Cyberjustice in Brazil : the use of technology to enhance access to justice and procedural celerity

Dans une société mondialisée, où les relations sont intégrées à une vitesse différente avec l'utilisation des technologies de l'information et des communications, l'accès à la justice gagne de nouveaux concepts, mais elle est encore confrontée à de vieux obstacles. La crise mondiale de l'accès à la justice dans le système judiciaire provoque des débats concernant l'égalité en vertu de la loi, la capacité des individus, la connaissance des droits, l'aide juridique, les coûts et les délais. Les deux derniers ont été les facteurs les plus importants du mécontentement des individus avec le système judiciaire. La présente étude a pour objet d'analyser l'incidence de l'utilisation de la technologie dans l’appareil judiciaire, avec l'accent sur la réalité brésilienne, la voie législative et des expériences antérieures dans le développement de logiciels de cyberjustice. La mise en œuvre de ces instruments innovants exige des investissements et de la planification, avec une attention particulière sur l'incidence qu'ils peuvent avoir sur les routines traditionnelles des tribunaux. De nouveaux défis sont sur la voie de ce processus de transformation et doivent être traités avec professionnalisme afin d'éviter l'échec de projets de qualité. En outre, si la technologie peut faire partie des différents aspects de notre quotidien et l'utilisation de modes alternatifs de résolution des conflits en ligne sont considérés comme un succès, pourquoi serait-il difficile de faire ce changement dans la prestation de la justice par le système judiciaire? Des solutions technologiques adoptées dans d'autres pays ne sont pas facilement transférables à un environnement culturel différent, mais il y a toujours la possibilité d'apprendre des expériences des autres et d’éviter de mauvaises voies qui pourraient compromettre la définition globale de l'accès à la justice.

The influence of procedural and interactional justice, and disconfirmation on customers post recovery satisfaction evaluations

This study examines the influence of distributive and interactional justice and disconfirmation on customers’ postrecovery satisfaction evaluations, and in so doing, combines, for the first time, two existing instruments to operationalise the interactional justice construct. Using Structural Equation Modelling, the findings suggest that while both disconfirmation and justice are important predictors of satisfaction, distributive justice has the greatest influence. The research presented here reports on a section of a larger experiment-based study examining how customers’ postrecovery satisfaction evaluations are influenced by the way in which the organisation responds to the failure.

A new dimension of organizational justice : procedural voice

Dimensionality of the Colquitt justice measures was investigated across a wide range of service occupations. Structural equation modeling of data from 410 survey respondents found support for the 4-factor model of justice (procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational), although significant improvement of model fit was obtained by including a new latent variable, “procedural voice,” which taps employees’ desire to express their views and feelings and influence results. The model was confirmed in a second sample (N = 505) in the same organization six months later.

Perceptions of Procedural and Distributive Justice in the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund

The September l1th Victim Compensation Fund (the Fund) was created in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Much has been written about the Fund, both pro and con, in both popular media and scholarly literature. Perhaps the most widely used term in referring to the Fund is "unprecedented." The Fund is intriguing for many reasons, particularly for its public policy implications and its impact on the claimants themselves. The federal government has never before provided compensation to victims of terrorism through a special master who had virtually unlimited discretion in determining awards. Consequently, this formal allocation of money by a representative of the federal government to its citizens has provided an opportunity to test theories of procedural and distributive justice in a novel context. This article tests these theories by analyzing the results of a study of the Fund's claimants. Part I provides general background, summarizes existing commentary on the Fund, and discusses prior research on social justice that is relevant to the 9/11 claimants' experiences with the Fund. Part II of this article describes the methodology behind the study, in which seventy-one individuals who filed claims with the Fund completed surveys about their experiences with and perceptions of the Fund. Part III discusses the survey results. We found that participants were reasonably satisfied with the procedural aspects of the Fund, such as representatives' impartiality and respectful treatment. Participants were less satisfied, however, with the distributive aspects of the Fund, such as the unequal distribution of compensation and the reduction in compensation if claimants received compensation from other sources (e.g., life insurance). Part IV of this article addresses the implications of the study results for public policy and for theories of social justice.

