This paper contributes to emerging discussions of blockchain governance through an analysis of dispute resolution platforms that reimagine justice. We focus specifically on Kleros, a blockchain-enabled dispute resolution platform, that promises to secure, authenticate, and democratize access to justice for the twenty-first century. We advance the concept of cryptocourts whereby jurors, incentivized by accumulating cryptocurrency, rapidly mobilize using principles of on-demand crowdsourcing to resolve disputes. We critique the broader social imaginaries that cryptocourts such as Kleros will result in a more open, trustworthy, transparent, and democratic systems of justice. These platforms instead pose important questions concerning their potential impact on civil dispute resolution practices by embedding it within an economy of cryptocurrency speculation. This ostensibly results in a legal infrastructure founded on principles of financial acquisition that positions jurors as economic agents seeking to profit from disputes, and courts as computational systems that merely authenticate and secure the distribution of evidence and verdicts.
Despite more than half a century of reform efforts, access to civil justice is still understood to be in a state of crisis. Part of the reason for this is because there is no consensus among the legal community on the meaning of justice in this context. This paper seeks to provide a much-needed theoretical underpinning to the access-to-civil-justice movement. It advances ‘justice as fairness,’ as articulated by the American philosopher John Rawls, in conjunction with Lesley Jacobs’ model of equal opportunities, as a suitable theory in which to frame the access-to-civil-justice movement. I explain why this framework is appropriate for pluralistic democracies like Canada and how it can be used to define measures of justice. This exercise is thus not simply a theoretical discussion, but rather is intended to be used as a practical framework to assess current and proposed policy initiatives.
Modern access to justice scholarship takes as its premise that the focus of legal reform must be on the legal problems experienced in the day-to-day lives of the public; not just those problems that are brought before the formal court system for adjudication. In 2014, the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice [CFCJ] completed a comprehensive survey for the Cost of Justice Project inquiring into the civil legal needs among ordinary Canadians. One of the many conclusions that can be drawn from the survey data is the finding that most Ontarians do not go to lawyers in order to resolve their legal problems. Ontarians, rather, tend to engage in methods of resolution that can be categorized as informal self-help methods. This paper explores possible reasons why Ontarians do not seek out formal legal advice when they experience a legal problem. It examines various factors that may influence Ontarians’ decision not to seek formal legal advice including the respondents’ income level, their perception of the law and the category of legal problem experienced. The paper concludes that most Ontarians seek to resolve their legal problems through informal self-help methods, not because of their inability to afford legal services, but rather because of how legal problems are perceived. This work will provide insight into why most legal problems do not end up before the formal legal system, which will be of significance to policy makers who desire to make meaningful and inclusive reforms to the justice system.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.