The Crisis of Civil Justice. Criticism from the Access to Justice Movement and the Reform Movement in Latin America

Lillo Lobos, Ricardo

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-95534-2_3

Ricardo Lillo Lobos²⁶

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 97))

189 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, I will provide an account of the idea of the crisis of civil justice in comparative civil procedure literature and from the access to justice movement, claiming the need for a more accessible civil justice. The idea is first to introduce the problem and then to explain why facing this crisis requires a better understanding of the requirements of due process in civil procedure. As I will explain in the second section, this is problematic because providing effective access to justice is a fundamental obligation of the State. Moreover, an effective protection of this right is important to maintain legitimacy of the judicial system, and ultimately, the rule of law. Finally, I focus on the situation of Latin-American and briefly describe the reform efforts urging for a more accessible civil justice in this region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 109.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 139.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 139.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Zuckerman (1999), pp. 12–14. See also: Buhai (2009), p. 1008; Wolf (2012), p. 763; Kiesiläinen (2008), p. 29; Pleasence and Balmer (2012), pp. 36–40.
2.
Genn (2010), pp. 27–29.
3.
There is literature also describing a crisis of relevance of the civil justice. In this regard, even those who might access the civil court are not using it to solve their legal conflicts (or they are using other dispute resolution devices), and in this sense civil justice is becoming increasingly less significant in some legal systems. See, e.g.: Galanter (2006); Genn (2010), pp. 29–38.
4.
Zuckerman (1999), p. 3.
5.
Zuckerman (1999), pp. 10–12.
6.
Kosmin (1976), p. 936.
7.
Pagter et al. (1964), pp. 876–877; Vance (1917), pp. 108–109; Kosmin (1976), p. 936.
8.
See: Cappelletti and Garth (1978).
9.
Sandefur (2009), p. ix.
10.
Zuckerman (1999), p. 12.
11.
In England, these problems influenced a deep judicial reform process. See: Michalik (1999), pp. 156–157. These reforms have been criticized of not being radical enough. See: Zander (1995), pp. 79–96.
12.
See, e.g.: Marcus (1999), pp. 92–95.
13.
Barton and Bibas (2017), p. 65.
14.
Estimating litigation cost is a complex task. An estimation of median costs in several civil cases are available at the National Center for States Courts. Available at: http://www.courtstatistics.org/other-pages/caseload_highlights.
15.
But punitive damages are increasingly being restricted because of the high variability specially in cases decided by civil juries. See: Zuckerman (1999), pp. 19–21. See also: Kagan (2003), pp. 108–109.
16.
Croley (2017), p. 127.
17.
Weinstein (2016), p. 4.
18.
Weinstein (2016), p. 4.
19.
Weinstein (2016), p. 13.
20.
Barton and Bibas (2017), p. 52. In U.S. District courts, pro se litigation represented the 29% of filings in civil cases. Available at: https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2017-tables. In States Courts an accurate estimation of civil cases handled by pro se litigants is difficult, but there are estimations that at least 75% of all civil cases includes at least one pro-se litigant and therefore they represent the majority user of the courts. Available at: https://www.srln.org/node/548/srln-brief-how-many-srls-srln-2015.
21.
Barton and Bibas (2017), pp. 46–43.
22.
Atiyah and Summers (1987), p. 188.
23.
Trebilcock et al. (2012), p. 4.
24.
See: Flynn and Hodgson (2017), pp. 1–22.
25.
Byrom (2017), pp. 221–224.
26.
Nagy (2019), pp. 12–13.
27.
Zuckerman (1999), pp. 13–14.
28.
Nissi et al. (2019), pp. 396–397.
29.
Chiarloni (1999), pp. 264–268.
30.
Silvestri (2014), p. 237.
31.
Chiarloni (2014), p. 771.
32.
Silvestri (2014), p. 237.
33.
Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/cepej-stat.
34.
According to data collected by the CEPEJ, in 2018, 16247 condemnations were decided for excessive length of proceedings for a total of 98,602155 euros. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/country-profiles/italy.
35.
ECHR, The ECHR in Facts & Figures 2018, 2019, pp. 6–8. Available at: https://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports/factsfigures&c=.
36.
Regarding this access to justice barrier in Latin-America, and analyzing several studies which has gathered information in different countries of the region, see: OCCA (2018), pp. 89–94.
37.
Gargarella (2002), pp. 2–12.
38.
OCCA (2018), pp. 40–49, 101–102.
39.
Iberian American Institute of Procedural Law (1988), pp. 17–24.
40.
La Rota et al. (2014), pp. 368–370.
41.
La Rota et al. (2014), pp. 373–393.
42.
Act N° 1564 of 2012.
43.
See, Rueda (2017), pp. 44–57.
44.
Silva and de Barros (2017), p. 24.
45.
Gidi and Zaneti (2021), pp. 56–57.
46.
Trejos (2004), p. 20.
47.
CAPJ (2021), p. 43. This study follows the concept of justiciable problem as defined by Sandefur (2015), p. 443 and based on the groundbreaking work of Genn (1999), p. 12.
48.
CAPJ (2021), pp. 43, 53.
49.
OCCA (2018), pp. 121–122.
50.
OECD (2013).
51.
Zuckerman (1999), pp. 23–25; 43–45.
52.
OECD (2013).
53.
Pleasence and Balmer (2012), pp. 36–40.
54.
OECD and Open Society Foundations (2016), p. 10.
55.
Raz (1995), pp. 371–372.
56.
Raz (1995), p. 378.
57.
Atiyah and Summers (1987), p. 195.
58.
Zuckerman (1999), p. 12.
59.
Solum (2004), pp. 275–276.
60.
Yein (2007), pp. 20–22. For instance, according to Habermas, the legitimacy of a legal system requires a general right to equal liberties (reciprocity), correlative membership rights, and guaranteed legal remedies to enforce legal rights. See: Habermas (1996), pp. 122–125.
61.
Cappelletti and Garth (1978), pp. 181–292, 186–195.
62.
Cappelletti and Garth (1978), pp. 181–292, pp. 187–189. For this authors, every fees system, looser pays everything, or each party pays its fees, may produce barriers to Access to civil justice.
63.
Trebilcock et al. (2012), p. 3.
64.
It was until the Treaty of Lisbon of the European Union which in 2007, which provides this right expressly in its articles 61.4: “The Union shall facilitate access to justice, in particular through the principle of mutual recognition of judicial and extrajudicial decisions in civil matters.”
65.
See, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, CCPR/C/GC/32, 23 August 2007, pp. 3, 4.
66.
I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, par. 54.
67.
ECHR, Case of Golder v. United Kingdom, no. 4451/70, Judgment of 21 February 1975, par. 36.
68.
Cappelletti and Garth (1978), p. 185.
69.
Cappelletti and Garth (1978), pp. 183–186.
70.
Van Dijk and Van Hoof (1998), p. 74.
71.
ECHR, Case of Golder v. United Kingdom, no. 4451/70, Judgment of 21 February 1975, par. 26; I/A Court H.R., Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, par. 201.
72.
For an empirical study on Small Claims Courts, see: Lillo (2016).
73.
Genn (2010), p. 3.
74.
Genn (2010), p. 3.
75.
Genn (2010), p. 11.
76.
Lucy (2020), pp. 381–382.
77.
Which Lucy summarize as holding that rules must be (a) made with some degree of generality; (b) promulgated; (c) consistent; (d) non-retrospective; (e) must not require the impossible; (f) be radically unclear; (g) not contradictory; (h) congruent with official action. Lucy (2020), p. 386. See: Fuler (1969), p. 39.
78.
Rawls (1999), pp. 206–208.
79.
Waldron (2011), pp. 9–11.
80.
Zifcak (2005), p. 36.
81.
Zifcak (2005), p. 36.
82.
Raz (1979), pp. 210–211.
83.
Raz (1979), p. 217.
84.
Lucy (2020), p. 401.
85.
Genn (2010), p. 3. See also: Zangl (2008), pp. 828–830.
86.
Resnik (2014), p. 10.
87.
Cappelletti and Garth (1978), pp. 239–241.
88.
Rhode (2004), p. 8.
89.
Zuckerman (1995), p. 160.
90.
Scanlon (1977), p. 99.
91.
See e.g.: Hammergren (2005).
92.
Soleto and Fandiño (2017), pp. 19–21.
93.
Lillo et al. (2016), pp. 14, 20.
94.
Most procedural regulations come from the Ley de las Siete Partidas, the recompilation of regulations for the Indias in documents like the one called Novísima Recopilación. See: Iberian American Institute of Procedural Law (1988), p. 26, note 16; Couture (2014), pp. 18–20; Duce et al. (2008), p. 13.
95.
This was the case, for example of the Código de Procederes of Bolivia (1830), the Ley de Procedimientos of Ecuador (1835), the Ley de Enjuiciamiento of Venezuela (1836), the so called Leyes Marianas in Chile (1837), and the Código de Procedimiento del Perú (1852). This is the case too of the Spanish Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil of 1855, which was based on old castellan regulations which were in force too on the colonies, and which explain its rapid dissemination in the new procedural regulations of the region, for example in the Chilean Code of Civil Procedure of 1902, still in force. In some other cases (like the Código de Procedimientos Civiles of Perú enacted in 1912 and in force until 1993) the inspiration was mainly the revised version of the Spanish text made in 1881. See: Lira (1984), pp.47–48; Nuñez (2005), p. 175; Couture (2014), pp.18–20; Oteiza (2011), p. 226.
96.
See: Damaška (1986), p. 207. See also: Merryman and Pérez-Perdomo (2007), p. 9–12; Glyn (1999), p. 370.
97.
Damaška (1986), pp. 50–53.
98.
Pereira (2015), p. 95.
99.
Damaška (1986), pp. 50–51.
100.
Vescovi (2006), pp. 21–34.
101.
Cappelletti (1971), p. 853.
102.
Oteiza (2011), p. 229.
103.
Oteiza (2011), p. 229.
104.
Oteiza (2011), p. 233.
105.
Alcalá-Zamora y Castillo (1956), p. 101.
106.
Alcalá-Zamora y Castillo (1956), p. 85.
107.
Couture (1946), p. 154.
108.
See: Levit (1999), pp. 292–301.
109.
Couture (1946), p. 154–155.
110.
Available at: Instituto Iberoamericano de Derecho Procesal (2019) Presentación institucional. http://www.iibdp.org/es/presentacion-institucional/. See also: Langer (2007), p. 642.
111.
Vescovi (2006), p. 10.
112.
Iberian American Institute of Procedural Law (1988), p. 25.
113.
Vescovi (2006), pp. 14, 15.
114.
Pereira (2015), p. 96.
115.
Cappelletti (1971), p. 854.
116.
Iberian American Institute of Procedural Law (1988), p. 32.
117.
Vargas (2007), p. 29.
118.
Vargas (2007), p. 34.
119.
Guilherme et al. (2010), pp. 4–9. As described by Álvarez, nineteenth century law’s apparent egalitarianism in practice favored those in power, the owners and members of the mercantile class. Regarding the dominant ideas of law and legislation during the first half of the nineteenth century, see: Álvarez (1918).
120.
For an empirical research on the practices of non-criminal reforms in Chile, Uruguay, and Perú, see: Ríos (2013), pp. 95–166.
121.
Justice Studies Center of the Americas (2008), p. 9.
122.
In Latin-America, see, e.g.: Justice Studies Center of the Americas (2017), pp. 9–17.
123.
Rowat et al. (1995); Justice Studies Center of the Americas (2017), p. 5. On human rights as a universal aspiration, see, e.g., Kinley (2005), p. 99.