Considering Just-World Thinking in Counter-Terrorism Cases: Miscarriages of Justice in Northern Ireland

Recent literature has drawn a parallel between the discriminatory application of counterterrorism legislation to the Irish population in the United Kingdom during the Northern Ireland conflict and the targeting of Muslims after September 2001. Less attention has been paid to lessons that can be drawn from judicial decision making in terrorism-related cases stemming from the Northern Ireland conflict. This Article examines Northern Ireland Court of Appeal (“NICA”) jurisprudence on miscarriages of justice in cases regarding counterterrorism offenses. In particular, the Article focuses on cases referred after the 1998 peace agreements in Northern Ireland from the Criminal Cases Review Commission (“CCRC”), a relatively new entity that investigates potential wrongful convictions in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Although the NICA’s human rights jurisprudence has developed significantly in recent years, the study of CCRC-referred cases finds that judges have retained confidence in the integrity of the conflict-era counterterrorism system even while acknowledging abuses and procedural irregularities that occurred. This study partially contradicts contentions that judicial deference to the executive recedes in a post-conflict or post-emergency period. Despite a high rate of quashed convictions, the NICA’s decisions suggest that it seeks to limit a large number of referrals and demonstrate a judicial predisposition to defend the justness of the past system’s laws and procedure. This perspective is consistent with what social psychologists have studied as “just-world thinking,” in which objective observers, although motivated by a concern with justice, believe—as a result of cognitive bias—that individuals “got what they deserved.” The Article considers other potential interpretations of the jurisprudence and contends that conservative decision making is particularly dangerous in the politicized realm of counterterrorism and in light of the criminalization of members of suspect communities.

Realising Justice for victims before the International Criminal Court

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been celebrated for its innovative victim provisions, which enable victims to participate in proceedings, avail of protection measures and assistance, and to claim reparations. The impetus for incorporating victim provisions within the ICC, came from victims’ dissatisfaction with the ad hoc tribunals in providing them with more meaningful and tangible justice.1 The International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (ICTY/R) only included victim protection measures, with no provisions for victims to participate in proceedings nor to claim reparations at them. Developments in domestic and international law, in particular human rights such as the 1985 UN Declaration on Justice for Victims and the UN Guidelines on Remedy and Reparations, and transitional justice mechanisms, such as truth commissions and reparations bodies, have helped to expand the notion of justice for international crimes to be more attuned to victims as key stakeholders in dealing with such crimes.

With the first convictions secured at the ICC and the victim participation and reparation regime taking form, it is worth evaluating the extent to which these innovative provisions have translated into justice for victims. The first part of this paper outlines what justice for victims of international crimes entails, drawing from victimology and human rights. The second section surveys the extent to which the ICC has incorporated justice for victims, in procedural and substantive terms, before concluding in looking beyond the Court to how state parties can complement the ICC in achieving justice for victims. This paper argues that while much progress has been made to institutionalise justice for victims within the Court, there is much more progress needed to evolve and develop justice for victims within the ICC to avoid dissatisfaction of past tribunals.

Sporting Justice: An Arbitrator's Perspective

Drawing on my experience of a number of sports dispute resolution tribunals in the UK and Ireland (such as Sports Resolutions UK; Just Sport Ireland; the Football Association of Ireland’s Disciplinary Panel and the Gaelic Athletic Association’s Dispute Resolution Authority) I intend to use this paper to review the legal arguments typically made in sports-related arbitrations. These points of interest can be summarised as a series of three questions: the fairness question; the liability question; the penalty question.

In answer to the fairness question, the aim is to give a brief outline on best practice in establishing a "fair" sports disciplinary tribunal. The answer, I believe, is always twofold in nature: first, and to paraphrase Lord Steyn in R v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Daly [2001] UKHL 26 at [28] "in law, context is everything" – translated into the present matter, this means that in sports disciplinary cases, the more serious the charges against the individual (in terms of reputational damage, economic impact and/or length of sanction); the more tightly wrapped the procedural safeguards surrounding any subsequent disciplinary hearing must be. A fair disciplinary system will be discussed in the context of the principles laid down in Article 8 of the World Anti-Doping Code which, in effect, acts as sport’s Article 6 of the ECHR on a right to a fair trial.

Following on from the above, in the 60 or so sports arbitrations that I have heard, there are two further points of interest. First, the claim before the arbitral panel will often be framed in an argument that, for various reasons of substantive and procedural irregularity, the sanction imposed on the appellant should be quashed ("the liability"). Second, and in alternative, that the sanction imposed was wholly disproportionate ("the penalty").

