Research of Innovation and Digital Transformation in Justice: A Systematic Review Текст научной статьи по специальности «Право»

Review

UDC 34:004:347.9:655.535.257

EDN https://elibrary.ru/idvewc

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21202/jdtl.2024.12

9

HD

Check for updates

Research of Innovation and Digital Transformation in Justice: A Systematic Review

Pedro Miguel Alves Ribeiro Correia 0 x

University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

Sandra Patricia Marques Pereira 0

University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

Joao Abreu de Faria Bilhim 0

University of Lisbon, Lisboa, Portugal

Keywords

Abstract

comparative research, digital transformation, e-justice,

innovation in justice, legal studies PRISMA method, public administration, public sector, research methodology, systematic review,

Objective: To develop a mapping of studies on innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector, publishes from 2001 to 2022. Five research questions were defined: 1) How to define innovation and digital transformation introduced in the justice sector? 2) What types of innovations and digital transformations are implemented in the justice sector? 3) What are the objectives of introducing innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector? 4) What are the antecedents that influence the process of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector? 5) What are the results of the innovation and digital transformation process in the justice sector? Methods: The systematic review of sources (scientific articles, conference proceedings, monographs and institutional documents) presented in this paper was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) protocol. Selected by "research field", "topic", "research design", "year of publication" and the keywords "public administration", "public sector", "e-justice", "digital transformation", and "innovation", the sources were analyzed and evaluated according to five main aspects: (1) definition of innovation; (2) types of innovation; (3) objectives of innovation; (4) antecedents of innovation; and (5) results of innovation.

13 Corresponding author

© Correia P. M. A. R., Pereira S. P. M., Bilhim J. A. de F., 2024

Paper originally published, in Portuguese, in the Annals of the Administration of Justice Meeting - EnAJUS 2023 (Pereira, et al., 2023). https://www.enajus.org.br/anais/assets/papers/2023/sessao-3/inovacao-e-transformacao-digital-na-justica-uma-revisao-sistematica-de-literatura.pdf

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC BY 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.

Results: The heuristic model for studying innovation in the public sector developed by Vries et al. (2015) was adapted and applied to the research field of justice. The adaptation of the heuristic model allowed forming the following areas of analysis: contextual antecedents in justice; institutional antecedents in justice; characteristics of innovation and digital transformation in justice; individual antecedents in justice; types of innovation and digital transformation in justice; results of the process of innovation and digital transformation in justice.

Scientific novelty: a comprehensive review of the literature in the field of innovation and digital transformation in justice is presented by adapting the approach to conducting systematic studies of the literature in the social sciences. It helped to identify gaps and define directions for further research in the given field, including the activation of comparative legal research, expansion of the methodological base, reliance on the theories of public administration, etc.

Practical significance: the obtained results allow forming a heuristic map of innovation and digital transformation in justice, create antecedents (contextual, institutional and individual) and the basis for future empirical research in the field of justice, analysis, evaluation and improvement of public policy in the field of innovation and digital transformation in this area.

For citation

Correia, P. M. A. R., Pereira, S. P. M., Bilhim, & J. A. de F. (2024). Innovation and

Digital Transformation in Justice: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Digital

Technologies and Law, 2(1), 221-250. https://doi.org/10.21202/jdtl.2024.12

Content

Introduction

1. Methodology of systematic (review) research

2. Heuristic model for researching innovation and digital transformation in justice

Conclusions

References

Introduction

The research aims to provide a comprehensive overview of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector and understand how it has been studied. Five research questions were defined: 1. What types of innovations and digital transformations are implemented in the justice sector? 2. What are the objectives of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector? 3. What are the antecedents that influence the process of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector? 4. What are the results of the innovation and digital transformation process in the justice sector?

Through a systematic literature review, 140 scientific articles, conference papers, books, and organizational documents on innovation and digital transformation in justice published between 2001 and 2022 were analyzed. These studies were examined based on the heuristic framework of innovation in the public sector validated by Vries et al. (2015), which considers five major dimensions, namely 1) definitions of innovation; 2) types of innovation; 3) objectives of innovation; 4) antecedents of innovation; and 5) results of innovation.

This research aims to contribute to the academic and knowledge area of justice administration in three central points. The first contribution is methodological, providing a comprehensive and systematic understanding of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector. The second contribution is conceptual, aiming to understand how concepts related to innovation and transformation are operationalized and measured in the field of justice administration. The third contribution concerns the antecedents of the innovation and transformation process, allowing for a mapping of these antecedents. Finally, the adaptation of the heuristic framework of innovation in the public sector by Vries et al. (2015) in the justice sector contributes to proposing a framework for innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector, including antecedents (contextual, institutional, and individual), characteristics of innovation and digital transformation, types of innovation and digital transformation, and results of various processes of innovation and digital transformation in justice.

1. Methodology of systematic (review) research

This research aims to develop a mapping of studies on innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector. To achieve this, a systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA protocol - Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (Page et al., 2021). The research design adopted in this work aligns with other systematic literature reviews in the social sciences, such as Vries et al. (2015) and Scognamiglio et al. (2023).

Following the PRISMA protocol's indications, four strategies were employed in the literature search to identify studies eligible for the research (Cooper, 2016), namely 1) scientific area; 2) topic; 3) research design; 4) year of publication. Regarding the scientific area, included studies must be in the field of public administration, focusing on justice. Concerning topics, studies should include the following terms in their title, abstract, or keywords: «public administration,» «public sector,» «ejustice,» «digital transformation,» «innovation.» Regarding the research design criterion, both empirical and theoretical studies were considered. Studies applying questionnaires, case studies, experiments, literature reviews, systematic reviews, among other research designs, were included. Finally, studies published between 2001 and 2022 were considered.

Firstly, searches were conducted via Clarivate Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, using keywords such as «public administration,» «public sector,» «ejustice,» «digital transformation,» «innovation.» This search yielded over 3,000 studies. Secondly,

articles in scientific journals of public administration were searched, generating 41 more articles for potential inclusion in the research. Searches in specialized organizations also produced 9 relevant documents included in the analysis. Relevant citations from scientific articles were also considered, adding 52 more sources. In the end, 11 more studies were identified.

In total, 3,514 research outputs were examined. Based on eligibility criteria, removing duplicate documents, inappropriate topics, and articles not in English, Portuguese, or Spanish, we eventually reached 140 studies for content analysis (Fig. 1). Of the 140 studies, 30 publications were published between 2001 and 2011, while 110 sources were published between 2012 and 2022. Of the total selected sources, 73 are scientific articles (accounting for 52% of the included studies), 37 are book chapters (accounting for 26% of the included studies), 16 are conference proceedings (accounting for 11% of the included studies), 9 sources are organizational documents (accounting for 6% of the included studies), and 6 are books (accounting for 4% of the included studies) (Table 1). The studies were identified with a specific ID (Table 2). Subsequently, the selected studies were categorized according to the dimensions developed by Vries et al. (2015). For each dimension, the heuristic model includes explanatory subsections analyzed in the results section.

u w

■o u ■o

Identification of studies via databases and registers

Reports assessed for eligibility (n = 57)

Studies included in review (n = 140)

Records identified from Records removed before

(n = 3 401) Google scholar (n = 3 370) Scopus (n = 18) Web of Science (n = 13) screening: Duplicate studies removed, marked as ineligible, inappropriate topic and/or language (n = 3 222)

i i

Records screened Records excluded

(n = 179) (n = 109)

!

