Contents
Scroll to:
Research of Innovation and Digital Transformation in Justice: A Systematic Review
https://doi.org/10.21202/jdtl.2024.12
EDN: idvewc
Abstract
Objective: To develop a mapping of studies on innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector, publishes from 2001 to 2022. Five research questions were defined: 1) How to define innovation and digital transformation introduced in the justice sector? 2) What types of innovations and digital transformations are implemented in the justice sector? 3) What are the objectives of introducing innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector? 4) What are the antecedents that influence the process of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector? 5) What are the results of the innovation and digital transformation process in the justice sector?
Methods: The systematic review of sources (scientific articles, conference
proceedings, monographs and institutional documents) presented in this paper was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) protocol. Selected by “research field”, “topic”, “research design”, “year of publication” and the keywords “public administration”, “public sector”, “e-justice”, “digital transformation”, and “innovation”, the sources were analyzed and evaluated according to five main aspects: (1) definition of innovation; (2) types of innovation; (3) objectives of innovation; (4) antecedents of innovation; and (5) results of innovation.
Results: The heuristic model for studying innovation in the public sector developed by Vries et al. (2015) was adapted and applied to the research field of justice. The adaptation of the heuristic model allowed forming the following areas of analysis: contextual antecedents in justice; institutional antecedents in justice; characteristics of innovation and digital transformation in justice; individual antecedents in justice; types of innovation and digital transformation in justice; results of the process of innovation and digital transformation in justice.
Scientific novelty: a comprehensive review of the literature in the field of innovation and digital transformation in justice is presented by adapting the approach to conducting systematic studies of the literature in the social sciences. It helped to identify gaps and define directions for further research in the given field, including the activation of comparative legal research, expansion of the methodological base, reliance on the theories of public administration, etc.
Practical significance: the obtained results allow forming a heuristic map of innovation and digital transformation in justice, create antecedents (contextual, institutional and individual) and the basis for future empirical research in the field of justice, analysis, evaluation and improvement of public policy in the field of innovation and digital transformation in this area.
Keywords
comparative research,
digital transformation,
e-justice,
innovation in justice, legal studies PRISMA method, public administration,
public sector,
research methodology,
systematic review
Supporting agencies: This work is supported by Portuguese national funds through FCT–Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, under project UIDB/04643/2020.
For citations:
Correia P., Pereira S., Bilhim J. Research of Innovation and Digital Transformation in Justice: A Systematic Review. Journal of Digital Technologies and Law. 2024;2(1):221–250. https://doi.org/10.21202/jdtl.2024.12. EDN: idvewc
Introduction
The research aims to provide a comprehensive overview of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector and understand how it has been studied. Five research questions were defined: 1. What types of innovations and digital transformations are implemented in the justice sector? 2. What are the objectives of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector? 3. What are the antecedents that influence the process of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector? 4. What are the results of the innovation and digital transformation process in the justice sector?
Through a systematic literature review, 140 scientific articles, conference papers, books, and organizational documents on innovation and digital transformation in justice published between 2001 and 2022 were analyzed. These studies were examined based on the heuristic framework of innovation in the public sector validated by Vries et al. (2015), which considers five major dimensions, namely 1) definitions of innovation; 2) types of innovation; 3) objectives of innovation; 4) antecedents of innovation; and 5) results of innovation.
This research aims to contribute to the academic and knowledge area of justice administration in three central points. The first contribution is methodological, providing a comprehensive and systematic understanding of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector. The second contribution is conceptual, aiming to understand how concepts related to innovation and transformation are operationalized and measured in the field of justice administration. The third contribution concerns the antecedents of the innovation and transformation process, allowing for a mapping of these antecedents. Finally, the adaptation of the heuristic framework of innovation in the public sector by Vries et al. (2015) in the justice sector contributes to proposing a framework for innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector, including antecedents (contextual, institutional, and individual), characteristics of innovation and digital transformation, types of innovation and digital transformation, and results of various processes of innovation and digital transformation in justice.
1. Methodology of systematic (review) research
This research aims to develop a mapping of studies on innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector. To achieve this, a systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA protocol – Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (Page et al., 2021). The research design adopted in this work aligns with other systematic literature reviews in the social sciences, such as Vries et al. (2015) and Scognamiglio et al. (2023).
Following the PRISMA protocol’s indications, four strategies were employed in the literature search to identify studies eligible for the research (Cooper, 2016), namely 1) scientific area; 2) topic; 3) research design; 4) year of publication. Regarding the scientific area, included studies must be in the field of public administration, focusing on justice. Concerning topics, studies should include the following terms in their title, abstract, or keywords: «public administration,» «public sector,» «ejustice,» «digital transformation,» «innovation.» Regarding the research design criterion, both empirical and theoretical studies were considered. Studies applying questionnaires, case studies, experiments, literature reviews, systematic reviews, among other research designs, were included. Finally, studies published between 2001 and 2022 were considered.
Firstly, searches were conducted via Clarivate Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, using keywords such as «public administration,» «public sector,» «ejustice,» «digital transformation,» «innovation.» This search yielded over 3,000 studies. Secondly, articles in scientific journals of public administration were searched, generating 41 more articles for potential inclusion in the research. Searches in specialized organizations also produced 9 relevant documents included in the analysis. Relevant citations from scientific articles were also considered, adding 52 more sources. In the end, 11 more studies were identified.
In total, 3,514 research outputs were examined. Based on eligibility criteria, removing duplicate documents, inappropriate topics, and articles not in English, Portuguese, or Spanish, we eventually reached 140 studies for content analysis (Fig. 1). Of the 140 studies, 30 publications were published between 2001 and 2011, while 110 sources were published between 2012 and 2022. Of the total selected sources, 73 are scientific articles (accounting for 52% of the included studies), 37 are book chapters (accounting for 26% of the included studies), 16 are conference proceedings (accounting for 11% of the included studies), 9 sources are organizational documents (accounting for 6% of the included studies), and 6 are books (accounting for 4% of the included studies) (Table 1). The studies were identified with a specific ID (Table 2). Subsequently, the selected studies were categorized according to the dimensions developed by Vries et al. (2015). For each dimension, the heuristic model includes explanatory subsections analyzed in the results section.