The liability issue usually breaks down into two further questions. First, what is the nature of the legal duty upon a sports body in exercising its disciplinary remit? Second, to what extent does a de novo hearing on appeal cure any apparent defects in a hearing of first instance? The first issue often results in an arbitral panel debating the contra preferentum approach to the interpretation of a contested rule i.e., the sports body’s rules in question are so ambiguous that they should be interpreted in a manner to the detriment of the rule maker and in favour of the appellant. On the second matter, it now appears to be a general principle of sports law, administrative law and even human rights law that even if a violation of the principles of natural justice takes place at the first instance stage of a disciplinary process, they may be cured on de novo appeal. Authority for this approach can be found at the Court of Arbitration for Sport and in particular in CAS 2009/A/1920 FK Pobeda, Aleksandar Zabrcanec, Nikolce Zdraveski v UEFA at para 87.

The question on proportionality asks what, aside from precedent found within the decisions of the sports body in question, are the general legal principles against which a sanction by a sports disciplinary body can be benchmarked in order to ascertain whether it is disproportionate in length or even irrational in nature?

On the matter of (dis)proportionality of sanction, the debate is usually guided by the authority in Bradley v the Jockey Club [2004] EWHC 2164 (QB) and affirmed at [2005] EWCA Civ 1056. The Bradley principles on proportionality of sports-specific sanctions, recently cited with approval at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, will be examined in this presentation.

Finally, an interesting application of many of the above principles (and others such as the appropriate standard of proof in sports disciplinary procedures) can be made to recent match-fixing or corruption related hearings held by the British Horse Racing Authority, the integrity units of snooker and tennis, and at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Doing Justice to Recognition

The traditional role of justice is to arbitrate where the good will of people is not enough, if even present, to settle a dispute between the concerned parties. It is a procedural approach that assumes a fractured relationship between those involved. Recognition, at first glance, would not seem to mirror these aspects of justice. Yet recognition is very much a subject of justice these days. The aim of this paper is to question the applicability of justice to the practice of recognition. The methodological orientation of this paper is a Kantian-style critique of the institution of justice, highlighting the limits of its reach and the dangers of overextension. The critique unfolds in the following three steps: 1) There is an immediate appeal to justice as a practice of recognition through its commitment to universality. This allure is shown to be deceptive in providing no prescription for the actual practice of this universality. 2) The interventionist character of justice is designed to address divided relationships. If recognition is only given expression through this channel, then we can only assume division as our starting ground. 3) The outcome of justice in respect to recognition is identification. This identification is left vulnerable to misrecognition itself, creating a cycle of injustice that demands recognition from anew. It seems to be well accepted that recognition is essentjustice, but less clear how to do justice to recognition. This paper is an effort in clarification.

Extradition et non-refoulement : la justice fondamentale en péril? Analyse du cas Németh c. Canada (Justice)

Dans Németh c. Canada (Justice) (2010), la Cour suprême vient à la conclusion qu’il est possible, pour le ministre de la Justice, d’autoriser l’extradition d’un réfugié dans la mesure où cette dernière n’est pas injuste ou tyrannique, et qu’elle ne vise pas à punir la personne pour des motifs de persécution. Le juge Cromwell précise qu’il n’est pas nécessaire de révoquer le statut de réfugié avant le processus d’extradition ; le ministre n’a qu’à démontrer que les clauses de cessation se trouvant dans la Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés s’appliquent. Cela implique qu’il doit faire la preuve, selon la balance des probabilités, que les réfugiés n’ont plus de raison de craindre la persécution dans leur pays d’origine, en établissant qu’il y a un changement stable de circonstances. Toutefois, le processus actuel d’extradition n’assure pas pleinement les protections procédurales auxquelles ont droit les réfugiés, dans la mesure où la Loi sur l’extradition accorde un pouvoir discrétionnaire au ministre de décider, au cas par cas, qui devrait avoir droit à une audition orale pour étayer sa cause. Puisque la possibilité de persécution au retour reste une question empreinte de subjectivité et fait appel à la crédibilité, il est du devoir du ministre d’accorder une forme d'audition aux réfugiés afin d’offrir de solides garanties procédurales. Or, la Cour n’est pas allée jusqu’à prescrire un tel devoir. Dans ce mémoire, nous nous interrogeons sur l’étendue des protections procédurales qui devraient être accordées à un réfugié menacé d’extradition.