References

Alcalá-Zamora y Castillo N (1956) Calamandrei y Couture. UNAM/RFD 24:81–113
Google Scholar
Álvarez A (1918) Dominant legal ideas in the first half of the century after the French Revolution. In: Various authors. The progress of continental law in the Nineteenth Century. The Continental Legal History Series, vol 11. Association of American Law Schools, Boston, part I, pp 3–18
Google Scholar
Atiyah P, Summers R (1987) Form and substance in Anglo-American law. A comparative study of legal reasoning, legal theory, and legal institutions. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Barton B, Bibas S (2017) Rebooting justice. More technology, fewer lawyers, and the future of law. Encounter Books, New York
Google Scholar
Buhai S (2009) Access to justice for underrepresented litigants: a comparative perspective. Loy Los Angeles Law Rev 42:979–1020
Google Scholar
Byrom N (2017) Cuts to civil legal aid and the identity crisis in lawyering: lessons from the experience of England and Wales. In: Flynn A, Hodgson J (eds) Access to justice and legal aid. Comparative perspectives on unmet legal need. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 221–238
Google Scholar
CAPJ (2021) Necesidades jurídicas y cursos de acción del ciudadano ante las barreras de acceso a la justicia. Informe final. Available at: http://decs.pjud.cl/direccion-de-estudios-realiza-coloquio-sobre-resultados-del-estudio-necesidades-juridicas-y-cursos-de-accion-del-ciudadano-ante-las-barreas-de-acceso-a-la-justicia/
Cappelletti M (1971) Social and political aspects of civil procedure: reforms and trends in western and eastern Europe. Mich Law Rev 69(5):847–886
Article Google Scholar
Cappelletti M, Garth B (1978) Access to justice: the newest wave in the worldwide movement to make rights effective. Buff Law Rev 27:181–292
Google Scholar
Chiarloni S (1999) Civil justice and its paradoxes: an Italian perspective. In: Zuckerman A (ed) Civil justice in crisis. Comparative perspectives of civil procedure. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 263–290
Chapter Google Scholar
Chiarloni S (2014) A comparative perspective on the crisis of civil justice and on its possible remedies. REDP 13:769–796
Google Scholar
Couture E (1946) Las garantías constitucionales del proceso civil. In: Estudios de derecho procesal en honor de Hugo Alsina. EDIAR, Buenos Aires, pp 153–213
Google Scholar
Couture E (2014) Fundamentos del derecho procesal civil, 4th edn. Editorial IBdeF Buenos Aires
Google Scholar
Croley S (2017) Civil justice reconsidered. Toward a less costly, more accessible litigation system. New York University Press, New York
Google Scholar
Damaška M (1986) The faces of justice and state authority. Yale University Press, New Haven
Google Scholar
Duce M, Marín F, Riego C (2008) Reforma a los procesos civiles orales: consideraciones desde el debido proceso y calidad de la información. In: Justicia civil: perspectivas para una reforma en américa latina. Justice Studies Center of the Americas, Santiago, pp 13–94
Google Scholar
European Court of Human Rights (2019) The ECHR in facts & figures 2018. Available at: https://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports/factsfigures&c=
Flynn A, Hodgson J (2017) Access to justice and legal aid cuts: a mismatch of concepts in the contemporary Australian and British legal landscapes. In: Flynn A, Hodgson J (eds) Access to justice and legal aid. Comparative perspectives on unmet legal need. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 1–22
Google Scholar
Fuler L (1969) The morality of law. Revised edn. Yale University Press
Google Scholar
Galanter M (2006) A world without trials. J Disp Resol 2006(1):1–33
Google Scholar
Gargarella R (2002) Too far removed from the people. Access to justice for the poor: the case of Latin America. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.407.7047&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Genn H (1999) Paths of justice: what people do and think about going to law. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Google Scholar
Genn H (2010) Judging civil justice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Gidi A, Zaneti H (2021) The cost of access to justice revisited—the “age of austerity” in Brazilian civil procedure five years later. Winds of change? Univ Miami Inter-Am Law Rev 52(2):49–103
Google Scholar
Glyn T (1999) An historical introduction to modern civil law. Ashgate, Great Britain
Google Scholar
Guilherme L, Pérez Á, Nuñez R (2010) Fundamentos del proceso civil. Hacia una teoría de la adjudicación. AbeledoPerrot, Santiago
Google Scholar
Habermas J (1996) Between facts and norms. Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (Trans: Regh W). The MIT Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Hammergren L (2005) Expanding the rule of law: judicial reform in Latin America. Wash Univ Global Stud Law Rev 4:601–608
Google Scholar
Iberian American Institute of Procedural Law (1988) El Código Procesal Civil Modelo Para Iberoamerica, Montevideo
Google Scholar
Justice Studies Center of the Americas (2008) Justicia civil: perspectivas para una reforma en América Latina. Santiago
Google Scholar
Justice Studies Center of the Americas (2017) Derecho de acceso a la justicia: aportes para la construcción de un acervo latinoamericano. Santiago
Google Scholar
Kagan R (2003) Adversarial legalism. The American way of law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Kiesiläinen J (2008) Effiency and justice in procedural reforms: the rise and fall of the oral hearing. In: van Rhee C, Uzelac A (eds) Civil justice between efficiency and quality: from Ius Commune to the CEPEJ. Intersentia, Oxford, pp 29–46
Google Scholar
Kinley D (2005) The universalizing of human rights and economic globalization. What roles for the rule of law? In: Zifcak S (ed) Globalisation and the rule of law. Routledge, Great Britain, pp 96–118
Google Scholar
Kosmin L (1976) The small claims court dilemma. Hous Law Rev 13:934–982
Google Scholar
La Rota M et al (2014) Ante la justicia. Necesidades jurídicas y acceso a la justicia en Colombia. DeJusticia, Bogotá
Google Scholar
Langer M (2007) Revolution in Latin American criminal procedure: diffusion of legal ideas from the periphery. Am J Comp Law 55:617–676
Article Google Scholar
Levit J (1999) The constitutionalization of human rights in Argentina: problem or promise? Columbia J Transnatl Law 37:281–355
Google Scholar
Lillo R (2016) Access to justice and small claims courts: supporting Latin American civil reforms through empirical research in Los Angeles county, California. Rev Chil de Derecho 43(2):955–986
Article Google Scholar
Lillo R et al (2016) Mecanismos alternativos al proceso judicial para favorecer el acceso a la justicia en América Latina. In: Fandiño M (Coord.) Guía para la implementación de mecanismos alternativos al proceso judicial para favorecer el acceso a la justicia. Justice Studies Center of the Americas, Santiago, pp 11–125.
