Justice and Innovation in Latin America since the Pandemic: Developments, Challenges, and Perspectives

by  Luis María Palma

In many judicial bodies across Latin American nations, there is a growing trend toward modernization through the adoption of technology tools. Although these efforts have been ongoing, their acceleration was prompted by the crisis stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic since March 2020.

To provide context for these modernization endeavours, I will initially examine governmental responses to the crisis. Following this, I will outline key issues within these judicial systems.

Subsequently, I will discuss the actions taken by the judiciary to ensure continuity of operations in response to the pandemic. Of particular focus will be judicial training, given its crucial role in enhancing justice services, especially with the surge in remote learning during the crisis.

Finally, I will explore various approaches to address the challenges faced by governments and judiciaries, pertinent international documents and agreements,1 and the imperative of sustaining modernization efforts through inclusive dialogue, participation, and engagement with civil society.

Political Decisions and Social Control Mechanisms

Amid the severity of the health crisis, many governments implemented measures such as isolation, social distancing, and quarantine. They also prohibited the opening of businesses, public offices, and educational institutions. These decisions had significant social and economic consequences, leading to widespread loss of employment and sustainability for millions of people. However, their effectiveness in addressing health concerns remains uncertain.

Simultaneously, some governing bodies employed Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) to implement measures for societal surveillance. Such measures encompassed:

  1. Cyber-patrol activities for ascertaining public sentiment.2
  2. Regulations mandating the compulsory employment of geolocation applications.3
  3. Public announcements (which were sometimes officially repudiated) pertaining to news content regulations aimed at identifying misinformation.4

These measures, while encroaching upon individual liberties, also facilitated excessive access to personal data beyond the exigencies of the pandemic.

Given the widespread use of technological resources and social networks for communication and expression, it is important to raise awareness about these trends and their potential implications.

The Judiciary and Its Problems

I will discuss various issues affecting the operations of judicial organizations,5 which were worsened by the crisis caused by COVID-19.

  1. Outdated working methods. Traditionally, the dominant working method has consisted of written procedures, involving the completion of artisanal and routine tasks in a noncollaborative manner, without fostering creativity or the development of employees’ skills. Since the pandemic, teleworking became more common, with judges, public prosecutors, and judicial staff using their own technological devices (such as mobile phones, tablets, and computers) in their homes and learning through trial and error.
  2. Anarchy in management. In each court, it is customary to apply different criteria when handling cases. As a result, lawyers need to present similar cases differently in courts with the same jurisdiction. Due to the crisis, the need for remote work has led to the use of similar technological tools in more routine activities. This has presented an opportunity to collaboratively develop manuals, protocols, or instructions to achieve consistent management practices.
  3. Confusion of activities. The functioning of judicial units, such as courts, tribunals, and prosecutors’ offices, is marked by a lack of organization in both jurisdictional or investigative work and administrative or bureaucratic tasks. The former demands intellectual concentration, while the latter are often repetitive, serving as supportive functions. Judges and prosecutors frequently allocate a significant portion of their working hours to duties unrelated to their primary functions. This can include personnel evaluation and assessment, decisions regarding promotions, implementation of disciplinary measures, authorization of leave, resource management, and resolution of internal conflicts. The changes in the organization of judicial work due to the pandemic may lead to the acceleration of reforms in this sector. To achieve this, it is imperative to revamp work methodologies based on anticipated outcomes, requisite profiles and skills, and the essential in-person and online training.
  4. Creation of obsolete judicial units. When dealing with an increase in workload, the usual public response was to create courts and prosecutors’ offices based on existing models. However, this just led to the repetition of practices that were not efficient in handling increasingly large numbers of cases. In Latin America, the gradual introduction and development of oral proceedings in criminal matters brought about some positive changes in terms of transparency, separation of judicial and administrative activities, and the speed of delivering justice. However, there is still a need to make significant progress in oral proceedings for civil cases and in designing and implementing effective management models. This would help in separating tasks, facilitating both in-person and remote work, providing training, and ensuring the safe use of information and communication technologies (ICTs).
  5. Weaknesses in the judicial career. Over time, the progression of staff members in the judicial career has primarily depended on time served and discretionary decision from superiors, rather than on merit, qualifications, and ongoing training. This has had a detrimental effect on the motivation and commitment of staff members and, consequently, on the overall quality of their services and the judicial system. The shift to remote working due to the coronavirus pandemic presents an opportunity to redesign career paths. It is crucial to define job profiles, separating tasks related to judicial or investigative aspects from administrative responsibilities, and to establish specific criteria for career advancement and development.
  6. Budget constraints. Economic restrictions significantly affect service delivery and modernization activities, potentially adversely affecting its quality and judicial independence. The pandemic highlighted the lack of foresight in terms of crisis scenarios in most Latin American jurisdictions. Faced with this reality, it is desirable to develop short-, medium-, and long-term planning in which modernization is contemplated based on infrastructure and technological resources, implementation of telecommuting, and provision of distance training.
  7. Lack of infrastructure. The inadequate maintenance of judicial buildings often posed risks to the safety and physical integrity of individuals. Additionally, the lack of up-to-date technology resources is often noticeable. The adjustments made in response to COVID-19 highlighted the need to update the ICT infrastructure to meet requirements beyond the physical courtroom space.
  8. Failure to process and use information. Historically, there has been limited reliance on statistical data for the purpose of structuring work organization and overseeing judicial entities. The ongoing digital transformation of judicial management and case files in the wake of the pandemic necessitates the extensive utilization of systems capable of processing substantial volumes of case data. Consequently, there is a marked imperative to advance machine learning, predictive analytics (PA), and artificial intelligence (AI) to meet these demands.
  9. Delays in notifications. Communication activities take up a significant amount of procedural time, leading to delays in resolving conflicts. While electronic notification has helped speed up these processes, issues still arise when in-person and paper communications are necessary. The COVID-19 crisis has made it crucial to use technological means, such as applications like WhatsApp, for numerous notifications. Therefore, there is a need for clear rules and regulations to govern communication through technological means in a safe and authentic manner. 
  10. Dilatory behavior of lawyers. An additional concern lies in the frequent practice of attorneys submitting dilatory proposals on behalf of their clients. This, with the aim of overburdening the court system and thereby impeding the efficient progress of cases, adversely impacts the quality of legal services. Amid the pandemic, technological tools such as videoconferencing platforms proved indispensable for facilitating communication between judicial personnel and legal practitioners. Through the comprehensive digitalization of case management and the use of technological resources for notifications, it becomes feasible to exercise greater control over procedural timelines, thereby reducing opportunities for unwarranted delays.

Judicial Modernization since the Pandemic: Changes and Impacts

Crises, Necessities, and Immediate Decisions
As a consequence of the isolation, distancing, and cessation of activities mandated by governmental authorities, governing bodies of various judicial systems implemented measures such as the widespread and extended suspension of activities, extensions of deadlines, and limitations on services, focusing primarily on urgent and significant cases.

There was a notable surge in the provision of services facilitated by available technological tools and applications, predominantly owned by judicial staff, professionals, and users. Consequently, what was previously an exceptional practice became the standard procedure.

Apps, Utilities, and Limitations
The delivery of remote services relied heavily on commercial videoconferencing and instant-messaging platforms. While this helped ensure that the justice system continued to function, especially in areas with significant restrictions, there were several drawbacks and limitations:

  1. The applications were not tailored for judicial use, and thus lacked features necessary to meet the specific needs of the legal field. This was evident in the inability to verify if individuals testifying virtually were doing so without outside influence or coercion.
  2. Unstable connections, frequent interruptions, and inadequate bandwidth made communications and interactions challenging.
  3. There were vulnerabilities in computer security.
  4. Lack of training in the optimal use of technological resources for officials, professionals, support staff, and users in general.

Awareness Raising, Dialogue, and Cooperation
The prompt organization of virtual meetings for exchanging experiences, either through real-time participation or accessing recorded sessions available on platforms such as YouTube,6 proved to be highly advantageous and efficient in promoting awareness and fostering immediate collaboration. This facilitated substantive dialogue among judicial officials,7 technology executives, subject-matter experts, professionals, and representatives from civil society organizations. Moreover, it provided a platform for addressing inquiries from the public and generating deliberations on executed initiatives, existing requirements, and future outlooks. Additionally, this approach facilitates cooperation within the judicial realm by identifying collective needs, thereby paving the way for dialogue to tackle the crisis and implement modernization initiatives that transcend geographical confines.