Reports sought for retrieval Reports not retrieved

(n = 70) (n = 13)

Identification of studies via other methods

Identification of studies via other methods (113):

Journals (n = 41)

Organizations (n = 9)

Citations (n = 52)

Books (n = 11)

Reports assessed for eligibility (n = 83)

Reports excluded (n = 30)

Figure 1

Source: Own elaboration based on the Prisma Flow Diagram (Page et al., 2021)

Table 1 1. Characteristics of the studies under analysis

Characteristics N (%) Study ID

Publication date (N = 140)

2001-2011 30 (21 %) 3, 20, 21, 23, 27, 31, 42, 47, 48, 52, 56, 61, 62, 66, 76, 77, 78, 89, 90, 91, 94, 100, 102, 107, 117, 118, 120, 128, 129, 133

2012-2022 110 (79 %) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140

Publication type (N = 140)

Scientific article 73 (52 %) 5, 7, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26, 30, 31, 32, 43, 44, 45, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 68, 72, 73, 74, 75, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 119, 120, 122, 124, 125, 126, 130, 131, 132, 134, 138, 139

Book 6 (4 %) 11, 23, 24, 57, 69, 77

Chapter 37 (26 %) 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 21, 22, 25, 29, 33, 42, 46, 48, 59, 62, 65, 67, 70, 71, 76, 78, 83, 88, 90, 91, 103, 114, 116, 117, 118, 121, 123, 129, 136, 140

Conference proceeding 16 (11 %) 1, 13, 20, 27, 28, 47, 50, 52, 98, 99, 102, 106, 128, 133, 135, 137

Organizational document 9 (6 %) 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 127

Table 2. Included publications, ID, and type of publication

ID Author, Year Publication type

1 (Abdulvaliev, 2017) Conference proceeding

2 (Adeleye et al., 2022) Chapter

3 (Adler & Henman, 2009) Chapter

4 (Ahmed et al., 2020) Chapter

5 (Ahmed et al., 2021) Scientific Article

6 (Andrade et al., 2012) Chapter

7 (Arias & Magada, 2020) Scientific Article

8 (Axpe, 2021) Chapter

9 (Bánicá, 2020) Scientific Article

10 (Bex et al., 2017) Scientific Article

11 (Bochenek et al., 2022) Book

12 (Borisova & Afanasiev, 2019) Chapter

13 (Cano et al., 2015) Conference proceeding

14 (Cano et al., 2017) Chapter

15 (Carboni & Velicogna, 2012) Scientific Article

16 (Carullo, 2015) Scientific Article

17 (Chatfield & Reddick, 2020) Scientific Article

18 (Chawinga et al., 2020) Scientific Article

19 (Clarinval et al., 2020) Scientific Article

20 (Contini & Cordella, 2004) Conference proceeding

21 (Contini & Cordella, 2009) Chapter

22 (Contini & Lanzara, 2014) Chapter

Continuation oftable 2

23 (Contini & Lanzara, 2009) Book

24 (Cordella & Contini, 2020) Book

25 (Covelo de Abreu, 2019) Chapter

26 (Creutzfeldt, 2021) Scientific Article

27 (De Rugeriis, 2010) Conference proceeding

28 (Deligiannis & Anagnostopoulos, 2017) Conference proceeding

29 (Di Natale & Cordella, 2022) Chapter

30 (Dillon & Beresford, 2014) Scientific Article

31 (Doty & Erdelez, 2002) Scientific Article

32 (Dumoulin & Licoppe, 2016) Scientific Article

33 (Ermakova & Frolova, 2022) Chapter

34 (CEPEJ, 2016)1 Organizational document

35 (CEPEJ, 2019a)2 Organizational document

36 (CEPEJ, 2019b)3 Organizational document

37 (CEPEJ, 2019c)4 Organizational document

38 (CEPEJ, 2021a)5 Organizational document

39 (CEPEJ, 2021b)6 Organizational document

40 (CEPEJ, 2021c)7 Organizational document

41 (CEPEJ, 2021d)8 Organizational document

42 (Fabri, 2009) Chapter

43 (Fabri, 2018) Scientific Article

44 (Fabri, 2021) Scientific Article

45 (Fernandes et al., 2018) Scientific Article

46 (Fernando et al., 2014) Chapter

47 (Fersini et al., 2010) Conference proceeding

48 (Filho & Veronese, 2009) Chapter

49 (Frade et al., 2020) Scientific Article

European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2016). Guidelines on how to drive change towards Cyberjustice. Council of Europe.

European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2019a). European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and their Environment. Council of Europe.

European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2019b). Breaking up Judges' Isolation: Guidelines to Improve the Judge's Skills and Competences, Strengthen Knowledge Sharing and Collaboration, and Move Beyond a Culture of Judicial Isolation. Council of Europe.

European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2019c). Toolkit for supporting the implementation of the Guidelines on how to drive change towards Cyberjustice. Council of Europe.

European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2021a). Revised Roadmap for Ensuring an Appropriate Follow-Up of the CEPEJ Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and Their Environment. Council of Europe.

European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2021b). Guidelines on Electronic Court Filing (e-filing) and Digitalisation of Courts. Council of Europe.

European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2021c). 2022 - 2025 CEPEJ Action Plan: "Digitalisation for a Better Justice". Council of Europe.

European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2021d). Guidelines on Videoconferencing in Judicial Proceedings. Council of Europe.