Google Scholar
Lira B (1984) El derecho indiano después de la independencia en América española: legislación y doctrina jurídica. Historia 19:5–51
Google Scholar
Lucy W (2020) Access to justice and the rule of law. Oxf J Leg Stud 40(2):377–402
Article Google Scholar
Marcus R (1999) Malaise of the litigation superpower. In: Zuckerman A (ed) Civil justice in crisis. Comparative perspectives of civil procedure. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 71–116
Google Scholar
Merryman J, Pérez-Perdomo R (2007) The civil law tradition. An introduction to the legal systems of Europe and Latin America, 3rd edn. Stanford University Press, California
Google Scholar
Michalik P (1999) Justice in crisis: England and Wales. In: Zuckerman A (ed) Civil justice in crisis. Comparative perspectives of civil procedure. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 117–165
Chapter Google Scholar
Nagy CI (2019) Collective actions in Europe. A comparative, economic and transsystemic analysis. SpringerOpen, Switzerland
Book Google Scholar
Nissi E, Giacalone M, Cusatelli C (2019) Soc Indic Res 146:395–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1892-5
Article Google Scholar
Nuñez R (2005) Crónica sobre la reforma del sistema procesal civil chileno (fundamentos, historia y principios). Rev Est Jus 6:175–189. https://doi.org/10.5354/0718-4735.2011.15072
Article Google Scholar
OCCA (2018) Conflictividad civil y barreras de acceso a la justicia en América Latina. Informe de vivienda y tierras. Justice Studies Center of the Americas, Santiago
Google Scholar
OECD (2013) Government at a Glance 2013.
Google Scholar
OECD, Open Society Foundations (2016) Leveraging the SDGs for inclusive growth: delivering access to justice for all. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/governance/delivering-access-to-justice-event.htm
Oteiza E (2011) Disfuncionalidad del modelo proceso civil en América Latina. In: López L (ed) Garantismo y crisis de la justicia. Universidad de Medellín, Medellín, pp 213–241
Google Scholar
Pagter C, McCloskey R, Reinis M (1964) The California small claims court. Cal Law Rev 52(4):876–898
Article Google Scholar
Pereira S (2015) Justice systems in Latin America: the challenge of civil procedure reforms. Leg Inf Manag 15(2):95–99
Google Scholar
Pleasence P, Balmer N (2012) Justiciable problems and the use of lawyers. In: Trebilcock M, Duggan A, Sossin L (eds) Middle income access to justice. University of Toronto Press, Canada, pp 27–54
Chapter Google Scholar
Rawls J (1999) A theory of justice, Revised edition. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Raz J (1979) The authority of law. Essays on law and morality. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Raz J (1995) Ethics in the public domain. Essays in the morality of law and politics, revised edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Resnik J (2014) Reinventing courts as democratic institutions. Daedalus 143(3):9–27
Article Google Scholar
Rhode D (2004) Access to justice. Oxford University Press, New York
Google Scholar
Ríos E (2013) La oralidad en los procesos civiles en América Latina. Reflexiones a partir de una observación práctica. In: Aportes para un diálogo sobre el acceso a la justicia y reforma civil en América Latina. Justice Studies Center of the Americas, Santiago, pp 95–166
Google Scholar
Rowat M, Malik W, Dakolias M (1995) Judicial reform in Latin America and the Caribbean. Proceedings of a World Bank conference. The World Bank, Washington DC
Book Google Scholar
Rueda M (2017) La raíz del Código General del Proceso: una movida concéntrica. In: Cruz H (coord.) El proceso civil a partir del Código General del Proceso, 2^nd edition, Ediciones Uniandes, Bogotá, pp 33–78
Google Scholar
Sandefur R (2009) Access to justice: classical approaches and new directions. In: Sandefur R (ed) Access to justice: sociology of crime, law, and deviance, vol 12, pp ix–xvii
Google Scholar
Sandefur R (2015) What we know and need to know about the legal needs of the public. South Carolina Law Rev 67(2):443–460
