Digital Marriage and Divorce: Legality Versus Digital Solutions

  • Kristi Joamets


Rapid developments in several relations between a citizen and a state have raised a question about the possibility to apply the whole digitalised system to administrative deeds, including contracting marriage and confirming divorce. Technology must be in conformity with law, not only with procedural law but also with substantial law. On the other hand, society must be open to innovations, including to the new values and traditions influencing the attitudes related to family matters. Society's reluctance to accept new ideas can lead to a situation in which a digital solution is not applicable because of an outdated substantive law. The article analyses which legal problems can arise in the digitalisation of marriage and divorce and discusses if those problems would be the impediments to ensuring the legality of the procedure. By this analysis, many questions can arise and would need an answer; for example, is it possible to control certain data, wills and conditions? How does one give explanations and avoid fraud? Are marriage and divorce deeds with similar legal and social meaning to put them into the digital form? Should the traditional marriage and divorce models be replaced by the digital one, or should they exist concurrently? How ready is society in such a novel digital thought at all?


European Union Population Register Family Event County Government Legal Meaning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Books and articles

  1. Aikins SK, Krane D (2010) Are public officials obstacles to citizen-centered E-government? An examination of municipal administrators’ motivations and actions. State Local Gov Rev 42(2):87–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antokolskaia MV (2003) Developments of family law in Western and Eastern Europe: common origins, common driving forces, common tendencies. J Fam Hist 28:52–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradley D (2003) Comparative law, family law and common law. Oxf J Leg Stud 23(1):127–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coe A, Paquet G, Roy J (2001) E-governance and smart communities. A social learning challenge. Soc Sci Comput Rev 19(1):80–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. D’Angelo A (2014) Re-thinking family law: a new legal paradigm for stepfamilies? In: Boele-Woelki K, Detloff N, Gephart W (eds) Family law and culture in Europe. Developments, challenges and opportunities. Intersentia, pp 217–227Google Scholar
  6. Detloff N (2003) Arguments for the unification and harmonisation of family law in Europe. In: Boele-Woelki K (ed) Perspectives for the unification and harmonisation of family law in Europe. Intersentia, Antwerp-Oxford-New York, pp 37–64Google Scholar
  7. Garrison M, Scott ES (2012) Legal regulation of twenty-first-century families. In: Garrison M, Scott ES (eds) Marriage at the crossroads. Law, policy, and the brave new world of twenty-first-century families. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 303–326Google Scholar
  8. Gurtin GG (2010) Free the data!: E-governance for megaregions. Public Works Manage Policy 14(3):307–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hamelink CJ (1997) New information-communication technologies, social development and cultural change, UNRISD Discussion Paper No. 86Google Scholar
  10. Joamets K (2012) Marriage capacity, social values and law-making process. Int Comp Law Rev 12:97–115. Palackỳ UniversityGoogle Scholar
  11. Joamets K (2013) Gender as an impediment of marriage, free movement of citizens, and EU charter of fundamental rights. In: Kerikmäe T (ed) Protecting human rights in the EU. Controversies and challenges of the charter of fundamental rights. Springer, pp 91–106Google Scholar
  12. Joamets K (2014) Civil status registration – more than data collection: EU digital development in promoting the free movement of civil status document. In: Kerikmäe T (ed) Regulating eTechnologies in the European Union. Normative realities and trends. Springer, Cham-Heidelberg-New York-Dordrecht-London, pp 141–156Google Scholar
  13. Kim PS (2005) Introduction: challenges and opportunities for democracy, administration and law. Int Rev Adm Sci 71(1):99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lal R, Haleem A (2002) E-governance: an emerging paradigm. J Bus Perspect 99–109Google Scholar
  15. Lifshitz S (2012) The pluralistic vision of marriage. In: Garrison M, Scott ES (eds) Marriage at the crossroads. Law, policy, and the brave new world of twenty-first-century families. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 260–286Google Scholar
  16. Macedo S (1998) Sexuality and liberty: making room for nature and tradition? In: Estlund DM, Nussbaum C (eds) Sex, preference and family: essays on law and nature. Oxford University Press, New York, 86-10Google Scholar
  17. Mason MA, Fine MA, Carnochan S (2001) Family law in the new millennium: for whose families? J Fam Issues 22(859):859–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Needham C (2014) The difficult relationship between family law and families. North East Law Rev 2:37–44Google Scholar
  19. Oostveen AM, van den Besselaar P (2007) Non-technical risks of remote electronic voting. Idea Group Inc., AmsterdamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peters M (2013) The democratic function of the public sphere in Europe. German Law J 14(5):673–694Google Scholar
  21. Sörgjerd C (2012) The European Union’s Council of Europe’s and human rights’ perspectives on changing cohabitation models. Reconstructuring marriage. The legal status of relationships in a changing society. Intersentia, Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland, pp 275–311Google Scholar
  22. Stark B (2013) International law from the bottom up: fragmentation and transformation. Univ Pa J Int Law 34(4):687–742Google Scholar
  23. Willekens H (2003) Is contemporary western family law historically unique? J Fam Hist 28(70):70–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar

List of other documents

  1. Proposal of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses by simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the European Union and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012, COM(2013) 228 final 2013/0119 (COD).Google Scholar
  2. European Commission. Green Paper to Promote Free Movement of Public Documents and Recognition of the Effects of Civil Status Records. COM(2010) 747 final, 14. December 2010.Google Scholar
  3. United Nations E-Government Survey 2014, E-Government for the Future We Want. New York: United Nations. 2014, Bridging a digital divide (Chapter 6).Google Scholar
  4. Digital Agenda Scoreboard. Available at: (25.02.2015).
  5. Estonian Information Society Policy 2013.Google Scholar

Legal acts

  1. Estonian Name Law Act RT 2005, 1, 1.Google Scholar
  2. Estonian Consular Act RT I 2008, 29,175. 30.10.2013.Google Scholar
  3. Estonian Population Register Act RT I 2000, 50, 317. 18.06.2014.Google Scholar
  4. Estonian International Private Law Act RT I 2002, 35, 2017.Google Scholar
  5. Estonian Family Law RT I 2009, 60, 395. 29.06.2014, 104.Google Scholar
  6. Estonian Vital Statistics Registration Act RT I 2009, 30, 177. 29.06.2014, 6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tallinn Law School, Tallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations