Search

Feedback loops may be critical components for a learning system, such as the legal aid system in The Netherlands. They, however, are not ubiquitous in the broader domain of access to justice. This paper explores how such feedback loops can help governments to get things done by making systems like the legal aid system evidence-based. The paper explores the potential on the basis of the approach and data from a monitoring and evaluation study of the temporary Arrangement Advice Certificate Self-Efficacy. In recent years, indications emerged that the assumption of self-efficacy in the Dutch Legal Aid Law might have been an impediment for accessing subsidised legal aid for citizens who suffered from the childcare benefits situation. The temporary Arrangement Advice Certificate Self-efficacy envisages to fix this potential flaw. The example shows how insights in the people using the arrangement, their legal problems and situations, the nature and effectiveness of interventions under the arrangement, and the experiences of people and the professionals helping them, can inform changes in policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Recht der Werkelijkheid is the property of Boom uitgevers Den Haag and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Access to administrative justice in the digital era: contact possibilities and the personal encounter in public ombuds institutions worldwide This paper contributes to the relatively new field of research at the intersection of digitalization, access to justice, and administrative justice by exploring how the digital transformation shapes citizens' access to public ombuds institutions worldwide. I empirically explore the possibilities citizens have both in the analogous and the digital sphere to access public ombuds in order to complain about maladministration or mistreatment by public bodies. I build on the literature on inequality in the digital state and access to justice as well as on institutional and service design, including personal encounters, and its role in shaping access to (administrative) justice. The study is based on a mixed-methods design, including qualitative interviews with and a survey among ombuds staff of member institutions of the International Ombudsman Institute as well as the quantitative analysis of all members' websites. Since there has been no empirical data of this scope available to date, this paper presents first descriptive findings which future research can build on. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Murky Waters of Algorithmic Profiling: Examining discrimination in the digitalized enforcement of social security policy In the Netherlands, organizations tasked with investigating and sanctioning social security fraud often use algorithmic profiling technologies. Despite the potential benefits, such technologies are not immune to risks, such as discrimination. A lack of clarity in the translation of non-discrimination legislation into practice entails that organizations are tasked with engaging and operationalizing this legislation ex-ante through the identification and mitigation of risks of discrimination. This paper explores the question: How does the use of algorithmic profiling technologies lead to discrimination and can social security organizations mitigate these risks? In order to answer this question, the theoretical framework of the algorithmic lifecycle is used to identify risks of discrimination in the design, implementation, and use of algorithmic profiling technologies. In particular, semi-structured interviews with experts and the Dutch Childcare Benefits Scandal case are used to identify risks of discrimination and examine how they interact to produce discriminatory outcomes in practice. The findings demonstrate that discrimination is the result of a complex interaction of unmitigated risks throughout the algorithmic lifecycle of profiling technologies. This highlights the importance of taking a lifecycle approach to the identification and mitigation of risks of discrimination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Digitalizing the commercial courts: between promises and pitfalls Various authors have been conceiving digitalization as a way to modernize justice and improve legal issues, i.e. address delays, increase legal security and make justice cheaper and accessible for all. Such normative and techno-determinist discourse has justified several central and integrated projects carried out in Belgium since 1998, all of which have successively failed. In 2015, the former minister of justice changed his strategy: his plan called for the cooperation of legal professions and for their enrolment in the design, development and implementation of digital tools. This is how the Central Solvency Register, named RegSol (or the Register) was designed, developed and launched within the commercial courts in April 2017. The enrolment of legal professions seemed to be the solution to finally "modernize" the Belgian justice system after 20 years of trying. RegSol was supposed to make justice faster, more accessible and transparent. In this article, we show how and why most of these promises have not – yet – been fully met. Our research draws on two case studies conducted in a big (Alpha) and in a small (Delta) commercial court between November 2021 and February 2022. It shows that the various obstacles identified in the design and development phases hindered, to a certain extent, the platform's potential to make justice more efficient and accessible. Everyday reality for court practitioners is not yet fully in line with the political promises. RegSol 's impact remains ambiguous: while simplifying tracking processes and centralizing information, it also entails new challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Legal Mobilization in the Field of Asylum Law: a Revival of Political