i

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Continuation oftable 2

50 (Francesconi, 2014) Conference proceeding

51 (Freitas & Medeiros, 2015) Scientific Article

52 (Gascó & Jiménez, 2011) Conference proceeding

53 (Gibson, 2016) Scientific Article

54 (Greenwood & Bockweg, 2012) Scientific Article

55 (Greenwood & Brinkema, 2015) Scientific Article

56 (Henning & Ng, 2009) Scientific Article

57 (Kengyel & Nemessányi, 2012) Book

58 (Kettiger & Lienhard, 2021) Scientific Article

59 (Kettiger et al., 2019) Chapter

60 (Kirsiené et al., 2022) Scientific Article

61 (Kiskis & Petrauskas, 2004) Scientific Article

62 (Kitoogo & Bitwayiki, 2010) Chapter

63 (Konina, 2020) Scientific Article

64 (Kovalenko & Bernaziuk, 2018) Scientific Article

65 (Kramer et al., 2018) Chapter

66 (Lodge, 2005) Scientific Article

67 (Lourengo et al., 2020) Chapter

68 (Loutocky, 2022) Scientific Article

69 (Lunardi & Clementino, 2021) Book

70 (Lupo, 2015) Chapter

71 (Lupo, 2019) Chapter

72 (Lupo & Bailey, 2014) Scientific Article

73 (Lupo & Carnevali, 2022) Scientific Article

74 (Lyon et al., 2015) Scientific Article

75 (Viktora, 2022) Scientific Article

76 (Martínez, 2009) Chapter

77 (Martínez & Abat, 2009) Book

78 (McMillan, 2009) Chapter

79 (Meyer, 2014) Scientific Article

80 (Minbaleev & Evsikov, 2022) Scientific Article

81 (Morison & Harkens, 2019) Scientific Article

82 (Murillo & Zuniga, 2013) Scientific Article

83 (Nikolaychenko & Nikolaychenko, 2019) Chapter

84 (Oktal et al., 2016) Scientific Article

85 (Olugasa, 2020) Scientific Article

86 (Olugasa & Davies, 2022) Scientific Article

87 (Pangalos et al., 2014) Scientific Article

88 (Poblet et al., 2009) Chapter

89 (Politis et al., 2008) Scientific Article

90 (Potter, Farrelly & Begg, 2009) Chapter

91 (Poullet, 2009) Chapter

92 (Rattan & Rattan, 2021) Scientific Article

93 (Reiling, 2020) Scientific Article

94 (Reiling, 2011) Scientific Article

95 (Reiling, 2012) Scientific Article

End of table 2

96 (Reiling, 2017) Scientific Article

97 (Reiling & Contini, 2022) Scientific Article

98 (Rocha, 2021) Conference proceeding

99 (Romdoni et al., 2022) Conference proceeding

100 (Rooze, 2010) Scientific Article

101 (Rosa et al., 2013) Scientific Article

102 (Rugeriis, 2010) Conference proceeding

103 (Rusakova & Frolova, 2022) Chapter

104 (Sanders, 2021) Scientific Article

105 (Sandoval-Almazan & Gil-Garcia, 2020) Scientific Article

106 (Santuber et al., 2022) Conference proceeding

107 (Sarantis & Askounis, 2009) Scientific Article

108 (Seepma et al., 2021) Scientific Article

109 (Shahbazov, 2019) Scientific Article

110 (Shi et al., 2021) Scientific Article

111 (Silveira & Covelo de Abreu, 2018) Scientific Article

112 (Sousa et al., 2022) Scientific Article

113 (Taal et al., 2019) Scientific Article

114 (Themeli, 2022) Chapter

115 (Karasev et al., 2021) Scientific Article

116 (Tokarev et al., 2019) Chapter

117 (Trochev, 2009) Chapter

118 (Tyler, 2009) Chapter

119 (Valeev & Nuriev, 2019) Scientific Article

120 (van den Hoogen, 2008) Scientific Article

121 (Velicogna, 2014) Chapter

122 (Velicogna, 2017) Scientific Article

123 (Velicogna, 2018) Chapter

124 (Velicogna et al., 2013) Scientific Article

125 (Velicogna et al., 2020) Scientific Article

126 (Voigt, 2018) Scientific Article

127 (Vucheva et al., 2020) Organizational document

128 (Vuyst & Fairchild, 2006) Conference proceeding

129 (Wallace, 2009) Chapter

130 (Wallace, 2017) Scientific Article

131 (Wallace, 2019) Scientific Article

132 (Wallace & Laster, 2021) Scientific Article

133 (Wallace & Rowden, 2009) Conference proceeding

134 (Warren, 2014) Scientific Article

135 (Wienrich et al., 2022) Conference proceeding

136 (Yavuz et al., 2022) Chapter

137 (Yu, 2021) Conference proceeding

138 (Yu & Xia, 2020) Scientific Article

139 (Zeleznikow, 2017) Scientific Article

140 (Zeleznikow & Esteban de la Rosa, 2021) Chapter

2. Heuristic model for researching innovation and digital transformation in justice

The heuristic framework for innovation in the public sector was developed by Vries et al. (2015). This article sought to adapt the framework to the specific sector of justice. Thus, dimensions/themes on definitions of innovation, types of innovation, innovation objectives, innovation antecedents, and innovation outcomes were considered. The dimensions were adapted, generating the following spheres of analysis: 1) contextual antecedents in the justice sector; 2) institutional antecedents in the Justice sector; 3) characteristics of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector; 4) individual antecedents in the justice sector; 5) types of innovation and digital transformation in justice; 6) results of the innovation and digital transformation process in justice. In this way, a version is proposed for a specific sector of public administration: justice (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Innovation and Digital Transformation Framework in the Justice Sector

Source: adapted from Vries et al. (2015).

In the dimension on contextual antecedents in the justice sector, the considered contextual antecedents relate to external pressures, public attention, participation in networks, regulatory aspects, the implementation of transformations and innovations in agencies/organizations/ countries, and the possibility of competition with other institutions. In the dimension on institutional antecedents in the Justice sector, the considered institutional antecedents relate to resources, leadership, risk aversion, and establishing space for institutional learning. Regarding the dimension on the characteristics of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector, characteristics related to ease, benefits, compatibility, and testability are included. Individual antecedents in the justice sector include employee autonomy, organizational position, knowledge and skills, creativity, relevant demographic aspects, commitment and satisfaction, perspectives and shared norms, and acceptance of digital transformation. The types of innovation and digital transformation in justice defined in the considered heuristic model include digital transformation in the process, digital transformation in administrative processes, digital transformation in technological processes, digital transformation of services, digital transformation in governance, and conceptual digital transformation. Finally, the dimension of the results of the innovation and digital transformation process in justice includes studies that address effectiveness, efficiency, relationship with partners, focus on citizens involved, as well as their satisfaction with digital justice services.

The studies included for this review were organized and allocated to each of the innovation and digital transformation dimensions in the justice sector. Some publications were included in more than one dimension of innovation and digital transformation in the Justice sector (Table 3).

Table 3. Innovation and Digital Transformation Dimensions in the Justice Sector

Dimension N (%) Study ID

Contextual Antecedents in the Justice Sector 17(12%) 11; 14; 23; 24; 34; 35; 36; 37; 38; 39; 40; 41; 57; 59; 61; 83; 129

Institutional Antecedents in the Justice Sector 24(17%) 11; 15; 23; 25; 27; 29; 34; 35; 36; 37; 38; 39; 40; 41; 42; 51; 59; 63; 69; 73; 75; 90; 103; 108

Characteristics of Innovation and Digital Transformation in the Justice Sector 18(13%) 1; 2; 5; 11; 13; 16; 17; 18; 24; 28; 52; 67; 72; 74; 110; 111; 134; 137

Individual Antecedents in the Justice Sector 18(13%) 4; 7; 11; 18: 19; 32; 34; 35; 36; 37; 38; 39; 40; 41; 69; 79; 84; 87

Types of Innovation and Digital Transformation in the Justice Sector 62(44%) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, 20, 24, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 57, 61, 66, 68, 74, 76, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 93, 96, 97, 99, 104, 106, 113, 116, 119, 120, 121, 122, 127, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 138, 139, 140

Outcomes of the Innovation and Digital Transformation Process in the Justice Sector 30(21%) 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 18, 19, 21, 25, 32, 43, 44, 53, 70, 71, 73, 76, 79, 80, 82, 84, 96, 99, 103, 113, 115, 118, 136, 137, 139

Note: total N = 140 (100%) - some studies were included in more than one dimension of innovation and digital transformation in the Justice sector.