Figure 1
Source: Own elaboration based on the Prisma Flow Diagram (Page et al., 2021)
Table 1. Characteristics of the studies under analysis
Characteristics | N (%) | Study ID |
Publication date (N = 140) | ||
2001–2011 | 30 (21 %) | 3, 20, 21, 23, 27, 31, 42, 47, 48, 52, 56, 61, 62, 66, 76, 77, 78, 89, 90, 91, 94, 100, 102, 107, 117, 118, 120, 128, 129, 133 |
2012–2022 | 110 (79 %) | 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 |
Publication type (N = 140) | ||
Scientific article | 73 (52 %) | 5, 7, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26, 30, 31, 32, 43, 44, 45, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 68, 72, 73, 74, 75, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 119, 120, 122, 124, 125, 126, 130, 131, 132, 134, 138, 139 |
Book | 6 (4 %) | 11, 23, 24, 57, 69, 77 |
Chapter | 37 (26 %) | 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 21, 22, 25, 29, 33, 42, 46, 48, 59, 62, 65, 67, 70, 71, 76, 78, 83, 88, 90, 91, 103, 114, 116, 117, 118, 121, 123, 129, 136, 140 |
Conference proceeding | 16 (11 %) | 1, 13, 20, 27, 28, 47, 50, 52, 98, 99, 102, 106, 128, 133, 135, 137 |
Organizational document | 9 (6 %) | 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 127 |
Table 2. Included publications, ID, and type of publication
ID | Author, Year | Publication type |
1 | (Abdulvaliev, 2017) | Conference proceeding |
2 | (Adeleye et al., 2022) | Chapter |
3 | (Adler & Henman, 2009) | Chapter |
4 | (Ahmed et al., 2020) | Chapter |
5 | (Ahmed et al., 2021) | Scientific Article |
6 | (Andrade et al., 2012) | Chapter |
7 | (Arias & Maçada, 2020) | Scientific Article |
8 | (Axpe, 2021) | Chapter |
9 | (Bănică, 2020) | Scientific Article |
10 | (Bex et al., 2017) | Scientific Article |
11 | (Bochenek et al., 2022) | Book |
12 | (Borisova & Afanasiev, 2019) | Chapter |
13 | (Cano et al., 2015) | Conference proceeding |
14 | (Cano et al., 2017) | Chapter |
15 | (Carboni & Velicogna, 2012) | Scientific Article |
16 | (Carullo, 2015) | Scientific Article |
17 | (Chatfield & Reddick, 2020) | Scientific Article |
18 | (Chawinga et al., 2020) | Scientific Article |
19 | (Clarinval et al., 2020) | Scientific Article |
20 | (Contini & Cordella, 2004) | Conference proceeding |
21 | (Contini & Cordella, 2009) | Chapter |
22 | (Contini & Lanzara, 2014) | Chapter |
23 | (Contini & Lanzara, 2009) | Book |
24 | (Cordella & Contini, 2020) | Book |
25 | (Covelo de Abreu, 2019) | Chapter |
26 | (Creutzfeldt, 2021) | Scientific Article |
27 | (De Rugeriis, 2010) | Conference proceeding |
28 | (Deligiannis & Anagnostopoulos, 2017) | Conference proceeding |
29 | (Di Natale & Cordella, 2022) | Chapter |
30 | (Dillon & Beresford, 2014) | Scientific Article |
31 | (Doty & Erdelez, 2002) | Scientific Article |
32 | (Dumoulin & Licoppe, 2016) | Scientific Article |
33 | (Ermakova & Frolova, 2022) | Chapter |
34 | (CEPEJ, 2016)1 | Organizational document |
35 | (CEPEJ, 2019a)2 | Organizational document |
36 | (CEPEJ, 2019b)3 | Organizational document |
37 | (CEPEJ, 2019c)4 | Organizational document |
38 | (CEPEJ, 2021a)5 | Organizational document |
39 | (CEPEJ, 2021b)6 | Organizational document |
40 | (CEPEJ, 2021c)7 | Organizational document |
41 | (CEPEJ, 2021d)8 | Organizational document |
42 | (Fabri, 2009) | Chapter |
43 | (Fabri, 2018) | Scientific Article |
44 | (Fabri, 2021) | Scientific Article |
45 | (Fernandes et al., 2018) | Scientific Article |
46 | (Fernando et al., 2014) | Chapter |
47 | (Fersini et al., 2010) | Conference proceeding |
48 | (Filho & Veronese, 2009) | Chapter |
49 | (Frade et al., 2020) | Scientific Article |
50 | (Francesconi, 2014) | Conference proceeding |
51 | (Freitas & Medeiros, 2015) | Scientific Article |
52 | (Gascó & Jiménez, 2011) | Conference proceeding |
53 | (Gibson, 2016) | Scientific Article |
54 | (Greenwood & Bockweg, 2012) | Scientific Article |
55 | (Greenwood & Brinkema, 2015) | Scientific Article |
56 | (Henning & Ng, 2009) | Scientific Article |
57 | (Kengyel & Nemessányi, 2012) | Book |
58 | (Kettiger & Lienhard, 2021) | Scientific Article |
59 | (Kettiger et al., 2019) | Chapter |
60 | (Kiršienė et al., 2022) | Scientific Article |
61 | (Kiškis & Petrauskas, 2004) | Scientific Article |
62 | (Kitoogo & Bitwayiki, 2010) | Chapter |
63 | (Konina, 2020) | Scientific Article |
64 | (Kovalenko & Bernaziuk, 2018) | Scientific Article |
65 | (Kramer et al., 2018) | Chapter |
66 | (Lodge, 2005) | Scientific Article |
67 | (Lourenço et al., 2020) | Chapter |
68 | (Loutocký, 2022) | Scientific Article |
69 | (Lunardi & Clementino, 2021) | Book |
70 | (Lupo, 2015) | Chapter |
71 | (Lupo, 2019) | Chapter |
72 | (Lupo & Bailey, 2014) | Scientific Article |
73 | (Lupo & Carnevali, 2022) | Scientific Article |
74 | (Lyon et al., 2015) | Scientific Article |
75 | (Viktora, 2022) | Scientific Article |
76 | (Martínez, 2009) | Chapter |
77 | (Martínez & Abat, 2009) | Book |
78 | (McMillan, 2009) | Chapter |
79 | (Meyer, 2014) | Scientific Article |
80 | (Minbaleev & Evsikov, 2022) | Scientific Article |
81 | (Morison & Harkens, 2019) | Scientific Article |
82 | (Murillo & Zuniga, 2013) | Scientific Article |
83 | (Nikolaychenko & Nikolaychenko, 2019) | Chapter |
84 | (Oktal et al., 2016) | Scientific Article |
85 | (Olugasa, 2020) | Scientific Article |
86 | (Olugasa & Davies, 2022) | Scientific Article |
87 | (Pangalos et al., 2014) | Scientific Article |
88 | (Poblet et al., 2009) | Chapter |
89 | (Politis et al., 2008) | Scientific Article |
90 | (Potter, Farrelly & Begg, 2009) | Chapter |
91 | (Poullet, 2009) | Chapter |
92 | (Rattan & Rattan, 2021) | Scientific Article |
93 | (Reiling, 2020) | Scientific Article |
94 | (Reiling, 2011) | Scientific Article |
95 | (Reiling, 2012) | Scientific Article |
96 | (Reiling, 2017) | Scientific Article |
97 | (Reiling & Contini, 2022) | Scientific Article |
98 | (Rocha, 2021) | Conference proceeding |
99 | (Romdoni et al., 2022) | Conference proceeding |
100 | (Rooze, 2010) | Scientific Article |
101 | (Rosa et al., 2013) | Scientific Article |
102 | (Rugeriis, 2010) | Conference proceeding |
103 | (Rusakova & Frolova, 2022) | Chapter |
104 | (Sanders, 2021) | Scientific Article |
105 | (Sandoval-Almazan & Gil-Garcia, 2020) | Scientific Article |
106 | (Santuber et al., 2022) | Conference proceeding |
107 | (Sarantis & Askounis, 2009) | Scientific Article |
108 | (Seepma et al., 2021) | Scientific Article |
109 | (Shahbazov, 2019) | Scientific Article |
110 | (Shi et al., 2021) | Scientific Article |
111 | (Silveira & Covelo de Abreu, 2018) | Scientific Article |
112 | (Sousa et al., 2022) | Scientific Article |
113 | (Taal et al., 2019) | Scientific Article |
