Digital Justice and Human Security: Evaluating E-Court Reforms in Italy and Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25170/paradigma.v11i1.7746Kata Kunci:
Digital justice, E-Court systems, human security, judicial reform, Italy, Indonesia, digital governance, access to justice, artificial intelligence, comparative lawAbstrak
The digital transformation of judicial systems represents a critical intersection between technological innovation and access to justice in the 21st century. This comparative study examines the implementation and impact of E-Court reforms in Italy and Indonesia—two civil law jurisdictions with divergent institutional capacities and development trajectories. Utilizing an integrated theoretical framework combining Human Security principles with Digital Governance theory, this research analyzes how judicial digitalization affects procedural transparency, case processing efficiency, and equitable access to justice.
Drawing on qualitative document analysis of legislative frameworks, judicial performance data, and policy documents from 2015-2023, the study reveals significant contextual variations in reform outcomes comparing Italy’s Processo Civile Telematico (PCT) and Indonesia’s E-Court system.
The research identifies institutional capacity, technological infrastructure, regulatory coherence, and explicit attention to digital equity as critical determinants of successful judicial digitalization. The study highlights the importance of human security-centered design approaches, addressing ethical dimensions of artificial intelligence deployment, ensuring algorithmic transparency, and maintaining hybrid access models to prevent digital exclusion. Findings suggest that technological sophistication alone cannot guarantee successful reform; rather, success depends on contextual adaptation, comprehensive capacity building, and sustained commitment to equity principles. The comparative analysis offers valuable insights for policymakers and judicial administrators in developing and developed democracies pursuing digital justice initiatives while safeguarding human security and fundamental rights.
Referensi
Almada, M., & Schreiber, S. (2024). Auditing algorithmic systems in the judiciary: The gap between principles and practice in Europe. Computer Law & Security Review, 52, 105912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105912
American Bar Association. (2024). Formal Ethics Opinion 512: Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools. ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility.
Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016). Machine bias. ProPublica, May 23, 2016.
Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big data’s disparate impact. California Law Review, 104(3), 671-732.
Bavitz, C., & Dressel, J. (2024). The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Science Advances, 10(4), eadk2445.
Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2019). Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press.
Biavati, P., & Lupano, M. (2024). Regional disparities in Italian civil justice: The digital divide effect. European Journal of Law and Technology, 15(1), 1-28.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Brayne, S. (2021). Predict and Surveil: Data, Discretion, and the Future of Policing. Oxford University Press.
Butt, S., & Lindsey, T. (2023). The Constitution of Indonesia: A Contextual Analysis (2nd ed.). Hart Publishing.
Cabral, J. E., Chavan, M., Clarke, T. M., & Greacen, J. (2023). Using technology to enhance access to justice. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 36(2), 241-320.
Cassazione Civile, Sezioni Unite. (2024). Sentenza n. 7053 del 15 marzo 2024. Corte Suprema di Cassazione.
CEPEJ - European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice. (2023). European Judicial Systems: CEPEJ Evaluation Report - 2023 Evaluation Cycle. Council of Europe.
CEPEJ - European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice. (2024). European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and Their Environment (Revised Edition). Council of Europe.
Choi, J. H., Hickman, K. E., Monahan, A., & Schwarcz, D. (2023). ChatGPT goes to law school. Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper, No. 23-03.
Citron, D. K. (2008). Technological due process. Washington University Law Review, 85(6), 1249-1313.
Colombian Constitutional Court. (2023). Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Proceedings. Bogotá: Constitutional Court of Colombia.
Consiglio Nazionale Forense. (2024). Parere n. 12/2024: Intelligenza Artificiale e Deontologia Forense. Rome: Italian National Bar Council.
Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura. (2014). Deliberazioni sul Processo Civile Telematico (March, June, July, November 2014). Rome: Superior Council of the Magistracy.
Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura. (2022). Relazione sull’Amministrazione della Giustizia 2022. Rome: Superior Council of the Magistracy.
Contini, F., & Cordella, A. (2023). Digital transformation and resilience in civil justice: The Italian experience. International Journal for Court Administration, 14(1), 1-15.
Contini, F., & Lanzara, G. F. (2009). ICT and Innovation in the Public Sector: European Studies in the Making of E-Government. Palgrave Macmillan.
Cordella, A., & Contini, F. (2020). Digital Technologies for Better Justice: A Toolkit for Action. Inter-American Development Bank. https://doi.org/10.18235/0002297
Correia, P., Pereira, S., & Bilhim, J. (2024). Research of innovation and digital transformation in justice: A systematic review. Journal of Digital Technologies and Law, 2(1), 221-250. https://doi.org/10.21202/jdtl.2024.12
Costantino, G., & Sola, A. (2023). The Italian certified email (PEC) system: Legal framework and technical implementation. Computer Law & Security Review, 48, 105787.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Drechsler, W. (2023). Digital governance in developing countries: Challenges and opportunities. Public Administration and Development, 43(2), 89-102.
Dunn Cavelty, M., & Wenger, A. (2022). Cybersecurity Meets Security Studies: Complex Challenges and Competing Agendas. Routledge.
Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s Empire. Harvard University Press.
Eaglin, J. B. (2017). Constructing recidivism risk. Emory Law Journal, 67(1), 59-122.
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. St. Martin’s Press.
European Law Institute. (2024). Model Rules on Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice. Vienna: European Law Institute.
Fabri, M., & Contini, F. (2001). Justice and Technology in Europe: How ICT is Changing the Judicial Business. Kluwer Law International.
Finocchiaro, G., & Della Fina, V. (2023). Digital divide and access to justice in Italy: An empirical analysis. European Journal of Law and Technology, 14(2), 1-24.
Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change. Brookings Institution Press.
Gill, S., & Aldasoro, N. (2023). Digital justice and human security in Latin America: A comparative framework. Latin American Research Review, 58(3), 445-464.
Gutmann, D. (2021). The limits of algorithmic adjudication. Yale Law Journal Forum, 131, 327-349.
Helsper, E. J. (2021). The Digital Disconnect: The Social Causes and Consequences of Digital Inequalities. SAGE Publications.
Herlambang, P. H., Ramli, A., & Khalimy, A. (2023). Judicial resistance to E-Court adoption in Indonesia: An institutional ethnography. Law & Social Inquiry, 48(4), 1034-1059.
Hildebrandt, M. (2015). Smart Technologies and the End(s) of Law: Novel Entanglements of Law and Technology. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hildebrandt, M. (2018). Law as information in the era of data-driven agency. Modern Law Review, 79(1), 1-30.
Indonesian Ministry of Communication and Informatics. (2023). Indonesian Internet Service Provider Association (APJII) Survey 2023. Jakarta: Ministry of Communication and Informatics.
Indonesian Ministry of Education Statistics. (2023). Digital Literacy Survey 2023. Jakarta: Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology.
Indonesian Supreme Court. (2018). Supreme Court Regulation No. 3/2018 on Case Administration in Courts Electronically [PERMA 3/2018]. Jakarta: Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia.
Indonesian Supreme Court. (2018). Secretary of Supreme Court Decree No. 305/SEK/SK/VII/2018 on Pilot Courts for E-Court Implementation. Jakarta: Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia.
Indonesian Supreme Court. (2019). Supreme Court Regulation No. 1/2019 on Case Administration and Court Proceedings in Courts Electronically [PERMA 1/2019]. Jakarta: Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia.
Indonesian Supreme Court. (2020). Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 1/2020 on Guidelines for Carrying Out Duties During COVID-19 Prevention. Jakarta: Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia.
Indonesian Supreme Court. (2023). Judicial Training Center Annual Report 2023. Jakarta: Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia.
Indonesian Supreme Court. (2024). Annual Report: Transforming Indonesian Judiciary Through Digital Innovation. Jakarta: Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia.
Indonesian Supreme Court. (2024). Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 4/2024 on Artificial Intelligence Use in Judicial Work. Jakarta: Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia.
Indonesian Supreme Court Budget Reports. (2019-2023). Annual Budget Execution Reports 2019-2023. Jakarta: Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia.
Ingram, H., & Schneider, A. (2022). Comparative Policy Studies: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges. Edward Elgar Publishing.
ISTAT - Italian National Institute of Statistics. (2023). Digital Economy and Society Statistics 2023. Rome: ISTAT.
Italian Data Protection Authority. (2023). Annual Report 2023: Data Protection in Judicial Systems. Rome: Garante per la Protezione dei Dati Personali.
Italian Ministry of Justice. (2014). Dati Statistici Giustizia Civile 2014. Rome: Ministry of Justice.
Italian Ministry of Justice. (2021). Relazione Sull’amministrazione della Giustizia nell’anno 2021. Rome: Ministry of Justice.
Italian Ministry of Justice. (2023). Statistiche Giudiziarie: Giustizia Civile 2023. Rome: Directorate-General for Statistics and Organizational Analysis.
Italian Supreme Court. (2024). Circolare n. 2/2024: Utilizzo dell’Intelligenza Artificiale Generativa nell’Attività Giudiziaria. Rome: Corte Suprema di Cassazione.
Janssen, M., & van der Voort, H. (2020). Agile and adaptive governance in crisis response: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Information Management, 55, 102180.
Katsh, E., & Rabinovich-Einy, O. (2024). Digital Justice Technology and the Internet of Disputes (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Kemper, J., & Kolkman, D. (2019). Transparent to whom? No algorithmic accountability without a critical audience. Information, Communication & Society, 22(14), 2081-2096.
Kirchner, L., Mattu, S., & Angwin, J. (2023). Machine bias revisited: Predictive algorithms in European criminal justice. Nature Machine Intelligence, 5(2), 145-154.
Kleinberg, J., Lakkaraju, H., Leskovec, J., Ludwig, J., & Mullainathan, S. (2021). Human decisions and machine predictions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(1), 237-293.