The type of innovation and digitaltransformation injustice encompasses 62 publications (corresponding to 44 % of all sources under analysis). Following is the dimension that considers the results of the innovation and digital transformation process in justice with 30 publications included (corresponding to 21 %% of all sources under analysis). Next, the dimension with the most included studies relates to institutional antecedents in the Justice sector with 24 sources (corresponding to 17 %% of all sources under analysis). Individual antecedents in the justice sector and the characteristics of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector each include 18 studies (corresponding to 13 % of all sources under analysis for each dimension). Finally, contextual antecedents consider 17 publications, which corresponds to 12 % of the sources selected for this review.

Conclusions

By adopting a deductive research approach, it was possible to adapt and replicate the framework developed by Vries et al. (2015) in the specific theme of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector.

The goal of this research was to provide a comprehensive view of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector, mapping relevant studies for future investigations. We analyzed 140 sources on innovation and digital transformation in justice published between 2001 and 2022, using the heuristic framework of innovation in the public sector developed by Vries et al. (2015).

Considering the established questions, various innovations and digital transformations were identified, covering processes in general, administrative processes, technological processes, justice services, justice governance, as well as conceptual and design-related innovations. The central objectives of these innovations are to provide greater ease, accessibility, benefits, participation, involvement, and satisfaction (Cordella & Contini, 2020). Regarding antecedents, contextual factors, considering the specificities of the justice sector, institutional factors, and individual factors, with a special focus on the acceptance of transformations by those involved, stand out. However, it is necessary to interpret the results with caution, as the studies mention results oriented towards effectiveness, efficiency, speed, access, quality, partnership development, and a focus on the involvement and satisfaction of citizens.

The research conducted by Yavuz et al. (2022) identified four research areas in eJustice. The first is related to success and risk factors in the implementation of electronic justice. The second focuses on evaluating the impact of the implementation of e-justice projects. The third addresses citizen satisfaction, exploring experiences and better designs to meet the needs of society. The fourth highlights the evaluation of websites, considering quantity, quality, security, accessibility, openness, and participation.

This research contributes to justice administration on several fronts. The first contribution is methodological, by conducting a broad systematic review, identifying a considerable set of sources on the studied topic. The conceptual contribution aims to understand how concepts related to innovation and transformation are operationalized and measured in the administration of justice. The third contribution relates to the antecedents of the innovation and transformation process, allowing for reflection on these elements. Finally, there is

a contribution to the knowledge area by adapting the heuristic framework of innovation in the public sector validated by Vries et al. (2015) to the justice sector.

The mapping carried out in this article should be continued and deepened, especially regarding the research designs adopted.

In conclusion, four future research lines are suggested for studies on innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector: 1) greater methodological diversity, including mixed methods approaches; 2) more theoretically robust studies, with a greater application of public administration theories; 3) comparative investigations between countries to understand different developments and effects of innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector; and 4) analysis and evaluation of public policies for innovation and digital transformation in the justice sector.

References

Abdulvaliev, A. (2017). Court, internet technologies and their role in ensuring the well-being of society. In Responsible Research and Innovation Proceedings of the International Conference "Responsible Research and Innovation" (RRI 2016), 07-10 November, 2016, Tomsk Polytechnic University. http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/ epsbs.2017.07.02.2

Adeleye, J. T., Ahmed, R. K., Nyman-Metcalf, K., & Draheim, D. (2022). E-Court Transition Process: Identifying Critical Factors and Recommendations for Developing Countries. In A. V. Chugunov, M. Janssen, I. Khodachek, Y. Misnikov, & D. Trutnev (Eds.), Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges inEurasia. EGOSE 2021. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 1529. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04238-6_23 Adler, M., & Henman, P. (2009). Justice beyond the courts: The implications of computerisation for procedural justice in social security. In A. Martínez, & P. Abat (Eds.), E-Justice: Using Information Communication Technologies in the Court System (pp. 65-86). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4. ch005

Ahmed, R. K., Muhammed, K. H., Pappel, I., & Draheim, D. (2020). Challenges in the Digital Transformation of Courts: A Case Study from the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. In 2020 Seventh International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment (ICEDEG) (pp. 1-6). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEDEG48599.2020.9096801 Ahmed, R. K., Muhammed, K. H., Pappel, I., & Draheim, D. (2021). Impact of e-court systems implementation: a case study. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 75(1), 108-128. https://doi. org/10.1108/TG-01-2020-0008 Andrade, A., Joia, L. A., & Kamlot, D. (2012). E-government in the judiciary system: Assessing the correlation between IT investment and the efficiency of courts of justice in Brazil. In K. J. Bwalya & S. F. Zulu (Eds.), Handbook of Research on E Government in Emerging Economies: Adoption, E-Participation, and Legal Frameworks (pp. 158-178). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-0324-0.ch008 Arias, M. I., & Magada, A. C. G. (2020). Judiciaries' modernisation through electronic lawsuits: Employees' perceptions from the Brazil and Argentina federal justice services. Information Development, 37(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666920910489 Axpe, M. R. V. (2021). Ethical Challenges from Artificial Intelligence to Legal Practice. In H. Sanjurjo González, I. Pastor López, P. García Bringas, H. Quintián & E. Corchado (Eds.), Hybrid Artificial Intelligent Systems. HAIS 2021 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 12886). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86271-8_17

Bánicá, R. A. (2020). Digitization of justice in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the implications of digitalization on constitutional rights. Revista de Drept Constitutional, 2, 11-30. https://doi. org/10.47743/rdc-2020-2-0001 Bex, F., Prakken, H., van Engers, T., & Verheij, B. (2017). Introduction to the special issue on Artificial Intelligence

for Justice. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9198-5 Bochenek, A. C., Haddad, C. H. B., & Cantuária, E. da S. R. (Eds.). (2022). Gestao, Redes e Design Organizational.

Escola Nacional de Formagao e Aperfeigoamento de Magistrados - Enfam. Borisova, V. F., & Afanasiev, S. F. (2019). Realia and prospects of civil e-justice legal regulation. In E. Popkova (Ed.), Ubiquitous computing and the internet of things: Prerequisites for the development of ICT (pp. 403-410). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13397-9_47

Cano, J., Jimenez, C. E., Hernandez, R., et al. (2015). New tools for e-justice: legal research available to any citizen. In L. Terán & A. Meier (Eds.), Proceedings of 2015 Second International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment (ICEDEG) (pp. 108-111). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEDEG.2015.7114455 Cano, J., Pomed, L., Jiménez-Gómez, C. E., & Hernández, R. (2017). Open Judiciary in High Courts: Securing a Networked Constitution, Challenges of E-Justice, Transparency, and Citizen Participation. In Achieving Open Justice through Citizen Participation and Transparency (pp. 36-54). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0717-8.ch003

Carboni, N., & Velicogna, M. (2012). Electronic Data Exchange within European Justice: A Good Opportunity?

International Journal for CourtAdministration, 4(3), 104-120. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.90 Carullo, G. (2015). Services in the Field of Law within the Internal Market: Promoting e-Justice through

Interoperability. Laws, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws5010001 Chatfield, A. T., & Reddick, C. G. (2020). Collaborative network governance framework for aligning open justice and e-justice ecosystems for greater public value. Social Science Computer Review, 38(3), 252-273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318771968 Chawinga, W. D., Chawinga, C., Kapondera, S. K., Chipeta, G. T., Majawa, F., & Nyasulu, C. (2020). Towards e-judicial services in Malawi: Implications for justice delivery. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 86, e12121. https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12121 Clarinval, A., Simonofski, A., Vanderose, B., & Dumas, B. (2020). Public displays and citizen participation: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 75(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-12-2019-0127 Contini, F., & Cordella, A. (2004). Information System and Information Infrastructure Deployment: The Challenge of the Italian eJustice Approach. European Conference on Information Systems 2004 Proceedings, 40. Contini, F., & Cordella, A. (2009). Italian justice system and ICT: Matches and mismatches between technology and organisation. In A. Martínez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-Justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 117-134). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4.ch008

Contini, F., & Lanzara, G. F. (2014). Introduction: The challenge of interoperability and complexity in european civil proceedings online. In F. Contini & G. F. Lanzara (Eds.), The circulation of agency in e-justice: Interoperability and infrastructures for European transborder judicial proceedings (pp. xiii-xxi). Springer. Contini, F., & Lanzara, G. F. (Eds.). (2009). ICT and Innovation in the Public Sector: European Studies in the

Making ofE-Government. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230227293 Cooper, H. (2016). Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach (fifth edition). Sage. Cordella, A., Contini, F. (2020). Digital Technologies for Better Justice: A Toolkit for Action. Inter-American

Development Bank. http://dx.doi.org/10.18235/0002297 Covelo de Abreu, J. (2019). The Role of Artificial Intelligence in the European e-Justice Paradigm - Suiting Effective Judicial Protection Demands. In P. Moura Oliveira, P. Novais, & L. Reis. (Eds.), Progress in Artificial Intelligence. EPIA 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 11804. Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-30241-2_26 Creutzfeldt, N. (2021). Towards a digital legal consciousness? European Journal of Law and Technology, 72(3). De Rugeriis, G. (2010). The Online Criminal Trial in Italy Seeks an Identity. In Proceedings of the 10th European

Conference on e-Government (pp. 492-499). Academic Publishing Limited. Deligiannis, A. P., & Anagnostopoulos, D. (2017). Towards Open Justice: ICT Acceptance in the Greek Justice System: The Case of the Integrated Court Management System for Penal and Civil Procedures (OSDDY/ PP). In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government, CeDEM 2017 (Art. No. 8046275, pp. 82-91). https://doi.org/10.1109/cedem.2017.26 Di Natale, L. J., & Cordella, A. (2022). Digitising the Judicial Sector: A Case Study of the Dutch KEI Programme. In R. Krimmer et al., Electronic Participation. ePart 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science,13392. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23213-8_9 Dillon, M. P., & Beresford, D. (2014). Electronic Courts and the Challenges in Managing Evidence. A View from Inside the International Criminal Court. International Journal for Court Administration, 6(1), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.132 Doty, P., & Erdelez, S. (2002). Information micro-practices in Texas rural courts: Methods and issues for e-government. Government Information Quarterly, 79(4), 369-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-624X(02)00121-1

Dumoulin, L., & Licoppe, C. (2016). Videoconferencing, New Public Management, and Organizational Reform

in the Judiciary. Policy & Internet, 8(3), 313-333. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.124 Ermakova, E. P., & Frolova, E. E. (2022). Using Artificial Intelligence in Dispute Resolution. In A. O. Inshakova, E. E. Frolova (Eds.), Smart Technologies for the Digitisation of Industry: Entrepreneurial Environment. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, 254. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4621-8_11

Fabri, M. (2009). The Italian style of e-justice in a comparative perspective. In A. Martínez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-Justice: Using Information Communication Technologies in the Court System (pp. 1-19). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4.ch001 Fabri, M. (2018). Pitfalls in Data Gathering to Assess Judiciaries. International Journal for Court Administration,

9(3), 67-75. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.278 Fabri, M. (2021). Will COVID-19 Accelerate Implementation of ICT in Courts? International Journal for Court

Administration, 72(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.384 Fernandes, R. V. de C., Rule, C., Ono, T. T., & Cardoso, G. E. B. (2018). The expansion of online dispute resolution in Brazil. International Journal for Court Administration, 9(2), 20-30. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.255 Fernando, P., Gomes, C., & Fernandes, D. (2014). The Piecemeal Development of an e-Justice Platform: The CITIUS Case in Portugal. In F. Contini, & G. Lanzara (Eds.), The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice. Law, Governance and Technology Series, 13. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7525-1_6

Fersini, E., Messina, V., Toscani, D., et al. (2010). Semantics and machine learning for building the next generation of judicial court management systems. In K. Liu & J. Filipe (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing (Vol. 0IC3K, pp. 51-60), Valencia, Spain. https://doi.org/10.5220/0003099300510060 Filho, R. F., & Veronese, A. (2009). Electronic justice in Brazil. In A. Martínez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-Justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 135-151). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4.ch009 Frade, C., Fernando, P., & Conceigao, A. F. (2020). The performance of the courts in the digital era: The case of insolvency and restructuring proceedings. International Insolvency Review, 29(3), 346359. https://doi.org/10.1002/iir.1390 Francesconi, E. (2014). An Interoperability Approach for Enabling Access to e-Justice Systems across Europe. In Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective: Third International Conference, EGOVIS2014, Munich, Germany, September 1-3, 2014. Proceedings. Freitas, C. S. de, & Medeiros, J. J. (2015). Organizational Impacts of the Electronic Processing System of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice. JISTEM - Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 72(2), 317-332. https://doi.org/10.4301/S1807-17752015000200007 Gascó, M., & Jimenez-Gomez, C. E. (2011). Interoperability in the justice field: Variables that affect implementation. In M. Klun, M. Decman & T. Jukic (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on eGovernment (pp. 272-279). Academic Publishing Limited. Gibson, J. (2016). Social Media and the Electronic "New World" of Judges. International Journal for Court

