|
|
 |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Frequently Asked Questions |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
For some,
the word Microjustice seems to refer to small problems, like the ones
experienced by consumers. The 'micro' in Microjustice, however, stands
for the bottom up approach to the actual delivery of legal protection;
local development of small scale solutions for big-scale urgent justice
needs. Microjustice is intended to become just as real and important as
microcredit. It should contribute to making life much easier for the
billions of people who have no access to justice now, because, although
on paper they have rights, either they and/or their governments may lack
the resources to pay for the delivery of the extensive services that
codes and case law promise them. In our experience, people in developing
countries understand that message and for them, the association with
microcredit means that they start thinking of a justice system that is
accessible to them. |
|||||||||
|
The goal
is to provide real justice. Microjustice does not change any of the
principles of justice. Microjustice is about
an efficient organization
of access to the justice system, facilitating an effective meeting of
supply and demand. This can be achieved by gaining more insight in the
functionality of the different components of the services that form the
supply chain
of justice. Too many efforts to improve the legal system
have taken for granted that justice is justice and that a court should
provide what a court should provide. Microjustice is all about the very
essence of justice. We should reverse-engineer justice and courts. In
doing so we can come to the types of insight, mentioned above. |
|||||||||
|
» Is Microjustice a danger for the values behind the justice system? |
|||||||||
|
No.
Microjustice is all about the essential values of procedural justice,
distributive justice, retributive justice, and restorative justice that
make respectful cooperation between people possible. These values can be
reinforced if justice is done and is seen to be done. |
|||||||||
|
Not in any
definitive way. Powerful and corrupt people may always find ways around
the system for their own personal advantage Microjustice can make a
difference, however, by providing transparent information on norms and
practices and therewith uncovering corruption. Comparison across borders
may also help to curb abuse of power. |
|||||||||
|
» Can Microjustice be developed across borders and across cultures? |
|||||||||
|
Justice
needs are rather similar. Solutions also are rather similar. Even
divorce “proceedings” across cultures and countries have certain
commonalities. Procedural justice, distributive justice, restorative
justice, and restorative justice are issues everywhere. Corporatists and
legal anthropologists have learned to focus on the differences. Because
legal systems develop in some isolation from each other, they have
followed different trajectories. But there seems to be no reason why
legal systems of different countries or different legal origins could
not profit from economies of scale across borders. Multinationals have painstakingly learned to deliver services across borders that cater for
the same human needs. They now know what can be standardized and what
should be adjusted to local circumstances. Law firms work across borders
as well. So why not try it for the justice needs of the poor? This is
especially true for the poor living in smaller developing countries,
where economies of scale within the country cannot be found. |
|||||||||
|
|
Microjustice strives to make rules more accessible and to investigate
|
|||||||||
|
Nowadays,
lawyers and legal systems do not have an unquestioned reputation. Issues
like deregulation, the tort system, worries about the administrative
costs related to government, and overburdened courts are high on the
political agendas. There is no question, however, that some legal system
is necessary and that access to justice is essential in situations like
the ones we identified as the most urgent justice needs. Moreover,
Microjustice strives to make rules more accessible and to investigate
the essence of procedures. Diminishing the administrative costs for
citizens is exactly what Microjustice is about. |
|||||||||
|
There
could be worries that Microjustice brings waves of people to the courts,
making life miserable for companies and governments alike. There are
many possible answers to such objections. |
|||||||||
|
Providing
justice is often as a pure people's business, deliverable as a
person-to-person service, tailored to the parties and their
circumstances. This personalized picture of justice is attractive, but
it also defines justice as a luxury good,
that is outside the means of
most people. It is an extremely unrealistic view, if justice should also
be a more or less free service for all citizens in all their conflicts.
One insight from Prahalad and Hart's principles is that justice may be
standardized, just like many other services, making use of economies of
scales. |
|||||||||
|
Remember: the market already delivers most justice services by
turn-over, by number of interventions, or by any other measure. It
certainly delivers the substitutes for formal justice that develop
spontaneously in refugee camps, villages, and settlements outside the
major cities of the Third World. Governments and Courts all over the
world better accept their limited role in the delivery of the
interventions that make justice real. They could do a better job by
developing their monitoring and supervisory role, which is essential.
Markets cannot be trusted if they are left by themselves. Markets need
rules of the game and supervision. Only then suppliers on the market can
earn the trust of the users of their services. |
|||||||||
|
We will
not know the answer to that unless we have tried it. It seems unlikely
that
the provision of justice services should follow a completely different
trajectory from all other products and services. Usually, they follow a
path of competition, innovation, and attracting more and more clients,
creating access to the service for these people. But this is a
complicated market, which has not yet been thoroughly analyzed.
Moreover, some government intervention is necessary. Cooperation between
market and government, however, needs to be optimized, supported by
research institutions and others who can fuel the innovation process. A
problem may be that neutral legal services have a network character.
They work better if more people use the system, but this requires a high
investment. What we can also predict, however, is that it will be most
difficult to reach the poorest of the poor. |
|||||||||
|
The role
of the market, measured by numbers of clients served and by
annual-turnover,
is already much larger than the role of the State in meeting justice
needs . There is no element of the norms and interventions of the
justice system that can only be provided by the States. Sometimes state
institutions have a comparative advantage in organizing the type of
services that meet justice needs, sometimes market parties. The
challenge is to let the State and the market cooperate in an optimal
manner, looking at all incentives by all relevant participants. |
|||||||||
|
Applying the principles of Prahalad to
the justice sector thus change the
approach of donor interventions.
Traditional models As we have seen, these models sometimes use conditions on which Microjustice differs. For instance, some donors forbid contributions by users, or they require that services are bought from preferred partners, such as law firms and legal experts from donor countries. Instead, Microjustice Programs by donors will concentrate on trying to establish justice with minor investments, using less-skilled (inexpensive) labour, and providing paid legal services. In this way aid in the area of access to justice can lead to structural and sustainable improvements, because locals can make a living from the services.
Donor’s
funding may be helpful for the
development phase, the product
identification,
the general program
costs (updating
|
|||||||||
|
Microjustice Initiative
|
P.O. Box 80523
|
2508 GM The Hague
|
The Netherlands |
|||||||||