L’émission des comportements inadaptés au travail : adaptation ou explication quant à la relation entre la perception de la justice organisationnelle et la santé psychologique des individus au travail

La présente thèse de doctorat porte sur la relation entre la perception de la justice organisationnelle, l’émission de comportements inadaptés au travail et la santé psychologique des individus au travail. En plus de développer un outil de mesure des comportements inadaptés au travail et d’entreprendre un processus de validation de celui-ci, le présent travail propose que les comportements inadaptés au travail puissent occuper un rôle soit protecteur ou explicatif dans la relation qui unit la perception de la justice organisationnelle avec la santé psychologique des individus au travail. Au sein de cette thèse, le premier article recense la documentation scientifique quant aux variables de la perception de la justice organisationnelle, de l’émission des comportements inadaptés au travail et de la santé psychologique des individus au travail, ainsi que les liens qui unissent ces variables. Aussi, les modèles conceptuels des rôles modérateur et médiateur des comportements inadaptés au travail sont proposés au sein de la relation entre la perception de la justice organisationnelle et la santé psychologique des individus au travail. Le deuxième article a pour objectif de développer un outil de mesure des comportements inadaptés au travail et de tester ses propriétés psychométriques. Ainsi, des analyses statistiques exploratoires et confirmatoires ont été effectuées. Afin d’appuyer la valeur critériée de l’outil proposé, une analyse corrélationnelle a été réalisée avec le critère de l’adaptation. Certaines valeurs psychométriques de l’outil sont validées par les résultats obtenus. Le troisième article examine empiriquement les modèles conceptuels des rôles anticipés des comportements inadaptés au travail dans la relation entre la perception de la justice organisationnelle et la santé psychologique des individus au travail. La perception de la justice organisationnelle a été vue sous les composantes distributive, procédurale, informationnelle et interpersonnelle. De son côté, la santé psychologique des individus a été observée par le biais des éléments du bien-être et de la détresse psychologique au travail. Les différentes analyses de régressions multiples hiérarchiques ont permis d’observer l’absence du rôle modérateur des comportements inadaptés au travail. Pour sa part, l’utilisation du test de Sobel a démontré la présence du rôle médiateur des comportements inadaptés au travail dans certaines relations. Plus exactement, celles-ci sont la relation entre la justice interpersonnelle et le bien-être psychologique au travail, la relation entre la justice interpersonnelle et la détresse psychologique au travail, ainsi que la relation entre la justice distributive et la détresse psychologique au travail. Finalement, la conclusion de la thèse présente une synthèse des résultats et expose les limites et pistes de recherches futures.

Promoting health at work : the relevance of organizational justice

Research focusing on the relationship between organizational justice and health suggests that perceptions of fairness can make significant contributions to employee wellbeing. However studies examining the justice health relationship are only just emerging and there are several areas where further research is required, in particular, the uniqueness of the contributions made by justice and the extent to which the health effects can be explained by linear, non-linear and/or interactional models. The primary aim of the current study was to determine the main, curvilinear and interactive effects of job characteristics and organizational justice perceptions on psychological wellbeing and job satisfaction. Job characteristics were measured using the Demand-Control Support (DCS) model (Karasek & Theorell, 1990), while Colquitt's (2001) four justice dimensions (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational) were used to assess organizational justice. Hierarchical regression analyses found that in relation to psychological wellbeing, perceptions of justice did not add to the explanatory power of the DCS model. In contrast, organizational justice did account for unique variance in job satisfaction, the second measure of employee wellbeing. The results supported direct linear relationships between the psychosocial working conditions and the outcome measures. The implications of the results of this study, especially in terms of how working conditions should be managed in order to promote health, are discussed. Notably, the findings from the current study indicate that in addition to traditional job stressors, health promotion strategies should focus on perceptions of organizational justice and their relationships with health.

A step toward a common measure of organizational justice

Dimensions of the organizational justice construct were examined in a public sector context utilizing an organizational justice measure developed by Colquitt in 2001. Exploratory factor analysis and standard error scree test supported four dimensions of justice as measured by Colquitt's scale. There was evidence of a new factor called procedural-voice justice that taps a possible association with the concept of voice. Future research on organizational justice must investigate its dimensionality based on more representative samples to develop a more globally applicable measure.

The emergence and development of specialist courts : lessons for juvenile justice from the history of the children’s court in South Australia?