Opportunity Structures? Increasingly, we see collective actors in the field of asylum in Europe turn to litigation as the preferred strategy to attain their goals, which is a form of legal mobilization. Both at the national and European level, non-governmental organizations (NGO) are active in high-profile cases. These NGOs operate in a different national political and legal system, but do have similar European-level opportunities. Next to that, current literature suggests a possible relevance of organizational factors, such as resources, to explain the use of these legal mobilization strategies. By looking at NGOs with different levels of legal mobilization in two national contexts, a cross-case comparison is made in this article to explain what external and/or internal factors are relevant in making NGOs 'turn to the courts'. This article draws on empirical data to establish what drives four NGOs from Italy and the Netherlands to mobilize the law. This data is compared to existing literature on legal mobilization to show a potential revival of a theory that has been left behind over the last years: research on Political Opportunity Structures. This strand of literature emphasizes the importance of possibilities, constraints and threats at the (national) political level that drives NGOs in their strategy choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

System failure in the digital welfare state: Exploring parliamentary and judicial control in the Dutch childcare benefits scandal In recent years, there have been multiple policy fiascos (large-scale policy failures) in the digitalized enforcement of social security across welfare states. Besides similarities in outcomes, these cases have exposed far-reaching consequences of 'rule of law system weaknesses' in the form of deficits in parliamentary and judicial control. While there has been increasing attention for the vulnerability of benefit recipients in the digital welfare state, the importance of parliamentary and judicial control and the problematic nature of deficits in these control mechanisms has remained largely overlooked. This article takes a first step towards an understanding of this issue. It (a) examines the linkages between parliamentary and judicial control and policy failure and (b) analyses the role of deficits in these control mechanisms in the Dutch childcare benefits scandal. The results demonstrate the combined relevance of a variety of control deficits related to the legislative process, parliamentary scrutiny and judicial review. Moreover, interdependencies between parliamentary and judicial control highlight the importance of holistically analysing their combined influence. All in all, the article facilitates a deeper understanding of system failure in the digital welfare state and provides recommendations for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Recht der Werkelijkheid is the property of Boom uitgevers Den Haag and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The lawyer as a key player in guaranteeing access to justice in the digital era: In this article the role of the lawyer in criminal law, immigration detention law and asylum law is analysed in the context of digitalization measures during the COVID-19 lockdowns in the Netherlands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Remote justice in urgent family hearings during COVID-19: climbing the ladder of legal participation During the first six weeks of the pandemic, hearings in Dutch (urgent) family cases continued online to minimize the spread of coronavirus. Courts would therefore contact litigants using a telephone, Skype or hybrid format, which created all kinds of participation challenges. This article researches to what extent litigants were able to effectively participate during these digital hearings, based on a qualitative analysis of 15 interviews with lawyers, judges and representatives of childcare institutions involved in digital and hybrid hearings during COVID-19. This qualitative analysis applies McKeever's remote justice framework, the so-called 'ladder of legal participation', which measures litigant participation by focusing on their emotional, intellectual, practical and attitudinal barriers during hearings. An application of McKeever's framework shows the variety of legal participation in urgent family hearings, as well as how a digital environment is able to change the participation barriers of traditional courtroom hearings. In order for litigants to climb the participation ladder, a more nuanced, sociological understanding of all participation levels is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Online dispute resolution in the public justice system: It is often assumed that online dispute resolution is cheaper and faster for people seeking justice than litigation at court. Using empirical data from the public justice system in British Columbia, we examine the fees and case processing times of the Civil Resolution Tribunal and compare these with the Provincial Court and Supreme Court. Our case study yields both promising and discouraging results. Promising results pertain to the observation that online dispute resolution within the public justice system can be cheaper and faster, but this is not the case for all people seeking justice, and significant differences within the justice system are observed. In addition, important characteristics should be accounted for, in particular in debating the introduction of online dispute resolution platform in the public justice system as a replacement for a procedure at court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Recht der Werkelijkheid is the property of Boom uitgevers Den Haag and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Recht der Werkelijkheid is the property of Boom uitgevers Den Haag and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)