Protocols for the Use of ICT and Regulatory Requirements
To facilitate remote interactions, it was essential to establish specific regulations that take into account the use of technological resources. Subsequently, draft protocols were formulated by the competent departments of the judicial systems and were subsequently incorporated into decisions made by judicial authorities. These protocols encompassed the use of technological tools and applications, remote case management, document submission, communication processes, and the execution of virtual hearings.8

The necessity to revise numerous procedural regulations to integrate remote interactions into regular practice became evident. This undertaking necessitates the consideration of the circumstances of each participant and the development of regulations in adherence to constitutional, conventional,9 and legal standards. For instance, virtual platforms must be established to ensure the accessibility of hearings to the public, while also recognizing that the availability of digital recordings of these proceedings should not be unrestricted or unendingly accessible for viewing or downloading on the internet.

Modernization, ICT Designs, and Telecommuting
In modernizing ICT processes, it is imperative to develop programs and applications tailored to the specific operational requirements, as opposed to relying on preexisting or generalized solutions that may have been formulated for unrelated domains.

The identification of requisites essential for the effective operation of judicial functions is fundamental. This serves as the basis for the design of technological advancements that align with these requisites and the organization and implementation of comprehensive training endeavors, in both physical and remote settings.

The practice of judicial teleworking, which gained prominence during the pandemic and continues to be partially in force, is oriented toward enhancing work precision and expediency. Consequently, reconfiguring physical workspaces and schedules is indispensable as work environment shifts to home. Emphasizing the importance of individuals’ personal, social, and family lives, remote work should be structured to prioritize their well-being. 

Remote Judicial Management Training
Over the past 26 years, a significant portion of my professional endeavors have been dedicated to judicial training. I believe that this is an indispensable element in the process of modernization,10 because any potential advancements, such as the implementation of more streamlined procedural regulations, the adoption of innovative court or prosecutor office models, and the integration of cutting-edge technological tools, can only yield the desired outcomes through the enhanced performance of stakeholders operating within the judicial systems.

The pronounced shift toward remote interactions that characterized the pandemic underscored the imperative of equipping judicial personnel and professionals with the requisite skills for operating within virtual environments. Furthermore, in response to the prevailing constraints, the remote delivery of educational activities became imperative.

Addressing this need necessitated navigating a double paradox: the provision of remote training for remote work. Telecommuting was a relatively novel concept for most judicial staff members and professionals, and the exigency of immediate implementation resulted in a learning process predominantly based on trial and error, consistent with the characteristic approach to judicial work.

Common practices emerged, such as the use of instant-messaging groups, particularly through platforms like WhatsApp, and the orchestration of virtual meetings via videoconferencing applications accessible through mobile devices, tablets, and computers.

In response to identified needs related to remote work support, I conducted 18 continuing education courses in judicial schools, institutes, and training centers between April 2020 and October 2021.11 These courses also encompassed specific content tailored for postgraduate programs in universities.12 The curriculum comprised customary subjects such as leadership, teamwork, judicial management and administration, new models, and institutional and quality evaluation, as well as specialized content focusing on the establishment of effective virtual meetings, formulation of protocols and guides for remote work, and creation of instructions supported by audiovisual media.

A portion of the training activities used synchronous learning, involving real-time interaction between the trainer and participants through video conferencing. However, this instructional approach posed challenges, including the necessity for all participants to be simultaneously available, which proved difficult due to conflicting obligations and differing time zones. Furthermore, accessing training during peak times was hampered by connectivity instability.

Moreover, long-term remote learning may impact participant performance due to reduced interaction frequency and dynamism compared to in-person activities, potentially leading to diminished attention spans over time.

Asynchronous learning offers the benefit of allowing students to access educational materials at their convenience. They can complete activities during shorter and potentially more productive periods when they are able to fully concentrate.13

These activities encompass:

  1. Reviewing available materials.
  2. Identifying performance-related issues.
  3. Proposing corresponding solutions.
  4. Participating in thematic forums by articulating viewpoints and engaging in virtual dialogues with fellow participants.
  5. Creating infographics.
  6. Analyzing thematic videos.
  7. Undertaking individual or team-based partial or final projects.
  8. Receiving valuable feedback from trainers.