114 | (Themeli, 2022) | Chapter |
115 | (Karasev et al., 2021) | Scientific Article |
116 | (Tokarev et al., 2019) | Chapter |
117 | (Trochev, 2009) | Chapter |
118 | (Tyler, 2009) | Chapter |
119 | (Valeev & Nuriev, 2019) | Scientific Article |
120 | (van den Hoogen, 2008) | Scientific Article |
121 | (Velicogna, 2014) | Chapter |
122 | (Velicogna, 2017) | Scientific Article |
123 | (Velicogna, 2018) | Chapter |
124 | (Velicogna et al., 2013) | Scientific Article |
125 | (Velicogna et al., 2020) | Scientific Article |
126 | (Voigt, 2018) | Scientific Article |
127 | (Vucheva et al., 2020) | Organizational document |
128 | (Vuyst & Fairchild, 2006) | Conference proceeding |
129 | (Wallace, 2009) | Chapter |
130 | (Wallace, 2017) | Scientific Article |
131 | (Wallace, 2019) | Scientific Article |
132 | (Wallace & Laster, 2021) | Scientific Article |
133 | (Wallace & Rowden, 2009) | Conference proceeding |
134 | (Warren, 2014) | Scientific Article |
135 | (Wienrich et al., 2022) | Conference proceeding |
136 | (Yavuz et al., 2022) | Chapter |
137 | (Yu, 2021) | Conference proceeding |
138 | (Yu & Xia, 2020) | Scientific Article |
139 | (Zeleznikow, 2017) | Scientific Article |
140 | (Zeleznikow & Esteban de la Rosa, 2021) | Chapter |
2. Heuristic model for researching innovation and digital transformation in justice
The heuristic framework for innovation in the public sector was developed by Vries et al. (2015). This article sought to adapt the framework to the specific sector of justice. Thus, dimensions/themes on definitions of innovation, types of innovation, innovation objectives, innovation antecedents, and innovation outcomes were considered. The dimensions were adapted, generating the following spheres of analysis: 1) contextual antecedents in the justice sector; 2) institutional antecedents in the Justice sector; 3) characteristics of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector; 4) individual antecedents in the justice sector; 5) types of innovation and digital transformation in justice; 6) results of the innovation and digital transformation process in justice. In this way, a version is proposed for a specific sector of public administration: justice (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Innovation and Digital Transformation Framework in the Justice Sector
Source: adapted from Vries et al. (2015).
In the dimension on contextual antecedents in the justice sector, the considered contextual antecedents relate to external pressures, public attention, participation in networks, regulatory aspects, the implementation of transformations and innovations in agencies/organizations/countries, and the possibility of competition with other institutions. In the dimension on institutional antecedents in the Justice sector, the considered institutional antecedents relate to resources, leadership, risk aversion, and establishing space for institutional learning. Regarding the dimension on the characteristics of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector, characteristics related to ease, benefits, compatibility, and testability are included. Individual antecedents in the justice sector include employee autonomy, organizational position, knowledge and skills, creativity, relevant demographic aspects, commitment and satisfaction, perspectives and shared norms, and acceptance of digital transformation. The types of innovation and digital transformation in justice defined in the considered heuristic model include digital transformation in the process, digital transformation in administrative processes, digital transformation in technological processes, digital transformation of services, digital transformation in governance, and conceptual digital transformation. Finally, the dimension of the results of the innovation and digital transformation process in justice includes studies that address effectiveness, efficiency, relationship with partners, focus on citizens involved, as well as their satisfaction with digital justice services.
The studies included for this review were organized and allocated to each of the innovation and digital transformation dimensions in the justice sector. Some publications were included in more than one dimension of innovation and digital transformation in the Justice sector (Table 3).
Table 3. Innovation and Digital Transformation Dimensions in the Justice Sector
Dimension | N (%) | Study ID |
Contextual Antecedents in the Justice Sector | 17(12%) | 11; 14; 23; 24; 34; 35; 36; 37; 38; 39; 40; 41; 57; 59; 61; 83; 129 |
Institutional Antecedents in the Justice Sector | 24(17%) | 11; 15; 23; 25; 27; 29; 34; 35; 36; 37; 38; 39; 40; 41; 42; 51; 59; 63; 69; 73; 75; 90; 103; 108 |
Characteristics of Innovation and Digital Transformation in the Justice Sector | 18(13%) | 1; 2; 5; 11; 13; 16; 17; 18; 24; 28; 52; 67; 72; 74; 110; 111; 134; 137 |
Individual Antecedents in the Justice Sector | 18(13%) | 4; 7; 11; 18: 19; 32; 34; 35; 36; 37; 38; 39; 40; 41; 69; 79; 84; 87 |
Types of Innovation and Digital Transformation in the Justice Sector | 62(44%) | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, 20, 24, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 57, 61, 66, 68, 74, 76, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 93, 96, 97, 99, 104, 106, 113, 116, 119, 120, 121, 122, 127, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 138, 139, 140 |
Outcomes of the Innovation and Digital Transformation Process in the Justice Sector | 30(21%) | 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 18, 19, 21, 25, 32, 43, 44, 53, 70, 71, 73, 76, 79, 80, 82, 84, 96, 99, 103, 113, 115, 118, 136, 137, 139 |
Note: total N = 140 (100%) – some studies were included in more than one dimension of innovation and digital transformation in the Justice sector.
The type of innovation and digital transformation in justice encompasses 62 publications (corresponding to 44 % of all sources under analysis). Following is the dimension that considers the results of the innovation and digital transformation process in justice with 30 publications included (corresponding to 21 % of all sources under analysis). Next, the dimension with the most included studies relates to institutional antecedents in the Justice sector with 24 sources (corresponding to 17 % of all sources under analysis). Individual antecedents in the justice sector and the characteristics of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector each include 18 studies (corresponding to 13 % of all sources under analysis for each dimension). Finally, contextual antecedents consider 17 publications, which corresponds to 12 % of the sources selected for this review.