Administration, 7(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.199 Greenwood, J. M., & Bockweg, G. (2012). Insights to Building a Succesful E-filing Case Management Service: U.S. Federal Court Experience. International Journal for Court Administration, 4(2), 2-10. https://doi. org/10.18352/ijca.74

Greenwood, J. M., & Brinkema, J. (2015). E-Filing Case Management Services in the US Federal Courts: The Next Generation: A Case Study. International Journal for Court Administration, 7(1), 3-17. https://doi. org/10.18352/ijca.179

Henning, F., & Ng, G. (2009). The challenge of collaboration-ICT implementation networks in courts in The

Netherlands. Transylvanian ReviewofAdministrative Sciences, 5(28), 27-44. Karasev, A. T., Savoskin, A. V., & Meshcheryagina, V. A. (2021). On the Effectiveness of the Digital Legal

Proceedings Model in Russia. Mathematics, 9(2), 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9020125 Kengyel, M., & Nemessányi, Z. (Eds.). (2012). Electronic technology and civil procedure: New paths to justice

from aroundthe world. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4072-3 Kettiger, D., & Lienhard, A. (2021). Swiss Courts Facing the Challenges of COVID-19. International Journal for

CourtAdministration, 72(2), 5. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.380 Kettiger, D., Lienhard, A., Langbroek, Ph., & Fabri, M. (2019). Court Management: A Young Field of Public Management. In E. Ongaro (Ed.), Public Administration in Europe. Governance and Public Management (pp. 309-315). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92856-2_28 Kirsiené, J., Amilevicius, D., & Stankeviciüté, D. (2022). Digital Transformation of Legal Services and Access to Justice: Challenges and Possibilities. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, 75(1), 141-172. https://doi. org/10.2478/bjlp-2022-0007 Kiskis, M., & Petrauskas, R. (2004). ICT adoption in the judiciary: Classifying of judicial information. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 78(1), 37-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600860410001674724 Kitoogo, F. E., & Bitwayiki, C. (2010). e-Justice implementation at a national scale: The Ugandan case. In A. Villafiorita, R. Saint-Paul & A. Zorer (Eds.), E-infrastructures and e-services on developing countries (pp. 40-49). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12701-4_5

Konina, A. (2020). Technology-Driven Changes in an Organizational Structure: The Case of Canada's Courts Administration Service. International Journal for Court Administration, 7 7(2), 6. https://doi. org/10.36745/ijca.326

Kovalenko, N., & Bernaziuk, I. (2018). Topical issues of financing electronic legal proceedings in Ukraine. Baltic Journal ofEconomic Studies, 4(5), 100-104. https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2018-4-5-100-104 Kramer, X. E., van Gelder, E., & Themeli, E. (2018). e-Justice in the Netherlands: the Rocky Road to Digitised Justice. In M. Weller & M. Wendland (Eds.), Digital Single Market: Bausteine eines Rechts in der Digitalen Welt (pp. 209-235). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3167543 Lodge, J. (2005). eJustice, Security and Biometrics: the EU's Proximity Paradox. European Journal of Crime,

Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 73(4), 533-564. https://doi.org/10.1163/157181705774662607 Lourenço, R. P., Fernando, P., & Gomes, C. (2020). From eJustice to Open Judiciary: An Analysis of the Portuguese Experience. In Open Government: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 1161-1186). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9860-2.ch055 Loutocky, P. (2022, May 31). Possible approaches towards the architecture of online courts and their potential in the decision-making process. Jusletter IT. https://doi.org/10.38023/f37d20de-4f8c-4421-afaa-0d914636f226

Lunardi, F. C., & Clementino, M. B. M. (Eds.). (2021). Inovaçâo Judicial: Fundamentos e Prâticas para uma Jurisdiçâo de Alto Impacto. Brasilia: Escola Nacional de Formaçao e Aperfeiçoamento de Magistrados -Enfam.

Lupo, G. (2015). Evaluating e-Justice: The Design of an Assessment Framework for e-Justice Systems. In K. Benyekhlef, J. Bailey, J. Burkell, & F. Gélinas (Eds.), eAccess to Justice (pp. 53-94). University of Ottawa Press.

Lupo, G. (2019). Assessing e-Justice smartness: A new framework for e-Justice Evaluation Through Public Values. In M. P. Rodriguez Bolivar (Ed.), Setting Foundations for the Creation of Public Value in Smart Cities (pp. 77-113). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98953-2_4 Lupo, G., & Bailey, J. (2014). Designing and implementing e-Justice Systems: Some Lessons Learned from

EU and Canadian Examples. Laws, 3(2), 353-387. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws3020353 Lupo, G., & Carnevali, D. (2022). Smart Justice in Italy: Cases of Apps Created by Lawyers for Lawyers and

Beyond. Laws, 77(3), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws11030051 Lyon, F., Gyateng, T., Pritchard, D., Vaze, P., Vickers, I., & Webb, N. (2015). Opening access to administrative data for evaluating public services: The case of the Justice Data Lab. Evaluation, 27(2), 232-247. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1356389015577507 Martinez, A. (2009). E-justice in Spain. In A. Martinez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 98-116). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4.ch007

Martinez, A., & Abat, P. (2009). E-justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system.

IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4 McMillan, J. E. (2009). The potential of computerized court case management to battle judicial corruption. In A. Martinez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 57-64). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4.ch004 Meyer, N. (2014). Social Media and the Courts: Innovative Tools or Dangerous Fad? A Practical Guide for Court Administrators. International Journal for Court Administration, 6(1), 2-28. https://doi.org/10.18352/ ijca.136

Minbaleev, A. V., & Evsikov, K. S. (2022). Alternative dispute resolution in digital government. RBADR, 4(7),

119-146. https://doi.org/10.52028/rbadr.v4i7.8 Morison, J., & Harkens, A. (2019). Re-engineering justice? Robot judges, computerised courts and (semi) automated legal decision-making. Legal Studies, 39(4), 618-635. https://doi.org/10.1017/lst.2019.5 Murillo, R., & Zuniga, R. (2013). Could Innovation also Emerge from the Public Sector? Creating an ISO-like Judiciary Quality Management Standard. International Journal for Court Administration, 5(2), 10-30. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.16 Nikolaychenko, O., & Nikolaychenko, V. V. (2019). Transformation of the procedural obligations of the court under electronic justice conditions. In E. G. Popkova (Ed.), Ubiquitous computing and the internet of things: Prerequisites for the development of ICT (pp. 379-385). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13397-9_44 Oktal, O., Alpu, O., & Yazici, B. (2016). Measurement of internal user satisfaction and acceptance of the e-justice system in Turkey. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 68(6), 716-735. https://doi.org/10.1108/ AJIM-04-2016-0048

Olugasa, O. (2020). Utilising Technology in Making the Nigerian Administration of Criminal Justice Act Effective for

Criminal Trials. International Journal for Court Administration, 77(2), 5. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.332 Olugasa, O., & Davies, A. (2022). Remote Court Proceedings in Nigeria: Justice Online or Justice on the Line.