Continuing education in these specific areas serves to:

  1. Stimulate reflective consideration of the principles underlying their roles, the potential ramifications of proposed modifications, and their societal implications.
  2. Operationally, empower learners to:
    • a. Identify issues.
    • b. Apply acquired tools and techniques.
    • c. Devise solutions.
    • d. Implement said solutions.
    • e. Assess their impact using predefined or self-generated indicators.
    • f. Make periodic refinements to executed changes.

These modifications are the outcomes of participation and collaborative efforts among judicial personnel.14 Their implementation within respective work domains serves as a catalyst for addressing emergent challenges through enhanced awareness, dialogue, and teamwork.15

This collective endeavor contributes significantly to enhancing the efficiency of court operations, particularly in contexts marked by an inherent convergence of judicial and administrative functions. Ultimately, it lays the groundwork for deliberations on the integration of novel procedural models within courts.

Some Necessary Changes
In the current intricate and challenging scenario, the imperative of achieving sustainable modernization in Latin American judicial systems necessitates a multifaceted approach. To facilitate continuous progress, it is essential to prioritize innovation, consensus building, assistance, and cooperation.

Below, I will outline several initiatives and critical domains pivotal to effecting the requisite transformation.

Innovation in disruptive technologies,16 services, and applications has been decisive for the integration of markets and the interdependence of countries and the exponential growth of transactions in goods, services, and capital.17

The cultivation of innovation necessitates a regulatory framework that fosters its advancement. The heightened competition between nations has rendered the adoption of alternative legal and judicial systems increasingly feasible for individuals in governing their relationships.18

Consequently, the presence of a “legal market,” wherein states participate to establish regulatory frameworks, assumes significance. By incentivizing the formation of private agreements to engender productive endeavors, such collaboration encourages the creation of wealth resulting from innovation.19

Legal Certainty
Judicial systems serve as an environment conducive to strategic innovation, with a twofold function:

  1. To uphold predictability through the independent application of rules that promote it, thereby enhancing legal certainty.
  2. To reap benefits from stable, interference-free decisions that create favorable conditions for the diversification and enhancement of justice services through innovation.

ODS, ODR, and User-Friendly Designs
The 2030 Agenda of the United Nations20 presents a vision for inclusive development through the articulation of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).21 Member states are encouraged to use this framework for strategic policy implementation and to establish mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation.

The participation of international cooperation agencies is paramount as they provide critical support for the execution of modernization programs and initiatives aligned with the objectives of the agenda.

The achievement of the SDGs necessitates the engagement of governmental bodies, civil society organizations, the private sector, and academic institutions to engage in collaborative discourse, develop viable proposals, and execute sustainable solutions in line with the goals.22

SDG No. 16, “Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions,” emphasizes the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies, providing access to justice for all,23 and establishing transparent and effective institutions across all levels. In this area, modernization based on the use of ICTs, in addition to generating benefits for access, contributes to achieving greater efficiency since it allows results to be achieved with the highest performance and producing more at the minimum cost.24  This can be observed since the 1990s in the use of online alternative dispute resolution (ODR) methods.25

Subsequent to the evolution of ICTs, notable progress has been achieved in the realm of information aggregation and analysis, whereby the elucidation of dispute causation is ascertained, subsequently leading to prevention methodologies, exemplified by online dispute prevention (ODP) measures.26

It is recommended for states to systematically conduct data collection and analysis activities, not only to enrich dispute resolution methodologies, but also to integrate preventive strategies.27

Furthermore, the amalgamation of data acquisition, communication, and ODR yields an expanded scope of access and judicial deliverance, thereby allowing for the development of enhanced solutions: the avenues are expanded and through the information resulting from their use it is possible to build solutions so that justice is done better and more often.28

To all this is added a fundamental aspect that has been strongly evidenced since the pandemic: the complexity in the use of ICTs can constitute a powerful barrier to access. Therefore, when designing applications, the KISS principle of “keeping it simple” is especially relevant in terms of justice and the rights and duties that must be protected.29

People-Centered Justice
There exist several crucial initiatives for achieving people-centered justice. These initiatives start with identifying the problems that affect people and devising appropriate solutions, as well as preventing conflicts and expanding services.