Conclusions
By adopting a deductive research approach, it was possible to adapt and replicate the framework developed by Vries et al. (2015) in the specific theme of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector.
The goal of this research was to provide a comprehensive view of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector, mapping relevant studies for future investigations. We analyzed 140 sources on innovation and digital transformation in justice published between 2001 and 2022, using the heuristic framework of innovation in the public sector developed by Vries et al. (2015).
Considering the established questions, various innovations and digital transformations were identified, covering processes in general, administrative processes, technological processes, justice services, justice governance, as well as conceptual and design-related innovations. The central objectives of these innovations are to provide greater ease, accessibility, benefits, participation, involvement, and satisfaction (Cordella & Contini, 2020). Regarding antecedents, contextual factors, considering the specificities of the justice sector, institutional factors, and individual factors, with a special focus on the acceptance of transformations by those involved, stand out. However, it is necessary to interpret the results with caution, as the studies mention results oriented towards effectiveness, efficiency, speed, access, quality, partnership development, and a focus on the involvement and satisfaction of citizens.
The research conducted by Yavuz et al. (2022) identified four research areas in eJustice. The first is related to success and risk factors in the implementation of electronic justice. The second focuses on evaluating the impact of the implementation of e-justice projects. The third addresses citizen satisfaction, exploring experiences and better designs to meet the needs of society. The fourth highlights the evaluation of websites, considering quantity, quality, security, accessibility, openness, and participation.
This research contributes to justice administration on several fronts. The first contribution is methodological, by conducting a broad systematic review, identifying a considerable set of sources on the studied topic. The conceptual contribution aims to understand how concepts related to innovation and transformation are operationalized and measured in the administration of justice. The third contribution relates to the antecedents of the innovation and transformation process, allowing for reflection on these elements. Finally, there is a contribution to the knowledge area by adapting the heuristic framework of innovation in the public sector validated by Vries et al. (2015) to the justice sector.
The mapping carried out in this article should be continued and deepened, especially regarding the research designs adopted.
In conclusion, four future research lines are suggested for studies on innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector: 1) greater methodological diversity, including mixed methods approaches; 2) more theoretically robust studies, with a greater application of public administration theories; 3) comparative investigations between countries to understand different developments and effects of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector; and 4) analysis and evaluation of public policies for innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector.
1. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2016). Guidelines on how to drive change towards Cyberjustice. Council of Europe.
2. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2019a). European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and their Environment. Council of Europe.
3. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2019b). Breaking up Judges’ Isolation: Guidelines to Improve the Judge’s Skills and Competences, Strengthen Knowledge Sharing and Collaboration, and Move Beyond a Culture of Judicial Isolation. Council of Europe.
4. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2019c). Toolkit for supporting the implementation of the Guidelines on how to drive change towards Cyberjustice. Council of Europe.
5. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2021a). Revised Roadmap for Ensuring an Appropriate Follow-Up of the CEPEJ Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and Their Environment. Council of Europe.
6. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2021b). Guidelines on Electronic Court Filing (e-filing) and Digitalisation of Courts. Council of Europe.
7. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2021c). 2022 – 2025 CEPEJ Action Plan: “Digitalisation for a Better Justice”. Council of Europe.
8. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2021d). Guidelines on Videoconferencing in Judicial Proceedings. Council of Europe.
References
1. Abdulvaliev, A. (2017). Court, internet technologies and their role in ensuring the well-being of society. In Responsible
2. Research and Innovation Proceedings of the International Conference “Responsible Research and Innovation” (RRI 2016), 07-10 November, 2016, Tomsk Polytechnic University. http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.07.02.2
3. Adeleye, J. T., Ahmed, R. K., Nyman-Metcalf, K., & Draheim, D. (2022). E-Court Transition Process: Identifying Critical Factors and Recommendations for Developing Countries. In A. V. Chugunov, M. Janssen, I. Khodachek, Y. Misnikov, & D. Trutnev (Eds.), Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia. EGOSE 2021. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 1529. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04238-6_23
4. Adler, M., & Henman, P. (2009). Justice beyond the courts: The implications of computerisation for procedural justice in social security. In A. Martínez, & P. Abat (Eds.), E-Justice: Using Information Communication Technologies in the Court System (pp. 65–86). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4.ch005
5. Ahmed, R. K., Muhammed, K. H., Pappel, I., & Draheim, D. (2020). Challenges in the Digital Transformation of Courts: A Case Study from the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. In 2020 Seventh International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment (ICEDEG) (pp. 1–6). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEDEG48599.2020.9096801
6. Ahmed, R. K., Muhammed, K. H., Pappel, I., & Draheim, D. (2021). Impact of e-court systems implementation: a case study. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 15(1), 108–128. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-01-2020-0008
7. Andrade, A., Joia, L. A., & Kamlot, D. (2012). E-government in the judiciary system: Assessing the correlation between IT investment and the efficiency of courts of justice in Brazil. In K. J. Bwalya & S. F. Zulu (Eds.), Handbook of Research on E Government in Emerging Economies: Adoption, E-Participation, and Legal Frameworks (pp. 158–178). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-0324-0.ch008
8. Arias, M. I., & Maçada, A. C. G. (2020). Judiciaries’ modernisation through electronic lawsuits: Employees’ perceptions from the Brazil and Argentina federal justice services. Information Development, 37(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666920910489
9. Axpe, M. R. V. (2021). Ethical Challenges from Artificial Intelligence to Legal Practice. In H. Sanjurjo González, I. Pastor López, P. García Bringas, H. Quintián & E. Corchado (Eds.), Hybrid Artificial Intelligent Systems. HAIS 2021 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 12886). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03086271-8_17
10. Bănică, R. A. (2020). Digitization of justice in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the implications of digitalization on constitutional rights. Revista de Drept Constituțional, 2, 11–30. https://doi.org/10.47743/rdc-2020-2-0001
11. Bex, F., Prakken, H., van Engers, T., & Verheij, B. (2017). Introduction to the special issue on Artificial Intelligence for Justice. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9198-5
12. Bochenek, A. C., Haddad, C. H. B., & Cantuária, E. da S. R. (Eds.). (2022). Gestão, Redes e Design Organizacional. Escola Nacional de Formação e Aperfeiçoamento de Magistrados — Enfam.