International Journal for CourtAdministration, 73(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.448 Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Research Methods & Reporting, 372(71), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 Pangalos, G., Salmatzidis, I., & Pagkalos, I. (2014). Using IT to Provide Easier Access to Cross-Border Legal Procedures for Citizens and Legal Professionals - Implementation of a European Payment Order e-CODEX pilot. International Journal for CourtAdministration, 6(2), 43-52. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.137 Pereira, S., Correia, P., & Bilhim, J. (2023). Inovagao e Transformagao Digital na Justiga: uma Revisao Sistemática

de Literatura. Anais do Encontro de Administragao da Justiga - EnAJUS 2023. Poblet, M., Vallbé, J. J., Casellas, N., & Casanovaset, P. (2009). Judges as IT users: The iuriservice example. In A. Martínez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 38-56). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4.ch003 Politis, D., Donos, G., Christou, G., Giannakopoulos, P., & Papapanagiotou-Leza, A. (2008). Implementing E-justice on a national scale: Coping with balkanization and socio-economical divergence. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 70(2), 41-59. https://doi.org/10.4018/jcit.2008040104 Potter, S., Farrelly, P., & Begg, D. (2009). The e-court roadmap: Innovation and integration an Australian case study. In A. Martínez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 165-185). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4.ch011 Poullet, Y. (2009). The Belgian case: Phenix or how to design E justice through privacy requirements and in full respect of the separation of powers. In A. Martínez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 186-195). IGI Global. https://doi. org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4.ch012 Rattan, J., & Rattan, V. (2021). The COVID-19 Crisis - the New Challenges Before the Indian Justice and Court Administration System. International Journal for Court Administration, 72(2). https://doi.org/10.36745/ ijca.391

Reiling, A. D. (2020). Courts and Artificial Intelligence. International Journal for Court Administration, 7 7(2), 8.

https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.343 Reiling, D. (2011). Understanding IT for Dispute Resolution. International Journal for Court Administration, 3(2),

34-44. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.61 Reiling, D. (2012). Technology in Courts in Europe: Opinions, Practices and Innovations. International Journal

for CourtAdministration, 4(2), 11-20. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.75 Reiling, D. (2017). Beyond court digitalization with ODR. International Journal for Court Administration, 8(2),

1-6. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.225 Reiling, D., & Contini, F. (2022). E-Justice Platforms: Challenges for Judicial Governance. International Journal

for CourtAdministration, 73(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.445 Rocha, C. (2021). Success Factors for e-Justice Adoption. In ISLA 2021 Proceedings, 12 (pp.1-6). Romdoni, M., Lussak, A., & Darmawan, I. (2022). Success Factors for Using E-Court in Indonesian Courts. Proceeding of International Academic Symposium of Social Science 2022, 82(1), 58. http://dx.doi. org/10.3390/proceedings2022082058 Rooze, E. (2010). Differentiated Use of Electronic Case Management Systems. International Journal for Court

Administration, 3(1), 50-60. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.53 Rosa, J., Teixeira, C., & Pinto, J. S. (2013). Risk factors in e-justice information systems. Government Information

Quarterly, 30(3), 241-256. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.giq.2013.02.002 Rusakova, E. P., & Frolova, E. E. (2022). Current Problems of Digital Justice in the BRICS Countries. In A. O. Inshakova & E. E. Frolova (Eds.), Smart Technologies for the Digitisation of Industry: Entrepreneurial Environment. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, 254. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4621-8_12 Sanders, A. (2021). Video-Hearings in Europe Before, During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic. International

Journal for CourtAdministration, 72(2), 3. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.379 Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2020). Understanding e-Justice and Open Justice Through the Assessment of Judicial Websites: Toward a Conceptual Framework. Social Science Computer Review, 38(3), 334-353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318785957

Santuber, J., Abou Refaie, R., & Meinel, C. (2022). Interrogating e-Justice: Lessons from Digitalizing Courts in Chile. In Conference EGOV-CeDEM-ePart 2022, September 6-8, 2022, Linköping University, Sweden (Hybrid). https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3399/paper5.pdf Sarantis, D., & Askounis, D. (2009). Electronic criminal record in Greece: Project management approach and lessons learned in public administration. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 5(25), 132-146.

Scognamiglio, F., Sancino, A., Caló, F., Jacklin-Jarvis, C., & Rees, J. (2023). The public sector and co-creation in turbulent times: A systematic literature review on robust governance in the COVID-19 emergency. Public Administration, 707(1), 53-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12875 Seepma, A. P., de Blok, C., & Van Donk, D. P. (2021). Designing digital public service supply chains: Four country-based cases in criminal justice. Supply Chain Management, 26(3), 418-446. https://doi.org/10.1108/ SCM-03-2019-0111

Shahbazov, I. (2019). Exploring the attitudes of university students and criminal justice professionals towards electronic monitoring in Azerbaijan: A focus group study. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 58, 44-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/jJjlcj.2019.06.003 Shi, C., Sourdin, T., & Li, B. (2021). The Smart Court - A New Pathway to Justice in China? International Journal

for CourtAdministration, 72(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.367 Silveira, A., & de Abreu, J. C. (2018). Interoperability solutions under Digital Single Market: European e-Justice rethought under e-Governance paradigm. European Journal of Law and Technology, 9(1). https://ejlt. org/index.php/ejlt/article/view/590 Sousa, M., Kettiger, D., & Lienhard, A. (2022). E-justice in Switzerland and Brazil: Paths and Experiences.

International Journal for CourtAdministration, 73(2), 3. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.368 Taal, S., Kolitsi, Z., Velicogna, M., Groustra, J., & Steigenga, E. (2019). Connecting the European e-Justice Community: Towards a New Governance Model for e-CODEX. Public Sciences & Policies, 5(1), 33-51. https://doi.org/10.33167/2184-0644.CPP2019.VVN1/pp.33-51 Themeli, E. (2022). The Frontiers of Digital Justice in Europe. In X. Kramer, J. Hoevenaars, B. Kas, & E. Themeli

(Eds.), Frontiers in Civil Justice (pp. 102-120). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802203820.00013 Tokarev, D. A., Usanova, V. A., Kagalnitskova, N., & Sandalova, V. A. (2019). Development of E-justice in Russia: Modernization of legal regulation and deepening of scientific research. In E. Popkova (Ed.), Ubiquitous computing and the internet of things: Prerequisites for the development of ICT (pp. 215-222). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13397-9_25 Trochev, A. (2009). Courts on the Web in Russia. In A. Martínez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-Justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 196-203). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4.ch013

Tyler, M. H. C. (2009). Online dispute resolution. In A. Martínez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-Justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 87-96). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4.ch006

Valeev, D. K., & Nuriev, A. G. (2019). Unity of judicial power: Development of elements of electronic justice.

