{"id":5947,"date":"2020-01-20T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-01-20T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.hiil.org\/?p=5947"},"modified":"2021-08-18T23:10:50","modified_gmt":"2021-08-18T23:10:50","slug":"justice-for-all-can-be-achieved-by-shifting-focus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.hiil.org\/fr\/news\/justice-for-all-can-be-achieved-by-shifting-focus\/","title":{"rendered":"Justice for all can be achieved by shifting focus"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
\u00b4What Works to Improve A2J\u00b4 is a three-part blog series on delivering equal access to justice for all written by Professor Maurits Barendrecht, Research Director at HiIL, author of the NYP<\/em>, Charging for Justice.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

What Works to Improve A2J 3. Justice for all can be achieved by shifting focus.

This third blog post in the series draws on correlations evident in data to indicate how to transform justice processes.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Beyond lawyers and courts: the process of fair resolution<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the first two blogs in this series (here<\/a> and here<\/a>)<\/strong> we looked at positive contributions to access to justice. The World Justice Project (WJP) data suggest that governments and civil society should focus on assisting people to agree and comply, through fair processes that make resolution easy. Just sending more people to lawyers and courts is unlikely to help, or even has a negative effect. Courts can have a positive contribution where people experience more hardship from legal problems. 
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Power and access issues correlate negatively with A2J<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now I turn to survey answers that correlate negatively with A2J. The Table below summarises the data. Few people in most countries mention power issues or access barriers. But if more people mention such factors, this correlates rather strongly with low country A2J. Many people found the process slow or expensive, which also predicts low A2J. The more people experience hardship because of a problem, the lower the A2J score.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just take a look at this Table for yourself<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Access to justice barriers suggest how A2J processes should be improved<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The access to justice barriers that people mention worldwide sound very familiar. Cost, distance, confusion, power, distrust, hardship and slow procedures. Interestingly, few people mention such barriers. These barriers are not that common. But, if more people mention these factors, A2J tends to be worse in their country. So these factors are still indicators of injustice. The data still suggest we need to make A2J processes cheaper, closer, easier, more equal and more trustworthy. 
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A2J is not equal to access to courts or access to (legal) advice <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But again, sending more people to current procedures has little effect<\/a><\/strong>. This is true for: <\/p>\n\n\n\n