13. Borisova, V. F., & Afanasiev, S. F. (2019). Realia and prospects of civil e-justice legal regulation. In E. Popkova (Ed.), Ubiquitous computing and the internet of things: Prerequisites for the development of ICT (pp. 403–410). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13397-9_47
14. Cano, J., Jimenez, C. E., Hernandez, R., et al. (2015). New tools for e-justice: legal research available to any citizen. In L. Terán & A. Meier (Eds.), Proceedings of 2015 Second International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment (ICEDEG) (pp. 108–111). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEDEG.2015.7114455
15. Cano, J., Pomed, L., Jiménez-Gómez, C. E., & Hernández, R. (2017). Open Judiciary in High Courts: Securing a Networked Constitution, Challenges of E-Justice, Transparency, and Citizen Participation. In Achieving Open Justice through Citizen Participation and Transparency (pp. 36–54). https://doi.org/10.4018/9781-5225-0717-8.ch003
16. Carboni, N., & Velicogna, M. (2012). Electronic Data Exchange within European Justice: A Good Opportunity? International Journal for Court Administration, 4(3), 104–120. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.90
17. Carullo, G. (2015). Services in the Field of Law within the Internal Market: Promoting e-Justice through Interoperability. Laws, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws5010001
18. Chatfield, A. T., & Reddick, C. G. (2020). Collaborative network governance framework for aligning open justice and e-justice ecosystems for greater public value. Social Science Computer Review, 38(3), 252–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318771968
19. Chawinga, W. D., Chawinga, C., Kapondera, S. K., Chipeta, G. T., Majawa, F., & Nyasulu, C. (2020). Towards e-judicial services in Malawi: Implications for justice delivery. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 86, e12121. https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12121
20. Clarinval, A., Simonofski, A., Vanderose, B., & Dumas, B. (2020). Public displays and citizen participation: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 15(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-12-2019-0127
21. Contini, F., & Cordella, A. (2004). Information System and Information Infrastructure Deployment: The Challenge of the Italian eJustice Approach. European Conference on Information Systems 2004 Proceedings, 40.
22. Contini, F., & Cordella, A. (2009). Italian justice system and ICT: Matches and mismatches between technology and organisation. In A. Martínez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-Justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 117–134). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4.ch008
23. Contini, F., & Lanzara, G. F. (2014). Introduction: The challenge of interoperability and complexity in european civil proceedings online. In F. Contini & G. F. Lanzara (Eds.), The circulation of agency in e-justice: Interoperability and infrastructures for European transborder judicial proceedings (pp. xiii–xxi). Springer.
24. Contini, F., & Lanzara, G. F. (Eds.). (2009). ICT and Innovation in the Public Sector: European Studies in the Making of E-Government. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230227293
25. Cooper, H. (2016). Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach (fifth edition). Sage.
26. Cordella, A., Contini, F. (2020). Digital Technologies for Better Justice: A Toolkit for Action. Inter-American Development Bank. http://dx.doi.org/10.18235/0002297
27. Covelo de Abreu, J. (2019). The Role of Artificial Intelligence in the European e-Justice Paradigm – Suiting Effective Judicial Protection Demands. In P. Moura Oliveira, P. Novais, & L. Reis. (Eds.), Progress in Artificial Intelligence. EPIA 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 11804. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30241-2_26
28. Creutzfeldt, N. (2021). Towards a digital legal consciousness? European Journal of Law and Technology, 12(3).
29. De Rugeriis, G. (2010). The Online Criminal Trial in Italy Seeks an Identity. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on e-Government (pp. 492–499). Academic Publishing Limited.
30. Deligiannis, A. P., & Anagnostopoulos, D. (2017). Towards Open Justice: ICT Acceptance in the Greek Justice System: The Case of the Integrated Court Management System for Penal and Civil Procedures (OSDDY/PP). In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government, CeDEM 2017 (Art. No. 8046275, pp. 82–91). https://doi.org/10.1109/cedem.2017.26
31. Di Natale, L. J., & Cordella, A. (2022). Digitising the Judicial Sector: A Case Study of the Dutch KEI Programme. In R. Krimmer et al., Electronic Participation. ePart 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science,13392. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23213-8_9
32. Dillon, M. P., & Beresford, D. (2014). Electronic Courts and the Challenges in Managing Evidence. A View from Inside the International Criminal Court. International Journal for Court Administration, 6(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.132
33. Doty, P., & Erdelez, S. (2002). Information micro-practices in Texas rural courts: Methods and issues for e-government. Government Information Quarterly, 19(4), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740624X(02)00121-1
34. Dumoulin, L., & Licoppe, C. (2016). Videoconferencing, New Public Management, and Organizational Reform in the Judiciary. Policy & Internet, 8(3), 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.124
35. Ermakova, E. P., & Frolova, E. E. (2022). Using Artificial Intelligence in Dispute Resolution. In A. O. Inshakova, E. E. Frolova (Eds.), Smart Technologies for the Digitisation of Industry: Entrepreneurial Environment. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, 254. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4621-8_11
36. Fabri, M. (2009). The Italian style of e-justice in a comparative perspective. In A. Martínez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-Justice: Using Information Communication Technologies in the Court System (pp. 1–19). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4.ch001
37. Fabri, M. (2018). Pitfalls in Data Gathering to Assess Judiciaries. International Journal for Court Administration, 9(3), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.278
38. Fabri, M. (2021). Will COVID-19 Accelerate Implementation of ICT in Courts? International Journal for Court Administration, 12(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.384
39. Fernandes, R. V. de C., Rule, C., Ono, T. T., & Cardoso, G. E. B. (2018). The expansion of online dispute resolution in Brazil. International Journal for Court Administration, 9(2), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.255
40. Fernando, P., Gomes, C., & Fernandes, D. (2014). The Piecemeal Development of an e-Justice Platform: The CITIUS Case in Portugal. In F. Contini, & G. Lanzara (Eds.), The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice. Law, Governance and Technology Series, 13. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-0077525-1_6
41. Fersini, E., Messina, V., Toscani, D., et al. (2010). Semantics and machine learning for building the next generation of judicial court management systems. In K. Liu & J. Filipe (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing (Vol. 0IC3K, pp. 51–60), Valencia, Spain. https://doi.org/10.5220/0003099300510060
42. Filho, R. F., & Veronese, A. (2009). Electronic justice in Brazil. In A. Martínez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-Justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 135–151). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4.ch009
43. Frade, C., Fernando, P., & Conceição, A. F. (2020). The performance of the courts in the digital era: The case of insolvency and restructuring proceedings. International Insolvency Review, 29(3), 346– 359. https://doi.org/10.1002/iir.1390
44. Francesconi, E. (2014). An Interoperability Approach for Enabling Access to e-Justice Systems across Europe. In Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective: Third International Conference, EGOVIS 2014, Munich, Germany, September 1–3, 2014. Proceedings.
45. Freitas, C. S. de, & Medeiros, J. J. (2015). Organizational Impacts of the Electronic Processing System of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice. JISTEM – Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 12(2), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.4301/S1807-17752015000200007
46. Gascó, M., & Jimenez-Gomez, C. E. (2011). Interoperability in the justice field: Variables that affect implementation. In M. Klun, M. Decman & T. Jukic (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on eGovernment (pp. 272–279). Academic Publishing Limited.