Revista Turismo: Estudos e Práticas, 2, 1-5. van den Hoogen, R. (2008). Will E-Justice still be Justice? Principles of a Fair Electronic Trial. International

Journal for CourtAdministration, 7(1), 65-73. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.128 Velicogna, M. (2014). Coming to Terms with Complexity Overload in Transborder e-Justice: The e-CODEX Platform. In F. Contini & G. Lanzara (Eds.), The Circulation ofAgencyin E-Justice. Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-94-007-7525-1_13 Velicogna, M. (2017). In search of smartness: The EU e-justice challenge. Informatics, 4(4), 38. https://doi.

org/10.3390/informatics4040038 Velicogna, M. (2018). E-Justice in Europe: From National Experiences to EU Cross-Border Service Provision. In L. Alcaide Muñoz & M. Rodríguez Bolívar (Eds.), International E-Government Development. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63284-1_3 Velicogna, M., Errera, A., & Derlange, S. (2013). Building e-Justice in Continental Europe: The TeleRecours

Experience in France. Utrecht Law Review, 9, 38-59. https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.211 Velicogna, M., Steigenga, E., Taal, S., Schmidt, A. (2020). Connecting EU jurisdictions: Exploring how to open justice across member states through ICT. Social Science Computer Review, 38(3), 274-294. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0894439318786949 Viktora, M. (2022). Innovative Leadership-a Missing Puzzle in the Economic Administration of the Judiciary in the Czech Republic. International Journal for Court Administration, 13 (3), 3. https://doi.org/10.36745/ ijca.438

Voigt, S. (2018). Innovate - Don't Imitate! - ENCJ Research Should Focus on Research Gaps. International

Journal for CourtAdministration, 9(3), 47-53. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.279 Vries, H., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. (2015). Innovation in the Public Sector: A Systematic Review and Future

Research Agenda. PublicAdministration, 94(1), 146-166. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12209 Vucheva, M., Rocha, M., Renard, R., & Stasinopolous, D. (2020). Study on the use of innovative technologies in

thejustice field. https://doi.org/10.2838/585101 Vuyst, B., & Fairchild, A. (2006). The Phenix project: A case study of e-justice in Belgium. In M. S. Fox & B. Spencer (Eds.), ICEC'06: Proceedings ofthe 8th International Conference on Electronic Commerce: The New e-Commerce: Innovations for Conquering Current Barriers, Obstacles and Limitations to Conducting Successful Business on the Internet (pp. 327-333). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1151454.1151509 Wallace, A. (2009). E-justice: An Australian perspective. In A. Martínez & P. Abat (Eds.), E-justice: Using information communication technologies in the court system (pp. 204-228). IGI Global. https://doi. org/10.4018/978-1-59904-998-4.ch014 Wallace, A. (2017). The Impact of Technology on Courts. International Journal for Court Administration, 8(2), 1.

https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.236 Wallace, A. (2019). Ten Questions for Dory Reiling - Developing IT for Courts. International Journal for Court

Administration, 70(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.293 Wallace, A., & Laster, K. (2021). Courts in Victoria, Australia, During COVID: Will Digital Innovation Stick?

International Journal for CourtAdministration, 72(2), 9. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.389 Wallace, A., & Rowden, E. (2009). Gateways to Justice: The Use of Videoconferencing Technology to Take Evidence in Australian Courts. In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on e-Government. University of Westminster Business School, London, England. Warren, M. (2014). Open justice in the technological age. Monash University Law Review, 40(1), 45-58. Wienrich, C., Fries, L., & Latoschik, M. (2022). Remote at Court: Challenges and Solutions of Video Conferencing in the Judicial System. In G. Salvendy, J. Wei (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Design, Operation and Evaluation of Mobile Communications. 24th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCII). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05014-5_8 Yavuz, N., Karkin, N., & Yildiz M. (2022). E-Justice: A Review and Agenda for Future Research. In Y. Charalabidis, L. S. Flak & G. V. Pereira (Eds.), Scientific Foundations of Digital Governance and Transformation: Concepts, Approaches and Challenges (pp. 385-414). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92945-9_15 Yu, J. (2021). Citizen adoption of e-justice services: An empirical research in China. In AISS'2021: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Advanced Information Science and System, November 26-28, 2021, Sanya, China. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3503047.3503061 Yu, J., & Xia, J. (2020). E-justice evaluation factors: The case of smart court of China. Information Development,

37(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666920967387 Zeleznikow, J. (2017). Can Artificial Intelligence and Online Dispute Resolution enhance efficiency and effectiveness in Courts. International Journal for Court Administration, 8(2), 30-45. https://doi. org/10.18352/ijca.223

Zeleznikow, J., & Esteban de la Rosa, F. (2021). Artificial Intelligence as a New Component of the Justice System: How it creates New Possibilities, but has Limitations especially with regards to Governance. In F. E. de la Rosa, J. M. Gil Ruiz, L. M. Hinojosa Martínez, A. Orti Vallejo, S. A. Sánchez Lorenzo, & J. Vals Prieto (Eds.), Justice, Trade, Security, and Individual Freedoms in the Digital Society (pp. 59-101).

Authors information

Pedro Miguel Alves Ribeiro Correia - PhD in Social Sciences (Specialty in Public

Administration), Invited Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Coimbra

Address: Patio da Universidade, 3004-528 Coimbra, Portugal

E-mail: pcorreia@fd.uc.pt

ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3111-9843

Scopus Author ID: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=58223408400 WoS Researcher ID: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/B-2753-2015 Google Scholar ID: https://scholar.google.hu/citations?user=KABKPuUAAAAJ

Sandra Patricia Marques Pereira - PhD student, Master in Public Administration (Specialty in Justice Administration), Assistant Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Coimbra

Address: Patio da Universidade, 3004-528 Coimbra, Portugal

E-mail: spmpereira@fd.uc.pt

ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7374-3847

Scopus Author ID: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=55929186300 WoS Researcher ID: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/X-3842-2019 Google Scholar ID: https://scholar.google.hu/citations?user=JkKwolYAAAAJ

Joio Abreu de Faria Bilhim - PhD in Social Sciences (Specialty in Sociology of Organizations), Retired Full Professor, University of Lisbon

Address: Cidade Universitaria, Alameda da Universidade, 1649-004 Lisboa, Portugal E-mail: j.bilhim@sapo.pt

ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9419-0009

Scopus Author ID: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57200310364 WoS Researcher ID: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/AAM-9835-2021 Google Scholar ID: https://scholar.google.hu/citations?user=giI6ICgAAAAJ

Author's contributions

Pedro Miguel Alves Ribeiro Correia, Sandra Patricia Marques Pereira and Joâo Abreu de Faria Bilhim equally contributed into conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, investigation, selection of resources, writing a review, editing, visualization, supervision, and project administration.

Conflict of interest

The authors declares no conflict of interest.

Financial disclosure

This work is supported by Portuguese national funds through FCT-Fundapao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia, under project UIDB/04643/2020.

Thematic rubrics

OECD: 5.05 / Law PASJC:3308/ Law WoS: OM / Law

Article history

Date of receipt - January 5, 2024 Date of approval - January 20, 2024 Date of acceptance - March 15, 2024 Date of online placement - March 20, 2024