To illustrate how specialist courts have developed to manage juvenile offenders, this paper provides an overview of the history and development of the youth court in one jurisdiction, South Australia. Drawing on interviews conducted with judicial officers, the paper seeks to highlight some of the changes that have taken place since the Court’s inception, as well as how the Court currently understands its role and positioning within the broader justice and welfare systems. Key discussion points of these interviews included the Youth Court’s guiding principles and how they impact on court procedures and responses to young people in the system, as well as the challenges that limit, or create difficulties for, the effective operation of the Youth Court. It is concluded that the Youth Court system attempts to balance both welfare and justice approaches to dealing with young people, but are sometimes hindered by inadequate procedural, structural and resource-related factors – some of which exist externally to the Youth Court itself.

Towards a diversity justice management model : integrating organizational justice and diversity management

Purpose – Contemporary organizations are increasingly paying attention to incorporate diversity management practices into their systems in order to promote socially responsible actions and equitable employment outcomes for minority groups. The aim of this paper is to seek to address a major oversight in diversity management literature, the integration of organizational justice principles.

Design/methodology/approach – Drawing upon the existing literature on workforce diversity and organizational justice, the authors develop a model based on normative principles of organizational justice for justice-based diversity management processes and outcomes.

Findings – The paper proposes that effective diversity management results from a decision-making process that meets the normative principles of organizational justice (i.e. interactional, procedural and distributive justice). The diversity justice management model introduced in this article provides important theoretical and practical implications for establishing more moral and just workplaces.

Research limitations/implications – The authors have not tested the conceptual framework of the diversity justice management model, and recommend future research to take up the challenge. The payoff for doing so is to enable the establishment of socially responsible workplaces where individuals, regardless of their background, are given an equal opportunity to flourish in their assigned jobs.

Practical implications – The diversity justice management model introduced in this paper provides organizational justice (OJ)-based guidelines for managers to ensure that OJ can be objectively benchmarked and discussed amongst diversity stakeholders to continuously improve actual and perceived OJ outcomes.

Social implications – The social implication of this conceptual paper is reduction of workforce marginalization and establishment of socially responsible organizations whereby those marginalized (e.g. people with disabilities) can effectively work in their organizations.

Originality/value – This is the first attempt to establish a diveristy justice management model, which incorporates normative principles of organizational justice into diversity management processes and outcomes.

The European Court of Justice and process-oriented review. Research Paper in Law, 01/2012

Structuralism is a theory of U.S. constitutional adjudication according to which courts should seek to improve the decision-making process of the political branches of government so as to render it more democratic.1 In words of John Hart Ely, courts should exercise their judicial-review powers as a ‘representation-reinforcing’ mechanism.2 Structuralism advocates that courts must eliminate the elements of the political decision-making process that are at odds with the structure set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. The advantage of this approach, U.S. scholars posit, lies in the fact that it does not require courts to second-guess the policy decisions adopted by the political branches of government. Instead, they limit themselves to enforcing the constitutional structure within which those decisions must be adopted. Of course, this theory of constitutional adjudication, like all theories, has its shortcomings. For example, detractors of structuralism argue that it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw the dividing line between ‘substantive’ and ‘structural’ matters.3 In particular, they claim that, when identifying the ‘structure’ set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution, courts necessarily base their determinations not on purely structural principles, but on a set of substantive values, evaluating concepts such as democracy, liberty and equality. 4 Without claiming that structuralism should be embraced by the ECJ as the leading theory of judicial review, the purpose of my contribution is to explore how recent case-law reveals that the ECJ has also striven to develop guiding principles which aim to improve the way in which the political institutions of the EU adopt their decisions. In those cases, the ECJ decided not to second-guess the appropriateness of the policy choices made by the EU legislator. Instead, it preferred to examine whether, in reaching an outcome, the EU political institutions had followed the procedural steps mandated by the authors of the Treaties. Stated simply, I argue that judicial deference in relation to ‘substantive outcomes’ has been counterbalanced by a strict ‘process review’. To that effect, I would like to discuss three recent rulings of the ECJ, delivered after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, where an EU policy measure was challenged indirectly, i.e. via the preliminary reference procedure, namely Vodafone, Volker und Markus Schecke and Test-Achats.5 Whilst in the former case the ECJ ruled that the questions raised by the referring court disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the challenged act, in the latter cases the challenged provisions of an EU act were declared invalid.