47. Gibson, J. (2016). Social Media and the Electronic “New World” of Judges. International Journal for Court Administration, 7(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.199
48. Greenwood, J. M., & Bockweg, G. (2012). Insights to Building a Succesful E-filing Case Management Service: U.S. Federal Court Experience. International Journal for Court Administration, 4(2), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.74
49. Greenwood, J. M., & Brinkema, J. (2015). E-Filing Case Management Services in the US Federal Courts: The Next Generation: A Case Study. International Journal for Court Administration, 7(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.179
50. Henning, F., & Ng, G. (2009). The challenge of collaboration—ICT implementation networks in courts in The Netherlands. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 5(28), 27–44.
51. Karasev, A. T., Savoskin, A. V., & Meshcheryagina, V. A. (2021). On the Effectiveness of the Digital Legal Proceedings Model in Russia. Mathematics, 9(2), 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9020125
52. Kengyel, M., & Nemessányi, Z. (Eds.). (2012). Electronic technology and civil procedure: New paths to justice from around the world. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4072-3
53. Kettiger, D., & Lienhard, A. (2021). Swiss Courts Facing the Challenges of COVID-19. International Journal for Court Administration, 12(2), 5. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.380
54. Kettiger, D., Lienhard, A., Langbroek, Ph., & Fabri, M. (2019). Court Management: A Young Field of Public Management. In E. Ongaro (Ed.), Public Administration in Europe. Governance and Public Management (pp. 309–315). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92856-2_28
55. Kiršienė, J., Amilevičius, D., & Stankevičiūtė, D. (2022). Digital Transformation of Legal Services and Access to Justice: Challenges and Possibilities. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, 15(1), 141–172. https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2022-0007
56. Kiškis, M., & Petrauskas, R. (2004). ICT adoption in the judiciary: Classifying of judicial information. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 18(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600860410001674724
57. Kitoogo, F. E., & Bitwayiki, C. (2010). e-Justice implementation at a national scale: The Ugandan case. In A. Villafiorita, R. Saint-Paul & A. Zorer (Eds.), E-infrastructures and e-services on developing countries (pp. 40–49). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12701-4_5
58. Konina, A. (2020). Technology-Driven Changes in an Organizational Structure: The Case of Canada’s Courts Administration Service. International Journal for Court Administration, 11(2), 6. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.326
59. Kovalenko, N., & Bernaziuk, I. (2018). Topical issues of financing electronic legal proceedings in Ukraine. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 4(5), 100–104. https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2018-4-5-100-104
60. Kramer, X. E., van Gelder, E., & Themeli, E. (2018). e-Justice in the Netherlands: the Rocky Road to Digitised Justice. In M. Weller & M. Wendland (Eds.), Digital Single Market: Bausteine eines Rechts in der Digitalen Welt (pp. 209–235). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3167543
61. Lodge, J. (2005). eJustice, Security and Biometrics: the EU’s Proximity Paradox. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 13(4), 533–564. https://doi.org/10.1163/157181705774662607
62. Lourenço, R. P., Fernando, P., & Gomes, C. (2020). From eJustice to Open Judiciary: An Analysis of the Portuguese Experience. In Open Government: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 1161–1186). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9860-2.ch055
63. Loutocký, P. (2022, May 31). Possible approaches towards the architecture of online courts and their potential in the decision-making process. Jusletter IT. https://doi.org/10.38023/f37d20de-4f8c-4421afaa-0d914636f226
64. Lunardi, F. C., & Clementino, M. B. M. (Eds.). (2021). Inovação Judicial: Fundamentos e Práticas para uma Jurisdição de Alto Impacto. Brasília: Escola Nacional de Formação e Aperfeiçoamento de Magistrados – Enfam.
65. Lupo, G. (2015). Evaluating e-Justice: The Design of an Assessment Framework for e-Justice Systems. In K. Benyekhlef, J. Bailey, J. Burkell, & F. Gélinas (Eds.), eAccess to Justice (pp. 53–94). University of Ottawa Press.
66. Lupo, G. (2019). Assessing e-Justice smartness: A new framework for e-Justice Evaluation Through Public Values. In M. P. Rodriguez Bolivar (Ed.), Setting Foundations for the Creation of Public Value in Smart Cities (pp. 77–113). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98953-2_4
67. Lupo, G., & Bailey, J. (2014). Designing and implementing e-Justice Systems: Some Lessons Learned from EU and Canadian Examples. Laws, 3(2), 353–387. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws3020353
68. Lupo, G., & Carnevali, D. (2022). Smart Justice in Italy: Cases of Apps Created by Lawyers for Lawyers and Beyond. Laws, 11(3), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws11030051
69. Lyon, F., Gyateng, T., Pritchard, D., Vaze, P., Vickers, I., & Webb, N. (2015). Opening access to administrative data for evaluating public services: The case of the Justice Data Lab. Evaluation, 21(2), 232–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389015577507
70. Martínez, A. (2009). E-justice in Spain. In A. Martínez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 98–116). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/9781-59904-998-4.ch007
71. Martínez, A., & Abat, P. (2009). E-justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4
72. McMillan, J. E. (2009). The potential of computerized court case management to battle judicial corruption. In A. Martínez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 57–64). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4.ch004
73. Meyer, N. (2014). Social Media and the Courts: Innovative Tools or Dangerous Fad? A Practical Guide for Court Administrators. International Journal for Court Administration, 6(1), 2–28. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.136
74. Minbaleev, A. V., & Evsikov, K. S. (2022). Alternative dispute resolution in digital government. RBADR, 4(7), 119–146. https://doi.org/10.52028/rbadr.v4i7.8
75. Morison, J., & Harkens, A. (2019). Re-engineering justice? Robot judges, computerised courts and (semi) automated legal decision-making. Legal Studies, 39(4), 618–635. https://doi.org/10.1017/lst.2019.5
76. Murillo, R., & Zuniga, R. (2013). Could Innovation also Emerge from the Public Sector? Creating an ISO-like Judiciary Quality Management Standard. International Journal for Court Administration, 5(2), 10–30. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.16
77. Nikolaychenko, O., & Nikolaychenko, V. V. (2019). Transformation of the procedural obligations of the court under electronic justice conditions. In E. G. Popkova (Ed.), Ubiquitous computing and the internet of things: Prerequisites for the development of ICT (pp. 379–385). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13397-9_44
78. Oktal, O., Alpu, O., & Yazici, B. (2016). Measurement of internal user satisfaction and acceptance of the e-justice system in Turkey. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 68(6), 716–735. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-04-2016-0048
79. Olugasa, O. (2020). Utilising Technology in Making the Nigerian Administration of Criminal Justice Act Effective for Criminal Trials. International Journal for Court Administration, 11(2), 5. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.332
80. Olugasa, O., & Davies, A. (2022). Remote Court Proceedings in Nigeria: Justice Online or Justice on the Line. International Journal for Court Administration, 13(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.448
81. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Research Methods & Reporting, 372(71), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