  1. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) administers the Global Roundtables for Access to Justice, focused on aiding nations in closing existing gaps. The roundtables aim to discern and promote the exchange of good practices and experiences to enhance access for both citizens and businesses.30
  2. The Hague Institute for Innovation of Law-Hill is dedicated to promoting and developing user-friendly justice that is easily accessible, understandable, and effective. The institute encourages innovation and scales up successful initiatives. It aims to ensure that by 2030, 150 million people will be able to prevent or solve their most pressing justice problems.31
  3. Pathfinders for Peaceful, Fair, and Inclusive Societies constitutes a collective comprising 46 UN member states, international organizations, global associations, civil society, the private sector, and think tanks. Members include the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the World Bank, the OECD, and the World Justice Project (WJP). This group endeavors to expedite actions toward the implementation of SDG 16 and executes coordinated strategies.32

Justice and the Rule of Law
Judicial systems are a strategically conducive environment for innovation, both to provide predictability and to benefit from their development:

  1. Predictability, by independently applying the rules that promote it and, thus, strengthening legal certainty.
  2. Benefits, since stable decisions free of interference favor the conditions for innovation to diversify and apply to the improvement and expansion of justice services.

Regarding this substantial area and its connection with judicial modernization, in 2023 the World Bank Group (WBG) Governance Global Practice launched the Global Partnership on Justice and Rule of Law (GP-JROL), with the primary objective of advancing justice reform. GP-JROL aims to provide analytical and thought leadership by co-generating, consolidating, and disseminating knowledge.33

Some of the partners within the GP-JROL network include USAID, HiiL, OECD, UK International Development, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, UNODC, UNDP, IDLO, Justice Action Coalition, the Metis Institute, World Justice Project, World Economic Forum, Max Planck Foundation, Stanford Law School, American University Washington College of Law, and recently the International Association of Court Administration (IACA).

Partners benefit from hosting learning events to connect justice reform research with practice, organizing global forums to facilitate knowledge exchange focused on implementation, conducting research and legal/policy analysis, developing innovative solutions to development issues, creating common policies to address recurring issues in justice reform, producing good practice notes, consolidating existing knowledge on common issues, identifying constraints and solutions to policy implementation in justice reform projects, and sharing a network of practitioners, training materials, and capacity-building support.34

New Models, Information, and Rights
The development of new work models within bureaucratized systems should strategically address the challenges resulting from the confusion between judicial and administrative activities.35

Notably, this conflation is prominently observed in face-to-face interactions and can be remedied through the adoption of remote work practices. Remote work, facilitated by standardized technological platforms, presents a contrast to the diversified management and processing methods inherent in in-person interactions. Successful remote work hinges upon the focalization of tasks, their refinement, and the standardization of pertinent documentation to streamline work procedures.

As articulated in the context of online dispute resolution (ODR) mechanisms, harnessing information assumes fundamental significance in the design of more effective dispute resolution processes. In the United States, this tenet is exemplified through the establishment of problem-solving courts,36 including community courts, drug courts, and mental health courts, which employ data-driven approaches to address enduring social challenges.37

Since the onset of the pandemic, telecommuting has emerged as a prominent facet of modernization, seeking to avert analogous challenges and mitigate delays stemming from the crisis.38 Its successful implementation necessitates an increasingly remote rendering of services, facilitated through websites for information dissemination and submissions, videoconferencing applications, digital recording, instant messaging, and related tools. Consequently, the court system, and the justice system more broadly, is increasingly perceived as a service rather than a place.39

But it is also necessary for online processes to increase access. Judges must ensure equal treatment of the parties so that no one is disadvantaged due to a lack of technological resources.40

The equality of the parties in virtual hearings, the requirements of a fair trial, the confidentiality of communication between clients and lawyers, and the situation of vulnerable people—whether they are victims, witnesses or defendants—must be respected.41

Also considering the significance of online user training for the optimal use of resources, the authorities are required to furnish the necessary support.42

Consensus, Planning, and Realism
The process of modernization requires careful planning of changes to be carried out in the short, medium, and long term.

For a successful process, it is crucial to have dialogue and cooperation at two key levels:

  1. Institutional level: This entails fostering collaboration among public entities to devise and execute technology- and digital-based reforms, often necessitating substantial investments.
  2. Internal level: This requires engagement with stakeholders through empathetic communication, collective awareness of interdependence, trust building, participation, planning, and cooperation.

