Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

Business case for acess to justice - Reza Lahidji

18 vues

Publié le

Presentation by Reza Lahidji made at the OECD Global Policy Roundtable on Equal Access to Justice, 28 March 2019.

For more information see www.oecd.org/gov/equal-access-to-justice-oecd-expert-roundtable-portugal-2019.htm

  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Business case for acess to justice - Reza Lahidji

  1. 1. The OECD White Paper Towards a Business Case for Access to Justice Reza LAHIDJI, Advisor to the OECD
  2. 2. Overview Objective: • Characterise the costs of lack of access to justice and/or the benefits of improved access to justice • Assess the extent to which we can estimate these costs and benefits • Wherever possible, propose estimates Scope and method: • Focus on civil and administrative justice • People centric: broad understanding of justice services, focus on inequalities of access • Access to justice seen through the lens of unmet legal needs • Review of findings from legal needs surveys + analysis of WJP data (GPP 2017) • Review of the literature on the benefits of access to justice interventions • Caveats: subjectivity, causal attribution, context dependence, uneven geographical coverage in the literature
  3. 3. 1. Justiciable problems are highly prevalent Share of respondents reporting at least one problem with a level of seriousness of 4 or more. Source: World Justice Project, General Population Poll 2017 + calculations by the author 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Greece Pakistan Portugal CzechRepublic Senegal Italy Brazil Austria Malaysia Nepal BurkinaFaso Estonia Mongolia Ethiopia Finland Afghanistan Malawi NewZealand Serbia Lebanon Tunisia Macedonia,FYR Canada Norway Singapore Chile UnitedStates Denmark Slovenia Coted'Ivoire Ukraine Mexico BosniaandHerzegovina Madagascar Georgia Nicaragua Panama Hungary Kazakhstan Indonesia SriLanka Honduras Vietnam HongKongSAR,China
  4. 4. 2. Disadvantaged groups report more (and more serious) problems Difference between the share of public benefit recipients and the share of other respondents reporting at least one problem with a level of seriousness of 4 or more. Source: World Justice Project, General Population Poll 2017 + calculations by the author -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Chile HongKongSAR,China Mexico Honduras CzechRepublic Georgia BurkinaFaso Estonia Ukraine Mongolia Pakistan Malaysia Austria Ethiopia Norway Lebanon Brazil NewZealand Kazakhstan Indonesia Denmark Nepal Nicaragua Senegal Madagascar Macedonia,FYR Greece Italy Portugal Malawi Panama SriLanka Singapore Canada Slovenia Finland BosniaandHerzegovina Vietnam UnitedStates Serbia Coted'Ivoire Tunisia Hungary Higher prevalence among benefit recipientsHigher prevalence among others
  5. 5. 3. Justiciable problems are associated with severe consequences, particularly when they are unresolved Share of respondents reporting the loss of income or employment as a consequence of a justiciable problem. Source: World Justice Project, General Population Poll 2017 + calculations by the author 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Ethiopia Nicaragua BosniaandHerzegovina Greece Madagascar Serbia Canada Finland Portugal Macedonia,FYR UnitedStates Norway Estonia Honduras Malawi CzechRepublic NewZealand HongKongSAR,China Italy Singapore Panama Mexico Lebanon Denmark Coted'Ivoire Kazakhstan Austria Mongolia Malaysia Afghanistan Vietnam SriLanka Pakistan Georgia Ukraine Slovenia Hungary Brazil Senegal Tunisia Chile Nepal BurkinaFaso Indonesia When legal poblem is unresolved When legal problem is resolved
  6. 6. 3. Justiciable problems are associated with severe consequences, particularly when they are unresolved Share of respondents exposed to violence in the context of a justiciable problem. Source: World Justice Project, General Population Poll 2017 + calculations by the author 0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % Mexico CzechRepublic Austria UnitedStates Lebanon Finland Denmark Canada Nicaragua Chile Madagascar SriLanka Kazakhstan Malaysia Serbia Mongolia Pakistan Portugal NewZealand Afghanistan Greece Estonia Italy Norway Nepal Tunisia Ukraine Singapore Vietnam BosniaandHerzegovina Coted'Ivoire Senegal BurkinaFaso Macedonia,FYR Brazil Slovenia Hungary Malawi Panama Georgia Ethiopia Honduras Indonesia HongKongSAR,China Unresolved problems Resolved problems
  7. 7. 4. The estimated annual costs of justiciable problems range from 0.5% to 3% of GDP in most countries Average costs per respondent are extrapolated to the population aged above 15 in each country, divided by two to account for the period covered by the survey, and divided by the GDP. Source: World Justice Project, General Population Poll 2017 + calculations by the author 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% Lebanon Ethiopia Coted'Ivoire Malawi Greece Nepal Madagascar BosniaandHerzegovina Portugal Senegal Singapore Afghanistan Ukraine Serbia Italy Vietnam Mongolia Macedonia,FYR Canada UnitedStates NewZealand Malaysia Brazil BurkinaFaso Finland Nicaragua CzechRepublic Denmark Norway Honduras Austria Panama Slovenia Kazakhstan Pakistan Tunisia Estonia Hungary Mexico Georgia HongKongSAR,China SriLanka Chile Indonesia Direct costs Costs of employment or income loss Costs of illness
  8. 8. 5. Many people facing a justiciable problem do not have adequate legal capability Share of respondents disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the statement “ I knew where to get good information and advice about resolving my problem”. Source: World Justice Project, General Population Poll 2017 + calculations by the author 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% BurkinaFaso BosniaandHerzegovina Tunisia Senegal Brazil Ethiopia Coted'Ivoire Ukraine Lebanon Norway Honduras Mexico Denmark Mongolia Georgia Malawi Estonia Macedonia,FYR Pakistan Italy Kazakhstan Greece Serbia SriLanka Nepal Finland Nicaragua Singapore Portugal Austria CzechRepublic Chile Malaysia NewZealand Canada Vietnam Panama Madagascar Afghanistan Slovenia UnitedStates Hungary Indonesia HongKongSAR,China