Google Scholar
Scanlon T (1977) Due process. In: Pennock R, Chapman J (eds) Due process, Nomos, vol XVIII. New York University Press, New York, pp 94–106
Google Scholar
Silva A, de Barros G (2017) Acesso à justiça no brasil: panorama e perspectivas diante da jurisprudência interna e da corte internacional de direitos humanos. In: Derecho de acceso a la justicia: aportes para la construcción de un acervo latinoamericano. Justice Studies Center of the Americas, Santiago, pp 19–68
Google Scholar
Silvestri E (2014) Italy: civil procedure in crisis. In: van Rhee C, Yulin F (eds) Civil litigation in China and Europe. Essays on the role of the judge and the parties. Springer, Switzerland, pp 235–255
Google Scholar
Soleto H, Fandiño M (2017) Manual de mediación civil. Justice Studies Center of the Americas, Santiago
Google Scholar
Solum L (2004) Procedural justice South Cal Law Rev 78: 181–322
Google Scholar
Trebilcock M, Duggan A, Sossin L (eds) (2012) Middle income access to justice. University of Toronto Press, Toronto
Google Scholar
Trejos D (2004) Civil justice reform in the Americas: lessons from Brazil. Fla J Int Law 16(1):19–27
Google Scholar
Van Dijk P, Van Hoof G (1998) Theory and practice of the European convention on human rights, 3rd edn. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Google Scholar
Vance W (1917) A proposed court of conciliation. Minn Law Rev 1:107–116
Google Scholar
Vargas J (ed) (2007) Nueva justicia civil para Latinoamérica: aportes para la reforma. Centro de Estudios de Justicia de las Américas, Santiago
Google Scholar
Vescovi E (2006) Teoría general del proceso, 2nd edn. Temis, Colombia
Google Scholar
Waldron J (2011) The rule of law and the importance of procedure. Nomos 50:3–31
Google Scholar
Weinstein I (2016) Access to civil justice in America: what do we know? In: Estreicher S, Radice J (eds) Beyond elite law. Access to civil justice in America. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 3–20
Chapter Google Scholar
Wolf M (2012) Collaborative technology improves access to justice. New York Univ J Legis Public Policy 15:759–789
Google Scholar
Yein G (2007) Quality of judicial organization and checks and balances. Intersentia, Antwerp
Google Scholar
Zander M (1995) Why Lord Woolf’s proposed reforms of civil litigation should be rejected. In: Zuckerman A, Cranston R (eds) Reform of civil procedure. Essays on ‘access to justice’. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 79–96
Google Scholar
Zangl B (2008) Judicialization matters! A comparison of dispute settlement under GATT and the WTO. Int Stud Q 52(4):825–854
Article Google Scholar
Zifcak S (2005) Globalizing the rule of law. Rethinking values and reforming institutions. In: Zifcak S (ed) Globalisation and the rule of law. Routledge, Great Britain, pp 32–64
Google Scholar
Zuckerman A (1995) A reform of civil procedure: rationing procedure rather than access to justice. J Law Soc 22(2):155–188
Article Google Scholar
Zuckerman A (1999) Justice in crisis: comparative dimensions of civil procedure. In: Zuckerman A (ed) Civil justice in crisis. Comparative perspectives of civil procedure. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–52
Chapter Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

School of Law, Universidad Adolfo Ibañez, Santiago, Chile
Ricardo Lillo Lobos

Authors

Ricardo Lillo Lobos
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lillo Lobos, R. (2022). The Crisis of Civil Justice. Criticism from the Access to Justice Movement and the Reform Movement in Latin America. In: Understanding Due Process in Non-Criminal Matters. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 97. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95534-2_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95534-2_3
Published: 18 June 2022
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-95533-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-95534-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics