Show simple item record

[journal article]

dc.contributor.authorPapagianneas, Stratonde
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-07T09:36:16Z
dc.date.available2024-03-07T09:36:16Z
dc.date.issued2022de
dc.identifier.issn1868-4874de
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/92806
dc.description.abstractThis article reviews how Chinese scholars debate the policy of building smart courts in the context of judicial reform. This policy entails the automation and digitisation of judicial processes. It is part of broader judicial reforms that aim to create a more accurate and consistent judiciary. The article identifies four reform concepts that guide the debate: efficiency, consistency, transparency and supervision, and judicial fairness. This review is a meta-synthesis, using practices of narrative and systematic literature reviews, focusing on evaluating and interpreting the Chinese scholarship and reform concepts. It reviews how Chinese scholars discuss the implications of judicial automation and digitisation. Additionally, it analyses the normative concepts behind the reform goals within China's political-legal context. The analysis finds that the generally positive evaluation in the debate can be explained by an instrumentalist understanding of the reform concepts and the political purpose of courts in the Chinese political-legal context.de
dc.languageende
dc.subject.ddcRechtde
dc.subject.ddcLawen
dc.subject.otherInformations-/Kommunikationstechnologie; Justizreformde
dc.titleTowards smarter and fairer justice? A review of the Chinese scholarship on building smart courts and automating justicede
dc.description.reviewbegutachtet (peer reviewed)de
dc.description.reviewpeer revieweden
dc.identifier.urlhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/18681026211021412de
dc.source.journalJournal of Current Chinese Affairs
dc.source.volume51de
dc.publisher.countryGBRde
dc.source.issue2de
dc.subject.classozJustizde
dc.subject.classozJudiciaryen
dc.subject.thesozChinade
dc.subject.thesozChinaen
dc.subject.thesozJustizde
dc.subject.thesozjudiciaryen
dc.subject.thesozAutomatisierungde
dc.subject.thesozautomationen
dc.subject.thesozDigitalisierungde
dc.subject.thesozdigitalizationen
dc.subject.thesozRechtswesende
dc.subject.thesozlegal systemen
dc.subject.thesozGerichtde
dc.subject.thesozcourten
dc.subject.thesozReformde
dc.subject.thesozreformen
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Namensnennung 4.0de
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Attribution 4.0en
ssoar.contributor.institutionGIGAde
internal.statusformal und inhaltlich fertig erschlossende
internal.identifier.thesoz10040272
internal.identifier.thesoz10048423
internal.identifier.thesoz10037519
internal.identifier.thesoz10063943
internal.identifier.thesoz10056219
internal.identifier.thesoz10035448
internal.identifier.thesoz10034858
dc.type.stockarticlede
dc.type.documentZeitschriftenartikelde
dc.type.documentjournal articleen
dc.source.pageinfo327-347de
internal.identifier.classoz40102
internal.identifier.journal192
internal.identifier.document32
internal.identifier.ddc340
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1177/18681026211021412de
dc.description.pubstatusVeröffentlichungsversionde
dc.description.pubstatusPublished Versionen
internal.identifier.licence16
internal.identifier.pubstatus1
internal.identifier.review1
internal.dda.referencehttps://unapi.k10plus.de@@1816494356
ssoar.urn.registrationfalsede


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record