Multiple Dimensions of Inequality and Compound Intersectionality in ICT-Mediated Access to Justice
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: this study proposes a multidimensional analytical framework that encompasses both organizational and individual dimensions to examine access to justice mediated by information and communication technologies (ICTs), with a particular focus on the intersectional effects of citizens’ disadvantages. Debates about access to justice amid digital transformation have become increasingly relevant, especially in settings marked by high levels of inequality. Compound intersectionality has been recognized as an important analytical lens for ICT-mediated access to justice; however, a gap remains in integrating digital technological conditions into existing intersectional analytical models. Methods: the framework was developed through a systematic literature review and then applied, for validation, in a case study of family court proceedings at a Brazilian tribunal. Results: the findings identified intersectional effects in ICT-mediated access to justice, primarily associated with female gender, low income, low educational attainment, and Black racial identity, along with one case indirectly involving a person with a disability. Conclusions: the framework made digital technological conditions visible and foregrounded the role of intermediary actors in the analysis. The multidimensional framework proved analytically productive in surfacing intersectional effects and in exposing the limitations of digital inclusion measures that fail to address citizens in their full complexity.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Agrifoglio, R., Lepore, L., & Metallo, C. (2013). Measuring the success of e-justice: A validation of the DeLone and McLean model. In P. Spagnoletti (Ed.), Organizational change and information systems (Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation, Vol. 2). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37228-5_9
Arias, I. & Maçada, A. C. G. (2020). Judiciaries’ modernisation through electronic lawsuits: Employees’ perceptions from the Brazil and Argentina federal justice services. Information Development. Vol. 36 n° 1. http://repositoriodigital.uns.edu.ar/handle/123456789/4775
Bala, S., & Singhal, P. (2018). Gender digital divide in India: A case of inter-regional analysis of Uttar Pradesh. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 16(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-07-2017-0046
Bailey, J., Burkell, J., & Reynolds, G. J. (2013). Access to justice for all: Towards an expansive vision of justice and technology. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, 31(2). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2605462
Bedner, A., & Vel, J. (2010). An analytical framework for empirical research on access to justice. Law, Social Justice & Global Development Journal, 15(1). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239855859_An_analytical_framework_for_empirical_research_on_Access_to_Justice
Blank, G., & Groselj, D. (2014). Dimensions of internet use: Amount, variety, and types. Information, Communication & Society, 17(4), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.889189
Brooke, H. (2004). The legal and policy implications of courtroom technology: The emerging English experience. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 12, 699–728. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol12/iss3/7/
Conselho Nacional de Justiça. (2023). Programa das Nações Unidas para o Desenvolvimento Pesquisa sobre percepção e avaliação do Poder Judiciário brasileiro. Conselho Nacional de Justiça. https://www.cnj.jus.br/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/relatorio-pesquisa-percepcao-e-avaliacaodo-pjb.pdf
Contini, F., & Cordella, A. (2007). Information systems and information infrastructure deployment: The challenge of the Italian e-justice approach. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 5(1), 43–52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30529676_Information_system_and_information_infrastructure_deployment_The_challenge_of_the_Italian_e-justice_approach
Corvalán, J. G., & Sá Zeichen, G. (2018). Justicia 4.0: El uso de inteligencia artificial para acercar la justicia a los ciudadanos. In Justicia abierta: Aportes para una agenda en construcción. SAIJ. http://www.bibliotecadigital.gob.ar/items/show/1818
Crenshaw, K. (2002). Documento para o encontro de especialistas em aspectos da discriminação racial relativos ao gênero. Revista Estudos Feministas, 10(1), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-026X2002000100011
Dobe, D. (2016). Contesting essentialism: The role of pluralism and intersectionality in access to justice. Queen Mary Law Journal, 7(Special Conference Issue), 125–134. https://www.qmul.ac.uk/law/research/journals/the-queen-mary-law-journal/media/law/docs/research/Contesting-Essentialism.pdf
Dobransky, K., & Hargittai, E. (2016). Unrealized potential: Exploring the digital disability divide. Poetics, 58, 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.08.003
Donoghue, J. (2017). The rise of digital justice: Courtroom technology, public participation and access to justice. The Modern Law Review, 80(6), 995–1025. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12300
Dussan, C. C., & Avellaneda, M. B. (2018). Acceso a la justicia alternativa: Un reto complejo. Utopía y Praxis Latinoamericana, 23(2), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1802160
Fabri, M. (2021). Will COVID-19 accelerate implementation of ICT in courts? International Journal for Court Administration, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.384
Gontijo, D. C. A. (2015). O direito fundamental de acesso à justiça. LTr.