  9. 9. Difference in % of low-income and high-income respondents reporting that they received advice from a professional lawyer or advisor, a government legal aid office, a court, a government body or the police. Low income is defined as the bottom 40% of the survey’s scale and high income as the top 40%. Source: World Justice Project, General Population Poll 2017 + calculations by the author 6. Only a small minority of people – often among the more affluent – receives professional assistance -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% Italy Ukraine UnitedStates Ethiopia Canada Finland Austria Portugal Honduras Chile Vietnam Kazakhstan Singapore Hungary Nepal NewZealand Lebanon Mexico Mongolia Pakistan Denmark Norway SriLanka Tunisia HongKongSAR,China Malaysia Georgia Panama Brazil Estonia Macedonia,FYR Slovenia Indonesia Coted'Ivoire Greece CzechRepublic Serbia Nicaragua Senegal Madagascar Malawi BurkinaFaso Afghanistan BosniaandHerzegovina Higher share for low incomeHigher share for high income
  10. 10. Share of justiciable problems for which action has been initiated in front of a court, a government body or the police (formal), or religious authorities or any other form of mediator (other). Source: World Justice Project, General Population Poll 2017 + calculations by the author 7. Justice institutions and alternative settlement processes are seldom used 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Afghanistan Ethiopia UnitedStates Panama Greece Madagascar Slovenia Lebanon Canada SriLanka CzechRepublic Austria Italy Portugal Nicaragua Malaysia Tunisia Serbia NewZealand Denmark BosniaandHerzegovina Brazil Singapore Macedonia,FYR Chile Pakistan Honduras Kazakhstan Mexico Estonia Coted'Ivoire Vietnam Norway BurkinaFaso Finland Ukraine HongKongSAR,China Malawi Indonesia Hungary Nepal Georgia Mongolia Senegal Formal process Other
  11. 11. Share of respondents who have resolved a justiciable problem through a process that they deem fair Source: World Justice Project, General Population Poll 2017 + calculations by the author 8. There are considerable unmet legal needs in almost all surveyed countries 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% HongKongSAR,China Panama Afghanistan Chile Honduras Indonesia Pakistan Nicaragua Brazil Slovenia Mexico BurkinaFaso Madagascar Greece UnitedStates Malaysia Serbia Canada Hungary Coted'Ivoire Malawi Senegal Vietnam Kazakhstan BosniaandHerzegovina Nepal Denmark CzechRepublic Austria Lebanon Italy Ethiopia Estonia Singapore Portugal Tunisia Ukraine Finland NewZealand Georgia Norway Macedonia,FYR SriLanka Mongolia Formal settlement process Other
  12. 12. 9. Investing in access to justice alleviates the burden of legal problems on citizens The burden imposed by legal problems can be efficiently reduced by targeted investments in justice, including: • legal aid to provide representation for clients with low legal capability and with complex legal needs • “unbundled” legal assistance (legal information, specialised assistance, support in administrative processes) for simpler cases (more limited evidence on the effectiveness of self-help) • the development of ADR mechanisms when conditions are appropriate (willingness to participate, balance in power, existence of safeguards) • technology and court modernisation (depending on the reallocation of resources) • court specialisation when justified by the number and importance of cases.
  13. 13. 10. Investing in access to justice contributes to more inclusive societies Interventions directed towards disadvantaged groups of the population such as the poor or immigrants generate direct benefits for their recipients and contribute to more inclusive societies. These include: • full representation to address situations of vulnerability (such as evictions) • specialised assistance when full representation is not available • community legal centres • integrated assistance such as medical-legal or employment-legal services. The evidence however points to targeted benefits for these groups and serious challenges when it comes to meeting multiple needs.
  14. 14. 11. Investing in access to justice reduces violence and its associated costs Interventions targeting the victims of violence and the perpetrators of violent acts are effective in addressing a key factor of injustice with long-lasting impacts of societal welfare. Of particular interest in this respect are: • integrated assistance services to the victims of crime and violence • restorative approaches.
  15. 15. 12. Investing in access to justice is a channel towards better governance Investments in access to justice can be a channel towards better governance: • legal literacy campaigns, legal advice and consultation can help tackling local situations of corruption and injustice, including in informal justice systems • paralegals and legal aid programmes have contributed to closing the gap between formal and actual rights in certain cases, e.g. when new rights are created (post-conflict situations, legislation on equal rights between men and women) • paralegals and legal empowerment CSOs can build on their local work to trigger legal and institutional change – particularly when bottom-up solutions are implemented jointly with top-down reforms.
  16. 16. Limitations 1. The inherent limitations of legal needs surveys 2. The uneven basis of evidence 3. From access to justice to legal needs • Access to justice: the capacity of people to enforce their substantive rights • Unmet legal need: a lack of legal capability in addressing a justiciable problem that is not matched by adequate assistance • Difference in scope • Systematic failures of justice institutions / Lack of coverage of certain individual or groups by the law / Inadequacies in the resolution of disputes • Civil / criminal • Opportunity costs for individuals • Opportunity costs for societies

×