Latifiani, D., Nugraha, N. A., Widyawati, A., Khalimy, A., Baiquni, M. I., Ramli, A., & Herlambang, P. H. (2024). The revitalizing Indonesia’s religious courts system: The modernization impacts and potentials of E-Court. Jurnal Hukum, 40(1), 1-13.
Legislative Decree 82/2005. Codice dell’Amministrazione Digitale (Digital Administration Code). Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, n. 112, May 16, 2005 (as amended).
Lupo, R., & Velicogna, M. (2022). The Italian Telematic Civil Process: Evolution, current state and future challenges. International Journal for Court Administration, 13(2), 1-17.
Margetts, H., & Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: A quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 371(1987), 20120382.
Mayson, S. G. (2019). Bias in, bias out. Yale Law Journal, 128(8), 2218-2300.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (1994). The false promise of international institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5-49.
Molina, P., & Rincón, E. (2023). Colombian judge’s use of ChatGPT in custody ruling raises ethical concerns. Colombian Journal of Legal Ethics, 18(2), 245-267.
New York State Bar Association. (2023). Ethics Opinion 1314: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice. New York: NYSBA Committee on Professional Ethics.
O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. Crown Publishing.
Ordre des Avocats de Paris. (2024). Règlement Intérieur: Dispositions Relatives à l’Intelligence Artificielle. Paris: Paris Bar Association.
Owen, T. (2004). Human security—Conflict, critique and consensus: Colloquium remarks and a proposal for a threshold-based definition. Security Dialogue, 35(3), 373-387.
Paris, R. (2001). Human security: Paradigm shift or hot air? International Security, 26(2), 87-102.
Pasquale, F. (2015). The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Harvard University Press.
Passanante, L. (2024). Algorithmic case assignment in Italian courts: Transparency and accountability challenges. Italian Law Journal, 10(1), 87-114.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
PERADI - Indonesian Advocates Association. (2024). Panduan Penggunaan Kecerdasan Buatan dalam Praktik Advokasi [Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence Use in Legal Practice]. Jakarta: PERADI.
Pratiwi, S. J., Steven, & Permatasi, A. D. (2020). The application of e-Court as an effort to modernize the justice administration in Indonesia: Challenges & problems. Indonesian Journal of Advocacy and Legal Services, 2(1), 39-56.
Putra, D. (2020). A modern judicial system in Indonesia: Legal breakthrough of E-Court and E-Legal proceeding. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, 9(2), 275-297. https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.9.2.2020.275-297
Ramos-Maqueda, M., & Chen, J. (2024). The data revolution in justice. World Development, 184, 106573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106573
Re, R. M., & Solow-Niederman, A. (2019). Developing artificially intelligent justice. Stanford Technology Law Review, 22(2), 242-289.
Retnaningsih, S., Nasution, D. L. S., Velentina, R. A., & Manthovani, K. (2020). Pelaksanaan e-Court menurut PERMA Nomor 3 Tahun 2018 tentang administrasi perkara di pengadilan secara elektronik dan e-litigation menurut PERMA Nomor 1 Tahun 2019. Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan, 50(1), 195-220.
Santiadi, K. (2019). Expanding access to justice through e-Court in Indonesia. Prophetic Law Review, 1(1), 75-89.
Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294-308.
Selbst, A. D., & Barocas, S. (2018). The intuitive appeal of explainable machines. Fordham Law Review, 87(3), 1085-1139.
Sidik, F., & Wiratraman, H. P. (2024). Digital justice and access disparities in eastern Indonesia. Indonesia Law Review, 14(2), 187-214.
Silvestri, E. (2023). The digital civil process in Italy: Achievements and persistent challenges. American Journal of Comparative Law, 71(2), 347-379.
Tamanaha, B. Z. (2011). The rule of law and legal pluralism in development. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3(1), 1-17.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400.
UNDP - United Nations Development Programme. (1994). Human Development Report 1994: New Dimensions of Human Security. New York: Oxford University Press.
Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2020). The Digital Divide. Polity Press.
Velicogna, M. (2011). Use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in European judicial systems. In M. Fabri & F. Contini (Eds.), Justice and Technology in Europe: How ICT is Changing Judicial Business (pp. 15-48). Kluwer Law International.
Velicogna, M. (2021). COVID-19 and the judiciary: Accelerating digital transformation. International Journal for Court Administration, 12(3), 1-8.
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the general data protection regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76-99.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. McGraw-Hill.
Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. MIT Press.
World Bank. (2024). Advancing Access to Justice via Information and Communications Technology: A Literature Review. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
Yeung, K. (2019). Responsibility and AI. Council of Europe Study, DGI(2019)05.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Završnik, A. (2020). Criminal justice, artificial intelligence systems, and human rights. ERA Forum, 20(4), 567-583.
Unduhan
Diterbitkan
Terbitan
Bagian
Lisensi
Hak Cipta (c) 2026 Jurnal Paradigma Hukum Pembangunan
Artikel ini berlisensiCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Diperbolehkan atau tidak mempublikasikan tulisan di resopitory instansi penulis