82. Pangalos, G., Salmatzidis, I., & Pagkalos, I. (2014). Using IT to Provide Easier Access to Cross-Border Legal Procedures for Citizens and Legal Professionals – Implementation of a European Payment Order e-CODEX pilot. International Journal for Court Administration, 6(2), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.137
83. Pereira, S., Correia, P., & Bilhim, J. (2023). Inovação e Transformação Digital na Justiça: uma Revisão Sistemática de Literatura. Anais do Encontro de Administração da Justiça – EnAJUS 2023. https://goo.su/UOQBye
84. Poblet, M., Vallbé, J. J., Casellas, N., & Casanovaset, P. (2009). Judges as IT users: The iuriservice example. In A. Martínez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 38–56). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4.ch003
85. Politis, D., Donos, G., Christou, G., Giannakopoulos, P., & Papapanagiotou-Leza, A. (2008). Implementing E-justice on a national scale: Coping with balkanization and socio-economical divergence. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 10(2), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.4018/jcit.2008040104
86. Potter, S., Farrelly, P., & Begg, D. (2009). The e-court roadmap: Innovation and integration an Australian case study. In A. Martínez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 165–185). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4.ch011
87. Poullet, Y. (2009). The Belgian case: Phenix or how to design E justice through privacy requirements and in full respect of the separation of powers. In A. Martínez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 186–195). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4.ch012
88. Rattan, J., & Rattan, V. (2021). The COVID-19 Crisis – the New Challenges Before the Indian Justice and Court Administration System. International Journal for Court Administration, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.391
89. Reiling, A. D. (2020). Courts and Artificial Intelligence. International Journal for Court Administration, 11(2), 8. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.343
90. Reiling, D. (2011). Understanding IT for Dispute Resolution. International Journal for Court Administration, 3(2), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.61
91. Reiling, D. (2012). Technology in Courts in Europe: Opinions, Practices and Innovations. International Journal for Court Administration, 4(2), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.75
92. Reiling, D. (2017). Beyond court digitalization with ODR. International Journal for Court Administration, 8(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.225
93. Reiling, D., & Contini, F. (2022). E-Justice Platforms: Challenges for Judicial Governance. International Journal for Court Administration, 13(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.445
94. Rocha, C. (2021). Success Factors for e-Justice Adoption. In ISLA 2021 Proceedings, 12 (pp.1–6).
95. Romdoni, M., Lussak, A., & Darmawan, I. (2022). Success Factors for Using E-Court in Indonesian Courts. Proceeding of International Academic Symposium of Social Science 2022, 82(1), 58. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2022082058
96. Rooze, E. (2010). Differentiated Use of Electronic Case Management Systems. International Journal for Court Administration, 3(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.53
97. Rosa, J., Teixeira, C., & Pinto, J. S. (2013). Risk factors in e-justice information systems. Government Information Quarterly, 30(3), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.02.002
98. Rusakova, E. P., & Frolova, E. E. (2022). Current Problems of Digital Justice in the BRICS Countries. In A. O. Inshakova & E. E. Frolova (Eds.), Smart Technologies for the Digitisation of Industry: Entrepreneurial Environment. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, 254. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4621-8_12
99. Sanders, A. (2021). Video-Hearings in Europe Before, During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal for Court Administration, 12(2), 3. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.379
100. Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2020). Understanding e-Justice and Open Justice Through the Assessment of Judicial Websites: Toward a Conceptual Framework. Social Science Computer Review, 38(3), 334–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318785957
101. Santuber, J., Abou Refaie, R., & Meinel, C. (2022). Interrogating e-Justice: Lessons from Digitalizing Courts in Chile. In Conference EGOV-CeDEM-ePart 2022, September 6–8, 2022, Linköping University, Sweden (Hybrid). https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3399/paper5.pdf
102. Sarantis, D., & Askounis, D. (2009). Electronic criminal record in Greece: Project management approach and lessons learned in public administration. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 5(25), 132–146.
103. Scognamiglio, F., Sancino, A., Caló, F., Jacklin-Jarvis, C., & Rees, J. (2023). The public sector and co-creation in turbulent times: A systematic literature review on robust governance in the COVID-19 emergency. Public Administration, 101(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12875
104. Seepma, A. P., de Blok, C., & Van Donk, D. P. (2021). Designing digital public service supply chains: Four countrybased cases in criminal justice. Supply Chain Management, 26(3), 418–446. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-03-2019-0111
105. Shahbazov, I. (2019). Exploring the attitudes of university students and criminal justice professionals towards electronic monitoring in Azerbaijan: A focus group study. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 58, 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2019.06.003
106. Shi, C., Sourdin, T., & Li, B. (2021). The Smart Court – A New Pathway to Justice in China? International Journal for Court Administration, 12(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.367
107. Silveira, A., & de Abreu, J. C. (2018). Interoperability solutions under Digital Single Market: European e-Justice rethought under e-Governance paradigm. European Journal of Law and Technology, 9(1). https://ejlt.org/index.php/ejlt/article/view/590
108. Sousa, M., Kettiger, D., & Lienhard, A. (2022). E-justice in Switzerland and Brazil: Paths and Experiences. International Journal for Court Administration, 13(2), 3. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.368
109. Taal, S., Kolitsi, Z., Velicogna, M., Groustra, J., & Steigenga, E. (2019). Connecting the European e-Justice Community: Towards a New Governance Model for e-CODEX. Public Sciences & Policies, 5(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.33167/2184-0644.CPP2019.VVN1/pp.33-51
110. Themeli, E. (2022). The Frontiers of Digital Justice in Europe. In X. Kramer, J. Hoevenaars, B. Kas, & E. Themeli (Eds.), Frontiers in Civil Justice (pp. 102–120). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802203820.00013
111. Tokarev, D. A., Usanova, V. A., Kagalnitskova, N., & Sandalova, V. A. (2019). Development of E-justice in Russia: Modernization of legal regulation and deepening of scientific research. In E. Popkova (Ed.), Ubiquitous computing and the internet of things: Prerequisites for the development of ICT (pp. 215–222). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13397-9_25
112. Trochev, A. (2009). Courts on the Web in Russia. In A. Martínez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-Justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 196–203). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/9781-59904-998-4.ch013
113. Tyler, M. H. C. (2009). Online dispute resolution. In A. Martínez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-Justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 87–96). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/9781-59904-998-4.ch006