It is imperative, however, to bear in mind that the pursuit of modernization must be grounded in realism. Access to essential resources, such as water and electricity, remains limited for millions of individuals, hindering their ability to avail remote services. This underscores the indisputable need for in-person access to requisite services, particularly for those residing or working in areas with limited technological infrastructure.43

Perspectives

The COVID-19 pandemic created a crisis that forced Latin American judicial systems to adapt quickly to maintain their services. They kept them through the intensive use of ICTs to do telecommuting, provide information online, hold virtual hearings, and issue digital notifications.

Judges, public prosecutors and judicial staff members had to use their personal tools and learn to work online through trial and error.

Facilitating awareness and dialogue regarding experiences and best practices proved beneficial in fostering cooperation among stakeholders, thereby enhancing their grasp of interdependence and communication.

Consequently, insights into new models and applications were garnered, and initiatives were embarked upon to enhance service quality and optimize existing or newly acquired resources.

There was a consensus regarding the necessity to institute comprehensive changes through dialogue, participation, and the establishment of enduring agreements. Furthermore, the indispensable role of innovation in enabling these developments and ensuring the provision of increasingly superior and more accessible services was underscored.

Given the magnitude of the challenge, the active involvement of public and social actors is pivotal in facilitating dialogue, consensus, and the enactment of short-, medium-, and long-term modernization strategies demanded by both the judicial system and society at large. The sustainability of these changes crucially hinges on the engagement of all stakeholders, including agents, professionals, and users.

This article endeavours to deliberate upon various areas deserving the focus of modernization, emphasizing the advantageous outcomes arising from the support of ICTs and continuous training. These benefits have the potential to be embraced by a growing number of individuals, providing them with access to a justice system that is more inclusive, expansive, and diverse in its pathways, ultimately contributing to improved social cohesion and tranquillity.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Luis María Palma is president of International Association for Court Administration; director of the International Institute for Justice Excellence (The Hague, The Netherlands); and president of E-Justicia Latinoamérica (Buenos Aires, Argentina). He is a lawyer and a chair professor at several universities.