Hamedanian, F., & Arjmand, R. (2026). Access to justice for immigrant women facing domestic violence in Sweden. Social & Legal Studies, 35(1), 98–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/09646639251330499
Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v7i4.942
Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital inequality: Differences in young adults’ use of the internet. Communication Research, 35(5), 602–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208321782
Hughes, P. (2013). Advancing access to justice through generic solutions: The risk of perpetuating exclusion. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, 31(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.22329/wyaj.v31i1.4308
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. (2023). Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios Contínua Anual: 4º trimestre de 2023. https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/tabela/7334
Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada. (2004). O Que é? - Índice de Gini. Desafios do Desenvolvimento. https://www.ipea.gov.br/desafios/index.php?option=com_content&id=2048:catid=28
Junqueira, E. B. (1996). Acesso à justiça: Um olhar retrospectivo. Estudos Históricos, 9(18), 389–402. https://periodicos.fgv.br/reh/article/view/2025
Kistemaker, L. (2021). Rechtwijzer and Uitelkaar.nl: Dutch experiences with ODR for divorce. Family Court Review, 59(2), 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12570
Legg, M., & Song, A. (2021). The courts, the remote hearing and the pandemic: From action to reflection. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 44(1). UNSW Law Research Paper No. 21-55. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3863754
Leitch, J. (2025). Technology and access to justice: Virtual justice or just virtual? In Building Better Futures: Promoting Hope and Resilience Through Law and Advocacy (Vol. 76). https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/unblj/article/view/35950
Lozanovska, I., & Shapkoski, V. (2021). Access to justice in the time of pandemic: Functioning of legal aid forms in North Macedonia. Journal of Liberty and International Affairs, 7(3), 84–98. https://doi.org/10.47305/JLIA21170070shl
Marche, S., & McNiven, J. D. (2003). E-government and e-governance: The future isn’t what it used to be. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.2003.tb00306.x
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), Article 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
Moraes, C. M., Alencar, N. P. R., & Siqueira, N. S. (2019). Processo judicial em meio eletrônico e ampliação do acesso à justiça. Revista do Tribunal Superior do Trabalho, 85(3), 118–154. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12178/165764
Mulcahy, L., & Tsalapatanis, A. (2022). Exclusion in the interests of inclusion: Who should stay offline in the emerging world of online justice? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 44(4), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2136713
Murray, K. M. (2021). Achieving Digital Equity in Access to Justice. Legal Services Society of British Columbia. https://legalaid.bc.ca/sites/default/files/inline-files/Murray_2021_LABC_Achieving_Digital_Equity_Final_Report.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). Equal Access to Justice for Inclusive Growth: Putting People at the Centre. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2019/03/equal-access-to-justice-for-inclusive-growth_a69ac7da/597f5b7f-en.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). OECD economic surveys: Brazil 2023. OECD Publishing. https://static.poder360.com.br/2023/12/ocde-estudo-brasil-18dez2023.pdf
Palombella, G. (2020). Access to justice: Dynamic, foundational, and generative. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3609152
Park, S., & Humphry, J. (2019). Exclusion by design: Intersections of social, digital and data exclusion. Information, Communication & Society, 22(7), 934–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1606266
Pearce, K. E., & Rice, R. E. (2013). Digital divides from access to activities: Comparing mobile and personal computer internet users. Journal of Communication, 63(4), 721–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12045
Prescott, J. J. (2017). Improving access to justice in state courts with platform technology. Vanderbilt Law Review, 70(6), 1993–2050
Pukdeewut, A., & Setthasuravich, P. (2024). Bridging the third-level digital divide: Socio-demographic determinants of digital outcomes in Thailand. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 18(4). https://ojs.sbbwu.edu.pk/fwu-journal/index.php/ojss/article/view/3487
Rampim, T., & Igreja, R. L. (2022). Acesso à justiça e transformação digital: Um estudo sobre o Programa Justiça 4.0 e seu impacto na prestação jurisdicional. Direito Público, 19(102). https://doi.org/10.11117/rdp.v19i102.6512
Rankin, Y., Thomas, J., & Erete, S. (2021). Black women speak: Examining power, privilege, and identity in CS education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 21(4), Article 26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3451344
Razmetaeva, Y., & Razmetaev, S. (2021). Justice in the digital age: Technological solutions, hidden threats and enticing opportunities. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 4(2), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-4.2-a000061
Reiling, D., & Contini, F. (2022). E-justice platforms: Challenges for judicial governance. International Journal for Court Administration, 13(1), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.445
Resolução n. 299 de 05 de novembro de 2019. (2019). Dispõe sobre o sistema de garantia de direitos da criança e do adolescente vítima ou testemunha de violência, de que trata a Lei nº 13.431, de 4 de abril de 2017. Conselho Nacional de Justiça. https://atos.cnj.jus.br/atos/detalhar/3110
Resolução n. 354, de 19 de novembro de 2020. (2020). Dispõe sobre o cumprimento digital de ato processual e de ordem judicial e dá outras providências. Conselho Nacional de Justiça. https://atos.cnj.jus.br/atos/detalhar/3579
Riggins, F. J., & Dewan, S. (2005). The digital divide: Current and future research directions. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 6(12). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00074
Rossner, M., Tait, D., & McCurdy, M. (2021). Justice reimagined: Challenges and opportunities with implementing virtual courts. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 33(1), 94-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2020.1859968
Santos, B. S. (1997). Pela mão de Alice: O social e o político na pós-modernidade (3ª ed.). Cortez.
Scheerder, A., Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2017). Determinants of internet skills, uses and outcomes: A systematic review of the second- and third-level digital divide. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1607–1624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.07.007
Schmitz, A. J. (2019). Expanding access to remedies through e-court initiatives. Buffalo Law Review, 67(1), 89–140. https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol67/iss1/3
Schmitz, A. J. (2020). Measuring access to justice in the rush to digitalize. Fordham Law Review, 88(6), 1981–2012. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol88/iss6/11
Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. Crown Business.
Sen, A. (2008). Desigualdade reexaminada (2ª ed.). Record.
Sen, A., & Kliksberg, B. (2010). As pessoas em primeiro lugar: A ética do desenvolvimento e os problemas do mundo globalizado. Companhia das Letras.
Simons, H. (2014). Case study research: In-depth understanding in context. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 455–470). Oxford University Press.
Shi, C., Sourdin, T., & Li, B. (2021). The smart court: A new pathway to justice in China? International Journal for Court Administration, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.367
Tangi, L., Janssen, M., Benedetti, M., & Noci, G. (2021). Digital government transformation: A structural equation modelling analysis of driving and impeding factors. International Journal of Information Management, 60, Article 102356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102356
Ter Voert, M., Pivaty, A., & Marique, E. (2022). Access to justice in the digital era. Recht der Werkelijkheid, 43(2), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.5553/RdW/138064242022043002001
Torlig, E. G. S., & Gomes, A. O. (2021). A urgência de repensar o acesso à justiça no século XXI: Antigos problemas, grandes desafios e novas oportunidades. In Anais do Encontro de Administração da Justiça. https://www.enajus.org.br/anais/assets/papers/2021/sessao-18/1-a-urgencia-de-repensar-o-acesso-a-justica-no-seculo-xxi-antigos-problemas-grandes-desafios-e-novas-oportunidades.pdf
Tribunal de Justiça do Maranhão. (2023). Consulta das publicações: Íntegra da lei orçamentária e dos QDD internos. https://www.tjma.jus.br/transparencia/portal/pessoal/arquivos-gerenciador-conteudo/proposta-orcamentaria/lei-orcamentaria
Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & Helsper, E. J. (2015). The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online? In L. Robinson, S. R. Cotten, & J. Schulz (Eds.), Communication and information technologies annual (Vol. 10, pp. 29–52). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2050-206020150000010002
Wallace, A. (2008). Virtual justice in the bush: The use of court technology in remote and regional Australia. Journal of Law, Information and Science, 19(1), 1–21. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/agispt.20103834
Warner, J. (2020). Judging in a time of COVID. Family Court Review, 58(4), 965–967. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12529
Watanabe, K. (2019). Acesso à ordem jurídica justa: Conceito atualizado de acesso à justiça, processos coletivos e outros estudos. Del Rey.
Wei, K.-K., Teo, H.-H., Chan, H. C., & Tan, B. C. Y. (2011). Conceptualizing and testing a social cognitive model of the digital divide. Information Systems Research, 22(1), 170–187. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23015630
Williams, R. J. (2021). Taking a shot: Access to justice, judging and eCourt. Family Court Review, 59(2), 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12574
Young, K. M., & Billings, K. R. (2023). An intersectional examination of U.S. civil justice problems. Utah Law Review, 2023(3), 487–540. https://doi.org/10.26054/0d-zv1c-rh2z