Dr Bin Li

Restorative justice was proposed as an alternative to the court system. Therefore, the policymakers and the researchers are keen to see how this intervention works. Many studies have evaluated restorative justice programs, but most of them lack methodological rigour leading to perform this meta-analysis. This article involves literature search and review, data collection and analysis to examine whether restorative justice is more effective than the courts in Australia and the United States ('the US'). To this end, it first surveyed several benchmarks as success indicators in evaluating the 'effectiveness', including reducing recidivism, disposal time and costs and enhancing fair processes, and parties' satisfaction. After review, two outcome variables: recidivism and satisfaction were selected. The meta-analysis revealed that the restorative justice participants had 22% decreased odds (Odds Ratio = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.71, 0.86) than the court participants and restorative justice participants in the US were less likely to recidivate (OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.49, 0.80) than that of in Australia (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.73, 0.90). Further, the study found restorative justice participants were more satisfied than the court participants (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07, 1.21), and the court participants experienced the first re-offence more quickly after referral than the restorative justice participants (18 months vs 25 months).

As with other jurisdictions, China has introduced a range of newer technologies into its justice sector to promote greater access to justice, improve judicial transparency and to promote just outcomes for disputing parties with legal issues. Chinese courts' practice of embracing technology is unique as an overarching approach has been adopted by the central government to build the 'smart court' system across the entirety of its courts. Arguably, the smart court system, which relies on computer technologies that enable big data use, blockchain formation and advisory and determinative forms of artificial legal intelligence, has, to a certain degree, promoted easier access to justice, enabled faster dispute resolution, saved costs by moving judicial process online and ensured that judgments can be enforced. On the other hand, however, there are concerns relating to the use of some technologies that include the use of automated judgments, digital divide issues, judicial independence, as well as issues linked to privacy and data protection. This article concludes that some caution should be exercised in developing the 'smart court' system, primarily in relation to the oversight and introduction of more disruptive technologies to ensure that cheap and quick dispute resolution can be achieved without detrimental impacts on justice.

Background: COVID-19 has disrupted not only the health sector but also justice systems. Courts around the world have had to respond quickly to the challenges presented by the pandemic and the associated social distancing restrictions. This has created significant challenges for the justice system and such challenges are likely to be further compounded in the post-pandemic era as there is a 'tsunami' of COVID-19-related disputes predicted. Methods: This study will examine how global court responses have transitioned from being primarily traditional, face-to-face proceedings to online court processes (as supported by internet technology). By adopting a comparative approach, we will analyse how some countries have adapted to this shift to online mode while also maintaining a focus on access to justice. Results: We argue that online modes of dispute resolution, often referred to as Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), can promote resolution while facilitating social distancing in this new COVID-era. The rapid shift from traditional court processes to an online mode has further assisted the public, lawyers and experts to access the justice system in some jurisdictions, even during the crisis. In light of the scale of recent changes, there have been concerns about the capacity of courts to adopt newer technologies as well as issues relating to the impact of a new online model of justice, particularly in terms of the barriers for more vulnerable members of society. Further, the use of disruptive technologies in some courts have posed questions around whether outcomes generated by these innovations reflect the meaning of 'justice' in its traditional sense. Conclusions: This article argues that courts should embrace newer technologies that support court services while being mindful of possible tech-related issues that can impact on justice objectives. We argue that by placing further emphasis on alternative dispute resolution methods and ODR into the future, this might offset the likely tsunami of COVID-related litigation which would enable courts, hospitals, medical professionals and patients to settle disputes in a just, equitable and more efficient manner.

The paper, 'Space sustainability through the sustainable management of common-pool resources: a framework and potential policies' by Brian Weeden and Tiffany Chow, researches Long-Term Sustainability issues (LTS) from the perspectives of both economics and governance, focusing on analyzing Elinor Ostrom's principles, and puts forward the main elements for a management regime. Their paper will be helpful for the international community to understand the importance of LTS, to further discussions in this field and even to shape a framework for tackling LTS. On the other hand, some of the principles raised by Ostrom still need to be clarified and deliberated throughout the international community. This commentary will analyze some of Ostrom's principles from the perspective of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST) and put forward the values LTS should encompass based on an analysis of its relations with provisions in the OST. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd.