This study explores the socio-legal context of economic rationality in the legal and judicial systems. It examines the meaning and relevance of the concept of efficiency for the operation of courts and court systems, seeking to answer questions such as: in what sense can we say that the adjudicative process works efficiently? What are the relevant criteria for the measurement and assessment of court efficiency? Should the courts try to operate efficiently and to what extent is this viable? What is the proper relationship between 'efficiency' and 'justice' considerations in a judicial proceeding? To answer these questions, a conceptual framework is developed on the basis of empirical studies and surveys carried out mainly in the United States, Western Europe and Latin America. Two basic ideas emerge from it. First, economic rationality has penetrated the legal and judicial systems at all levels and dimensions, from the level of society as a whole to the day-to-day operation of the courts, from the institutional dimension of adjudication to the organizational context of judicial decisions. Far from being an alien value in the judicial process, efficiency has become an inseparable part of the structure of expectations we place on the legal system. Second, economic rationality is not the prevalent value in legal decision-making, as it is subject to all kinds of constraints, local conditions and concrete negotiations with other values and interests.

This study explores the socio-legal context of economic rationality in the legal and judicial systems. It examines the meaning and relevance of the concept of efficiency for the operation of courts and court systems,seeking to answer questions such as: in what sense can we say that the adjudicative process works efficiently? What are the relevant criteria for the measurement and assessment of court efficiency? Should the courts try to operate efficiently and to what extent is this viable? What is the proper relationship between 'efficiency' and 'justice' considerations in a judicial proceeding? To answer these questions, a conceptual framework is developed on the basis of empirical studies and surveys carried out mainly in the United States, Western Europe and Latin America. Two basic ideas emerge from it. First, economic rationality has penetrated the legal and judicial systems at all levels and dimensions, from the level of society as a whole to the day-to-day operation of the courts, from the institutional dimension of adjudication to the organizational context of judicial decisions. Far from being an alien value in the judicial process, efficiency has become an inseparable part of the structure of expectations we place on the legal system. Second, economic rationality is not the prevalent value in legal decision-making, as it is subject to all kinds of constraints, local conditions and concrete negotiations with other values and interests.

World Bank Technical Paper no. 430.QUOTEMany countries are undertaking legal and judicial reforms as part of their overall development programs; there is increasing recognition that economic and social progress requires consolidation of democracy as well as respect for the rule of law and human rights; without these development is not sustainable.QUOTEMany developing countries find that their judiciaries are inconsistent in conflict resolution and carry a large backlog of cases, thus stifling private-sector growth, eroding individual and property rights, and perhaps even violating human rights. Delays affect both the fairness and the efficiency of the system. They impede the public's access to the courts, which, in effect, weakens democracies, the rule of law and the ability to enforce human rights. This paper aims to describe and explain the performance of court systems in a sample of developing and developed countries in order to provide data to those designing or evaluating reforms. The study also seeks to show areas in which international comparison of judicial performance can be fruitful, suggesting indicators that can be used in such comparisons. Finally, it endeavors to provide comparisons of performance within individual countries over time.

The newest phenomenon in the field of online dispute resolution (ODR) is the emergence of online courts. Holding great promise for end-users of the justice system, online courts can expand access to remedies, improve efficiency and lead to greater fairness and even cost savings. Nonetheless, there is a danger that the rush to digitization will compromise due process or the need for careful re-design of judicial procedures. This book, focusing on ethical issues and key implementation topics, is the first to provide a comprehensive template for how online courts should be designed. The author is well-known for his contributions to the development of the ODR movement. In this book he describes and analyzes features of online courts such as the following: how to use technologies such as predictive analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) for judicial tasks; how to approach the potential for international standardization; how to plan for cooperation rather than competition with private ODR platforms; and how to avoid the mistakes of the earliest online courts. Throughout, the author stresses the need for developing open ODR standards, schemes and specifications for open-source software. With its detailed first-hand information about which online courts have succeeded and why, and its authoritative predictions regarding future trends, this book will serve as the go-to information and education source for judges and administrators, as well as for lawyers, public officials and platform designers worldwide.

As judiciaries advance, exploring how court mediation programs can provide opportunities for party-directed reconciliation whilst ensuring access to formal legal channels requires careful investigation. Court Mediation Reform explores comparative empirical findings in order to examine the association between court mediation structure and perceptions of justice, efficiency and confidence in courts.