Weighting Justice: Constructing an Index of Access to Justice

The implementation of court in Indonesia has not fulfilled as expected because any parties involving in court has a lack of capacity, consistency, and integrity to provide legal service seriously. Some people assume that court services are not still optimal. To settle the problems, the Supreme Court just has officially issued Regulation No. 1 of 2019 regarding the Administration of Cases and Legal Proceedings in Courts via Electronic Means on 8 August 2019. This regulation is believed as an appropriate solution to face those problems. To elaborate more, this study illustrates a judicial reform in Indonesia, e-court, and access to justice, the conception of e-court including the performance of e-court and its drawbacks and challenges in the digital era. The research method uses normative research by approaching legal review and literature study. The technique of primary data collection applies Supreme Court regulation while means of secondary data are collected from concept or theory as set out under bibliography. Judicial reform in Indonesia is indicated by issuing new regulation regarding e-Court and e-Litigation, the implementation e-Court itself has been attributed to 32 courts consisting of general religious, and state administrative courts. Through e-Court, access to justice more transparent and accessible. Besides, justice seekers have no worries regarding distance issues as of e-Court may allow them to fight in court without face to face. Parties have no doubt relating to the acceleration of court to settle any dispute in Indonesia.

Download Full-text

Imperfect Duty: Lawyers’ Obligation to Foster Access to Justice

Alberta Law Review ◽

10.29173/alr339 ◽

2008 ◽

pp. 107 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Alice Woolley

Keyword(s):

Legal System ◽

Policy Response ◽

Access To Justice ◽

Legal Services ◽

Imperfect Duty ◽

Special Obligation ◽

Legal Market ◽

Integral Component

Access to justice is an integral component of the legal system. However, the question of upon whose shoulders the obligation of ensuring this access should fall has been widely debated. In particular, do lawyers, as part ofthe legalprofession, have a special obligation to foster access to justice? In this article, the author explores the legitimacy of various arguments with respect to whether lawyers should carry this obligation to a greater extent than other members of society. The author begins by critiquing the traditional arguments related to imposing such an obligation on lawyers — for instance, the refined monopoly arguments. She then goes on to critically consider an alternative argument: that imperfections in the marketfor legal services justify the existence of a special obligation for lawyers. An examination of the limitations of this justification follows. Overall, the author concludes that while the arguments arising from imperfections in the legal market offer the best justification for seeing lawyers have a special obligation to ensure access tojustice, the claims from the argument are modest ones, and any policy response in furtherance of such an obligation should be similarly modest.

Download Full-text