  1. Luis María Palma, “Efficiency in Private International Law. Virtuality and Access to Justice,” post-doctoral research, University of Business and Social Sciences (UCES), 2020-21.
  2. Silvana Giúdici, “Cyber Patrolling, a Tool of Dictatorships that Feeds Collective Paranoia,” Infobae April 9, 2020, online at https://www.infobae.com/opinion/2020/04/09/el-ciberpatrullaje-una-herramienta-de-las-dictaduras-que-alimenta-la-paranoia-colectiva/; “Police Control on Twitter and Facebook; They Ask the Minister of Security to Explain the Scope of the Cyberpatrol Protocol on Social Networks,” Clarín, June 2, 2020 online at https://www.clarin.com/politica/crean-protocolo-ciberpatrullaje-dure-emergencia-coronavirus_0_ozarNo2l9.html; “Punishing Social Humor,” La Nación, June 29, 2020, online at https://www.lanacion.com.ar/editoriales/castigar-el-humor-social-nid2387422.
  3. “CuidAR: How to Download the App for the New Driving Licence,”  La Nación, June 29, 2020, online at https://www.lanacion.com.ar/tecnologia/app-cuidar-permiso-coronavirus-covid19-nid2363457.
  4. These announcements were sometimes officially denied. “The Head of ENACOM Denied that a Regulation of Content in News Portals Is Being Analyzed,” Infobae, May 1, 2020, online at https://www.infobae.com/sociedad/2020/05/01/el-titular-del-enacom-desmintio-que-se-analice-una-regulacion-de-contenidos-en-los-portales-de-noticias/.
  5. Luis María Palma, “Judicial Modernization, Management and Administration in Latin America,” Sociological Act Journal, no. 72 (January-April 2017): 149-203, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), online at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2941960.
  6. For example: 1) “Digital Ecosystem of Justice in the face of COVID-19,” virtual meeting organized by the Federal Board of Courts and Superior Tribunals of Justice of the Argentine Provinces and the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires (JUFEJUS), May 7 and 8, 2020, accessible via YouTube and Zoom, online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KKcZTSt6xQ&t=9s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyk2kzWVH_c&t=4s; 2) “Limitations to Rights and Guarantees in Times of State of Emergency—An International Vision,” international discussion organized by the Universidad La República (Chile), May 15 and 16, 2020, online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD3bRQqnLHQ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unV_IVWyjL4.
  7. Generic and comprehensive expression that in some Latin American countries refers to judges, prosecutors, and public defenders.
  8. For example:
  9. In different Latin American legal systems, international treaties and conventions have a higher hierarchy than laws. In some of them (such as Argentina) there are international treaties with constitutional hierarchy, which prevail over the other treaties. Therefore, it is necessary that domestic laws respect the contents of treaties.
  10. Luis María Palma, “Judicial Training and Its New Paths,” Administration of Justice and Judicial Reforms Journal, December 18, 2007, online at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2899375.
  11. Dr. Juan Bautista Alberdi Judicial Training Institute, Judicial Branch of the Province of Entre Ríos; Judicial School, Judicial Branch of the Province of Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica and South Atlantic Islands; Argentine Federation of Magistracy and Judicial Function (FAM) and Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO); Dr. Mario Dei Castelli Judicial Training and Management Center, Judicial Branch of the Province of Misiones; School of Training and Competition, Public Ministry, Judicial Branch of Tucumán; Training Center, Judicial Branch of the Province of Santa Fe.
  12. Universidad Austral; National University of Cuyo (UNCUYO) and University of Mendoza (UM); Catholic University of Cuyo (UCCuyo); University of Business and Social Sciences (UCES); Catholic University of La Plata (UCALP); Catholic University of Salta (UCASAL); National University of Lomas de Zamora (UNLZ).
  13. Luis María Palma, “Latin America and Judicial Modernization in Times of Pandemic,” Iustech Journal of Law and Technology, December 10, 2020, online at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3746394.
  14. Germán Garavano and Luis María Palma, “Judicial Training in Argentina. Ideas for its Empowerment,” La Ley, “Judicial Reality” section, December 13, 2002, Buenos Aires, Argentina, p. 4.
  15. Georges Lapassade, Groups, Organizations and Institutions, 4th ed. (Barcelona, Spain: Gedisa Publishers, 2002), pp. 93-96. The best group results are obtained in productivity when everyone “participates” in the decisions. It is a matter of provoking the members of the group to take charge of the problems that concern them, to seek solutions with them, to determine the necessary changes, and to facilitate those that arouse resistance.
  16. Clayton M. Christensen, Michael E. Raynor, and Rory McDonald, “What Is Disruptive Innovation?” Harvard Business Review, December 2015, pp. 44-53, online at https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive-innovation. Disruption describes a process by which a smaller, under-resourced company can successfully challenge established companies. Disruptive entrepreneurs start by successfully targeting segments that traditional operators (focused on improving their products and services for the most demanding customers) overlook and gain ground by offering more suitable functionalities, usually at lower prices. These entrepreneurs then move into the top market, delivering the performance that core customers require from incumbents, while retaining the advantages that drove their initial success. When core customers begin to adopt participants’ offerings in volume, disruption occurs.
  17. Jürgen Basedow, “Global Life, Local Law? About the Globalization of Law and Policy Making,” Liber Amicorum, Tribute to Professor Dr. Didier Opperti Badán, 1st ed. (Montevideo, Uruguay : University Culture Foundation, 2005), p. 823.
  18. Erin Ann O´Hara and Larry E. Ribstein, The Law Market, Kindle ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 20-21.