114. Valeev, D. K., & Nuriev, A. G. (2019). Unity of judicial power: Development of elements of electronic justice. Revista Turismo: Estudos e Práticas, 2, 1–5. van den Hoogen, R. (2008). Will E-Justice still be Justice? Principles of a Fair Electronic Trial. International Journal for Court Administration, 1(1), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.128
115. Velicogna, M. (2014). Coming to Terms with Complexity Overload in Transborder e-Justice: The e-CODEX Platform. In F. Contini & G. Lanzara (Eds.), The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7525-1_13
116. Velicogna, M. (2017). In search of smartness: The EU e-justice challenge. Informatics, 4(4), 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics4040038
117. Velicogna, M. (2018). E-Justice in Europe: From National Experiences to EU Cross-Border Service Provision. In L. Alcaide Muñoz & M. Rodríguez Bolívar (Eds.), International E-Government Development. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63284-1_3
118. Velicogna, M., Errera, A., & Derlange, S. (2013). Building e-Justice in Continental Europe: The TeleRecours Experience in France. Utrecht Law Review, 9, 38–59. https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.211
119. Velicogna,M., Steigenga, E., Taal, S., Schmidt, A. (2020). Connecting EU jurisdictions: Exploring how to open justice across member states through ICT. Social Science Computer Review, 38(3), 274–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318786949
120. Viktora, M. (2022). Innovative Leadership-a Missing Puzzle in the Economic Administration of the Judiciary in the Czech Republic. International Journal for Court Administration, 13(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.438
121. Voigt, S. (2018). Innovate – Don’t Imitate! – ENCJ Research Should Focus on Research Gaps. International Journal for Court Administration, 9(3), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.279
122. Vries, H., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. (2015). Innovation in the Public Sector: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda. Public Administration, 94(1), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12209
123. Vucheva, M., Rocha, M., Renard, R., & Stasinopolous, D. (2020). Study on the use of innovative technologies in the justice field. https://doi.org/10.2838/585101
124. Vuyst, B., & Fairchild, A. (2006). The Phenix project: A case study of e-justice in Belgium. In M. S. Fox & B. Spencer (Eds.), ICEC’06: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Electronic Commerce: The New e-Commerce: Innovations for Conquering Current Barriers, Obstacles and Limitations to Conducting Successful Business on the Internet (pp. 327–333). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1151454.1151509
125. Wallace, A. (2009). E-justice: An Australian perspective. In A. Martínez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 204–228). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4.ch014
126. Wallace, A. (2017). The Impact of Technology on Courts. International Journal for Court Administration, 8(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.236
127. Wallace, A. (2019). Ten Questions for Dory Reiling – Developing IT for Courts. International Journal for Court Administration, 10(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.293
128. Wallace, A., & Laster, K. (2021). Courts in Victoria, Australia, During COVID: Will Digital Innovation Stick? International Journal for Court Administration, 12(2), 9. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.389
129. Wallace, A., & Rowden, E. (2009). Gateways to Justice: The Use of Videoconferencing Technology to Take Evidence in Australian Courts. In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on e-Government. University of Westminster Business School, London, England.
130. Warren, M. (2014). Open justice in the technological age. Monash University Law Review, 40(1), 45–58.
131. Wienrich, C., Fries, L., & Latoschik, M. (2022). Remote at Court: Challenges and Solutions of Video Conferencing in the Judicial System. In G. Salvendy, J. Wei (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Design, Operation and Evaluation of Mobile Communications. 24th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCII). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05014-5_8
132. Yavuz, N., Karkin, N., & Yildiz M. (2022). E-Justice: A Review and Agenda for Future Research. In Y. Charalabidis, L. S. Flak & G. V. Pereira (Eds.), Scientific Foundations of Digital Governance and Transformation: Concepts, Approaches and Challenges (pp. 385–414). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92945-9_15
133. Yu, J. (2021). Citizen adoption of e-justice services: An empirical research in China. In AISS’2021: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Advanced Information Science and System, November 26–28, 2021, Sanya, China. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3503047.3503061
134. Yu, J., & Xia, J. (2020). E-justice evaluation factors: The case of smart court of China. Information Development, 37(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666920967387
135. Zeleznikow, J. (2017). Can Artificial Intelligence and Online Dispute Resolution enhance efficiency and effectiveness in Courts. International Journal for Court Administration, 8(2), 30–45. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.223
136. Zeleznikow, J., & Esteban de la Rosa, F. (2021). Artificial Intelligence as a New Component of the Justice System: How it creates New Possibilities, but has Limitations especially with regards to Governance. In F. E. de la Rosa, J. M. Gil Ruiz, L. M. Hinojosa Martínez, A. Orti Vallejo, S. A. Sánchez Lorenzo, & J. Vals Prieto (Eds.), Justice, Trade, Security, and Individual Freedoms in the Digital Society (pp. 59–101).
About the Authors
P. M. A. R. Correia
University of Coimbra
Portugal
Competing Interests:
Portugal
Pedro Miguel Alves Ribeiro Correia – PhD in Social Sciences (Specialty in Public Administration), Invited Associate Professor, Faculty of Law
Pátio da Universidade, 3004-528 CoimbraScopus Author ID: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=58223408400
WoS Researcher ID: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/B-2753-2015
Google Scholar ID: https://scholar.google.hu/citations?user=KABKPuUAAAAJ
Competing Interests:
The authors declares no conflict of interest.
S. P. M. Pereira
University of Coimbra
Portugal
Competing Interests:
Portugal
Sandra Patrícia Marques Pereira – PhD student, Master in Public Administration (Specialty in Justice Administration), Assistant Lecturer, Faculty of Law
Pátio da Universidade, 3004-528 Coimbra
Scopus Author ID: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=55929186300
WoS Researcher ID: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/X-3842-2019
Google Scholar ID: https://scholar.google.hu/citations?user=JkKwolYAAAAJ
Competing Interests:
The authors declares no conflict of interest.
J. A. de F. Bilhim
University of Lisbon
Portugal
Competing Interests:
Portugal
João Abreu de Faria Bilhim – PhD in Social Sciences (Specialty in Sociology of Organizations), Retired Full Professor
Cidade Universitária, Alameda da Universidade, 1649-004 Lisboa
Scopus Author ID: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57200310364
WoS Researcher ID: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/AAM-9835-2021
Google Scholar ID: https://scholar.google.hu/citations?user=giI6ICgAAAAJ
Competing Interests:
The authors declares no conflict of interest.
- broadening the methodological basis of reviews, drawing on contemporary theories and approaches;
- main directions of legal science development and gaps of research in the field of innovation and digital transformation in justice;
- adapting a heuristic model for studying innovation in the public sector and applying it to the legal field;
- research map and trends in the digitalization of justice.
Review
For citations:
Correia P., Pereira S., Bilhim J. Research of Innovation and Digital Transformation in Justice: A Systematic Review. Journal of Digital Technologies and Law. 2024;2(1):221–250. https://doi.org/10.21202/jdtl.2024.12. EDN: idvewc
Views:
2172
Email this article 
