (accessed 16
June 2018); On videoconferencing, see Sabine Braun and Judith L Taylor (eds),
Videoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings (Intersentia 2012);
Ulf Andreas Nissen, Die Online-Videokonferenz Im Zivilprozess (Peter Lang GmbH
2004); for Canadian and US approaches see e.g. Amy Salyzyn, ‘A New Lens:
Reframing the Conversation about the Use of Video Conferencing in Civil Trials in
Ontario’ (2012) 50 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 429; for a Finnish perspective, see
Riikka Koulu, Videoneuvottelu rajat ylittävässä oikeudenkäynnissä. Sähköisen oikeudenkäynnin nousu (University of Helsinki Conflict Management Institute 2010).
44 See e.g, Katsh and Rifkin (n 5); Rule (n 7).
45 The need for a more comprehensive theory formation is acknowledged within the field
by Wing and Rainey. See Leah Wing and Daniel Rainey, ‘Online Dispute Resolution
and the Development of Theory’ in Mohamed S Abdel Wahab, Ethan Katsh and
Introduction 25
Robert R Ulmer, ‘Communication, Organization, and Crisis’ in Michael E Roloff
(ed), Communication Yearbook 21 (Routledge 1998) 233. Within the same context of
crisis communication, Venette attaches an element of change into the definition:
‘Thus, crisis is a process of transformation where the old system can no longer be
maintained’. See Steven James Venette, ‘Risk Communication in a High Reliability
Organization: APHIS PPQ’s Inclusion of Risk in Decision Making’ (North Dakota
State University 2003) 43. These definitions reflect the uncertainty and element of
change inherent in crises, although they deal with a context other than the legal
system. Hence, they provide a sufficient starting point. I return to the description of
the justificatory crisis and deal with it in more detail in Chapter 4.
37 Martti Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal
Argument. Reissue with a New Epilogue (Cambridge University Press 2005) 59.
38 On pluralism, see e.g., John Griffiths, ‘What Is Legal Pluralism?’ (1986) 18 The
Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 1; Surya Prakash Sinha, ‘Legal Polycentricity’ in Hanne Petersen and Henrik Zahle (eds), Legal Polycentricity: Consequences of Pluralism in Law (Dartmouth 1995) 31; Günther Teubner, ‘The Two Faces
of Janus: Rethinking Legal Pluralism’ (1992) 13 Cardozo Law Review 1443.
39 Similarly, on the conceptual dominance of the nation-state within the legal system, see
Günther Teubner, ‘Global Bukowina: Legal Pluralism in the World Society’ in
Günther Teubner (ed), Global Law Without a State (Dartmouth 1997).
40 See e.g., Fredric I Lederer, ‘The Road to the Virtual Courtroom? A Consideration of
Today’s – and Tomorrow’s – High-Technology Courtrooms’ (2009) 50 South Carolina
Law Review 799; Lederer, ‘Wired, What We Have Learned About Courtroom Technology’ (n 3); Lederer, ‘The Courtroom 21 Project: Creating the Courtroom of the TwentyFirst Century’ (n 3); Lederer, ‘Technology-Augmented Courtrooms: Progress Amid a Few
Complications, or the Problematic Interrelationship Between Court and Counsel’ (n3).
41 For scientific articles, see, e.g., Benyekhlef, Amar and Callipel (n 3); Nicolas Vermeys,
‘Fostering Trust and Confidence in Electronic Commerce: Will the EU-Canada
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Really Effect Change?’ (2015) 20
Lex Electronica 63; Karim Benyekhlef and Nicolas Vermeys, ‘ODR and the Courts’,
Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice. A Treatise on Technology and Dispute
Resolution. (Eleven International Publishing 2012); François Senécal and Karim
Benyekhlef, ‘Groundwork for Assessing the Legal Risks of Cyberjustice’ (2010) 7
Canadian Journal of Law and Technology 41.
42 Dory Reiling, Technology for Justice: How Information Technology Can Support Judicial
Reform (Leiden University Press 2009).
43 See e.g. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), ‘Use of
Information Technology in European Courts’ (Council of Europe) 24, available at
https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/series/default_en.asp (accessed 16
June 2018); On videoconferencing, see Sabine Braun and Judith L Taylor (eds),
Videoconference and Remote Interpreting in Criminal Proceedings (Intersentia 2012);
Ulf Andreas Nissen, Die Online-Videokonferenz Im Zivilprozess (Peter Lang GmbH
2004); for Canadian and US approaches see e.g. Amy Salyzyn, ‘A New Lens:
Reframing the Conversation about the Use of Video Conferencing in Civil Trials in
Ontario’ (2012) 50 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 429; for a Finnish perspective, see
Riikka Koulu, Videoneuvottelu rajat ylittävässä oikeudenkäynnissä. Sähköisen oikeudenkäynnin nousu (University of Helsinki Conflict Management Institute 2010).
44 See e.g, Katsh and Rifkin (n 5); Rule (n 7).
45 The need for a more comprehensive theory formation is acknowledged within the field
by Wing and Rainey. See Leah Wing and Daniel Rainey, ‘Online Dispute Resolution
and the Development of Theory’ in Mohamed S Abdel Wahab, Ethan Katsh and
Introduction 25