  19. Kazuaki Kagami “The Systematic Choice of Legal Rules for Private International Law: An Economic Approach,” in Jürgen Basedow and Toshikuyi Kono, eds., An Economic Analysis of Private International Law (Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), p. 26.
  20. United Nations (UN), Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The 2030 Agenda was approved by the United Nations General Assembly on September 25, 2015, online at https://sdgs.un.org/goals.
  21. Sustainable development is one that meets the needs of the present without compromising those of subsequent generations. UNDP, Human Development Report 1992, chapter 1, p. 4. United Nations, “Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future,” 1987, p. 16, online at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf.  
  22. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), The 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals: An Opportunity for Latin America and the Caribbean, Foreword by Alicia Bárcena, p. 5, online at https://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/40155-la-agenda-2030-objetivos-desarrollo-sostenible-oportunidad-america-latina-caribe.
  23. Also of great importance are the Brasilia Rules for Access to Justice for Persons in Vulnerable Conditions, adopted at the XIV Ibero-American Judicial Summit (Brasilia, May 2008); text updated at the XIX Ibero-American Judicial Summit (Quito, April 2018). Ibero-American Judicial Summit, One Hundred Brasilia Rules, updated April 2018 version, XIX Judicial Summit, Plenary Assembly, San Francisco de Quito, Ecuador, online at http://www.cumbrejudicial.org/comision-de-seguimiento-de-las-reglas-de-brasilia/documentos-comision-de-seguimiento-de-las-reglas-de-brasilia/item/817-cien-reglas-de-brasilia-actualizadas-version-abril-2018-xix-cumbre-judicial-asamblea-plenaria-san-francisco-de-quito.
  24. Luis María Palma, “Economic Analysis of Law and the Judicial System in Argentina,” doctoral research, National University of La Matanza (UNLaM), CyTMA2 Accreditation Program, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2020-21.
  25. Faye Fangfei Wang, Internet Jurisdiction and Choice of Law. Legal Practices in the EU, US and China, Kindle ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. 144.
  26. Ethan Katsh and Daniel Raney, “ODR and Government in a Mobile World,” in Marta Poblet, ed., Mobile Technologies for Conflict Management. Online Dispute Resolution, Governance, Participation (New York: Springer, 2011), pp. 90-91.
  27. Luis María Palma, “Justice, Innovation and Efficiency. Advances and Perspectives,” New Technologies and Artificial Intelligence Journal, September 16, 2021, online at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3925529.
  28. Ethan Katsh and Orny Rabinovich-Einy, Digital Justice. Technology and the Internet of Disputes (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), pp. 47-51.
  29. Marco Fabri, “Will COVID-19 Accelerate Implementation of ICT in Courts?” International Journal for Court Administration 12, no. 2 (2021): 8, online at https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.384.
  30. Online at https://www.oecd.org/governance/global-roundtables-access-to-justice/.
  31. Online at https://www.hiil.org/.
  32. Pathfinders for Peaceful, Fair and Inclusive Societies, The Roadmap for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies. A Call to Action to Change our World (New York: Center on International Cooperation, 2019), online at https://cic.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Roadmap-for-Peaceful-Just-and-Inclusive-Societies-9Jul19-1.pdf.
  33. Online at https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/global-program-on-justice-and-rule-of-law/partners.
  34. In Washington, D.C., on June 25 and 26, 2024, World Bank’s Governance Global Practice and its Global Program on Justice and the Rule of Law hosted the “Justice and the Rule of Law Global Forum: Fostering Inclusive and Sustainable Development,” online at https://www.worldbank.org/en/events/2024/03/19/justice-and-the-rule-of-law-global-forum-fostering-inclusive-and-sustainable-development.
  35. Luis María Palma, “Judicial Administration and Management in a Globalized World. Challenges for Latin America,” in Luis Alberto Blanchet, Daniel Wunder Hachem, and Ana Claudia Santano (coordinators), State, Law and Public Policies. Tribute to Professor Romeu Felipe Bacellar Filho (Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil: Ithala Publishers, 2017), p. 49, online at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900556.
  36. National Center for State Courts, “Problem-Solving Courts Guide,” online at https://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/spcts/id/368.
  37. Katsh and Rabinovich-Einy, Orna, op. cit. p. 166.
  38. “Digitalisation of justice in the European Union,” Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Digitalisation of justice in the European Union, July 30, 2020, online at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12547-Digitalizacion-de-la-justicia-en-la-UE_es.
  39. Richard Susskind, Online Courts and the Future of Justice, Kindle ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), p. 93.
  40. Fabri, op. cit., pp. 4-5.
  41. Joe Tomlinson, Justice in the Digital State. Assessing the Next Revolution in Administrative Justice (Great Britain: Policy Press Shorts Policy and Practice, 2019), pp. 56-57. It is necessary to develop platforms where evidence can be presented effectively so that judges can trust.
  42. In the same sense, European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), “CEPEJ Declaration. Lessons Learnt and Challenges faced by the Judiciary during and after the COVID-19 Pandemic,” 2020, p. 3, online at https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/impact-and-lessons-of-the-health-crisis-on-the-efficiency-of-justice-and-the-functioning-of-judicial-systems.  
  43. Luis María Palma, “Management and Technology in Justice. When Modernization Went Viral,” chapter 5 in Justice and Public Records. Technology at the Service of Justice and Legal Security, E-book (Buenos Aires: Thomson Reuters—The Law and the Ibero-American Foundation of Law and Computer Science Associations, 2020).