Value dimension of conflict resolution institutions in the digital age

About the author:

Yuliana L. Babikova, Master of Laws, Attorney, Oil Service Company, Postgraduate Student, Department of Civil Law Disciplines, Institute of State and Law, University of Tyumen, Tyumen, Russia; babikova.yuliana@gmail.com

Abstract:

This article analyzes the possibility of applying digital technologies in the administration of justice. The challenges of digitalization have become the primary context for the development of reforms in the legal systems of the modern world — this phenomenon not only alters the interpretation of traditional concepts of civil procedure but also has the potential to fundamentally transform its form. The author proposes to examine the issue from the perspective of the goals, objectives, and values of law and justice as phenomena of social development. Within this context, the research employs sociological, anthropological, comparative, systemic, sociocultural, cross-cultural, formal-logical, and other more specific methods. The study of the challenges associated with the implementation of digital technologies and the outcomes of their use in dispute resolution is examined through the examples of the legal systems of China, Kazakhstan, and the Netherlands. The research concludes that the issue of digitalization can only be explored through an interdisciplinary approach. The current level of development does not allow for the complete automation of justice — the objectives of judicial proceedings, which extend far beyond the resolution of individual disputes, require a deliberate approach to shaping practice, something that artificial intelligence is currently unable to provide. At the same time, the practices of the jurisdictions studied demonstrate that modern digital technologies show a high level of effectiveness as “auxiliary” tools.

References:

Vasil’eva, N. S. (2016). Validity and sources of law: A. Ross’s realistic concept. RUDN Journal of Law, 4, 41–51. [In Russian]

Gadzhiev, G. A. (2013). Ontology of law: (a critical study of the legal concept of reality). Norma: Infra-M.[In Russian]

Ilyasov, F. N. (1986). Artificial and natural reason. Izvestiya AN Turkmenskoy SSR. Seriya obshchestvennykhnauk, 6, 46–54.[In Russian]

Mel’nichuk, G. V. (2011). Standards for evaluating discretionary acts in German administrative law. Legislation, 10, 84–88.[In Russian]

Petra-zhitskiy, L. I. (2000). Theory of law and state in connection with the theory of morality. Lan’.[In Russian]

Russell, B. (2021). History of Western philosophy [in 2 vols.]. Volume II [Book 3]. AST. [In Russian]

Wybrow, P. (2016). Brain: Fine-tuning. Our life from the point of view of neuroscience. Alpina Publisher.[In Russian]

Toynbee, A. J. (1991). Understanding history (pp. 140–141). [In Russian]

Tsvetkov, Yu. A. (2021). Artificial intelligence in justice. Zakon, 4, 91–107.[In Russian]

Chestnov, I. L. (2023). History and methodology of legal science: Textbook. INFRA-M.[In Russian]

Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Houghton Mifflin. Online. Available from https://gwern.net/doc/iq/1971-cattell-abilitiestheirstructuregrowthaction.pdf

Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s empire. Harvard University Press.

Sourdin, T. (2018). Judge v robot? Artificial intelligence and judicial decision-making. UNSW Law Journal, 41(4). Online. Available from https://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Sourdin.pdf

Storme, M. (2001). Role and status of the judiciary as a state power. In Turin. p. 32.