إصدار

مجلد 3 عدد 2 (2023)

مؤتمر: الجوانب القانونية للتحول الرقمي 2023

العدالة الإجرائية واستخدام التكنولوجيا والذكاء الاصطناعي في الإجراءات عن بُعد والإجراءات عبر الإنترنت

https://doi.org/10.54873/jolets.v3i2.156
شهاب الدين إسماعيل
محامي تسوية المنازعات الدولية

Corresponding Author(s) : شهاب الدين إسماعيل

shehabeldineismail@gmail.com

مجلة القانون والتكنولوجيا , مجلد 3 عدد 2 (2023)

الملخص

في عالم متغير ومتطور تكنولوجياً، فإننا، الأن، لدينا فرصة لتعظيم مبدأ سيادة القانون وتسهيل اللجوء للعدالة، ولنكون أكثر عملية وكفاءة، بالإضافة لتقليل التكاليف وإدخال أنواع مطالبات جديدة. ومن أجل إصدار أحكام نافذ، فإنه يجب على المحاكم الوطنية وكذلك هيئات التحكيم أو هيئة قانون أخرى أن تحافظ على الحد الأدنى من مستوى الضمانات القانونية الأساسية سواء من حيث الإجراءات أو في الموضوع أو فيما يتعلق بالإجراءات اللاحقة على إصدار الحكم. ففي العقود القليلة الماضية، كانت تتعرض أي إجراءات لسوء استخدام مبدأ العدالة الإجرائية وشهدنا ما يسمى "ببارانويا العدالة الإجرائية". ومؤخراً، ظهر هذا التحدي مجدداً، وأي استخدام لوسائل التكنولوجية الحديثة يجب ألا يضر بأي حماية قانونية إجرائية للأفراد. إننا، اليوم، نتحدى المواءمة بين الماضي والمستقبل، ويجب على رجال القانون أن يكونوا حريصين للغاية على احترام جميع الحقوق الدستورية والأساسية في إدارة عملية العدالة بأكملها. تركز هذه المقالة على التحديات الحالية لمبدأ العدالة الإجرائية في الإجراءات عن بُعد وإجراءات تسوية النزاعات عبر الإنترنت والإجراءات الإلكترونية الحديثة.

الكلمات المفتاحية

Procedural Due Process Online and Remote Proceedings Common International Due Process International and National Procedural Public Policy Enforceable Awards العدالة الإجرائية الإجراءات عبر الإنترنت والإجراءات عن بُعد دولية العدالة الإجرائية النظام العام الإجرائي الوطني والدولي الأحكام النافذة
شهاب الدين إسماعيل . (2023). العدالة الإجرائية واستخدام التكنولوجيا والذكاء الاصطناعي في الإجراءات عن بُعد والإجراءات عبر الإنترنت. مجلة القانون والتكنولوجيا, 3(2), 131–174. https://doi.org/10.54873/jolets.v3i2.156
تنزيل الاقتباسات
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
المراجع
  1. Decisions:
  2. Egyptian Court of Cassation, no. 1088/51, 31 January 1985.
  3. Cairo Court of Appeal (91 com.), no. 4/120 and 5/120, 28 January 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1994.00091.x
  4. Egyptian Court of Cassation, no. 10132/78, 11 may 2010.
  5. Cairo Court of Appeal (7 com), no. 31/133, 7 December 2016.
  6. Cass., Civ. (1), 3 Août 1915, 00-02.37.
  7. Cass., Civ., 25 Mai 1948.
  8. Cass., Civ., 21 Juin 1950.
  9. Cass., Civ. (20, 2 Septembre 2015, 14-11.676.
  10. Cass., Civ. (1), 1 Juin 2017, 16-17.744.
  11. Cass., Civ. (3), 8 Mars 2018, 16-15.437. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MSPEC.2018.8423575
  12. Cass., Com., 28 Mars 2018, 16-24.150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2018.06.011
  13. Cass., Civ. (1), 14 Novembre 2018, 17-21.697.
  14. Cass., Civ. (3), 12 Novembre 2020, 19-18.208.
  15. Cass., Civ. (1), 22 Mars 2023, 21-16.238.
  16. Frank v. Magnum, 237 U.S. 309, 347 (1915).
  17. Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Societe Generale de L’Industrie du Papier (RAKTA), 508 F.2d 969, US Court of Appeals (2d Cir. 1974).
  18. Paperworkers v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 43, U.S. Supreme Court (1987).
  19. Telenor Mobile Communications AS v. Storm LLC, 584 F.3d 396, 411, US Court of Appeals, (2d Cir. 2009).
  20. OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corporation, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, No. 19-20011, 6 April 2020.
  21. PAO Tatneft v. Ukraine, United States District Court, District of Columbia, 24 August 2020.
  22. Davies v. Davies, [1887] 36 Ch. D. 359, 364.
  23. Tampico Beverages, Inc. v. Productos Naturales de la Sabana S.A. (Alquería), Corte Suprema de Justicia, Civil Cassation Chamber, SC9909-2017, 12 July 2017.
  24. Carpatsky Petroleum Corporation v PJSC Ukrnafta, UK High Court of Justice, Commercial Court, Case No. CL-2016-000547, 31 March 2020.
  25. Dunav Re A.D.O. Beograd v. Dutch Marine Insurance B.V., Gerechtshof, The Hague, Case No. 200.223.489/01, 17 April 2018 (Netherlands).
  26. Vijay Karia & ORS. v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL & ORS, the Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Civil Appeal no. 1544 OF 2020, 13 February 2020.
  27. Singapore International Commercial Court, [2023] SGHC(1) 10, 31 May 2023.
  28. Methanex Corp. v. United States of America, NAFTA, Final Award, 54 (Aug. 3, 2005).
  29. Libananco Holdings Co. Ltd. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/ 06/ 8, Decision on Preliminary Issues, 72 (June 23, 2008).
  30. Books:
  31. Theodore Parker, Ten Sermons of Religion, III, justice and the conscience, Turn and Do Justice, Tobit xiii.6., (Harvard college library 1853).
  32. Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, (trans. F. Gaynor 1949).
  33. Al-Tabary (1st edition, Al-Resala publishers 1994), Beirut.
  34. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd edition The University of Chicago Press 1996) DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226458106.001.0001
  35. Ibn Kathir (1st edition, Ibn Hazm publishers 2000), Beirut.
  36. Colin Rule, Online Dispute Resolution for Business, B2B, E-Commerce, Consumer, Employment, Insurance, and Other Commercial Conflicts, (Jossey-Bass 2002).
  37. Benjamin Constant, Principles of Politics Applicable to All Governments, Etienne. Hofman (ed), (Liberty Fund Inc. 2003).
  38. Yves Derains, Eric A. Schwartz, A Guide to the ICC Rules of Arbitration (2nd edition, Kluwer Law International 2005).
  39. Al-Kortoby (1st edition, Al-Resala publishers 2006), Beirut.
  40. Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell, Fairness versus Welfare, (Harvard University Press 2006).
  41. Ahmed Abulwafa, Civil and Commercial Procedures, (Al-Wafaa publisher 2007), Alexandria, Egypt.
  42. Matti S. Kurkela, Due Process in International Commercial Arbitration (2nd edition, Oxford University Press 2010).
  43. Chester Brown and Kate Miles (eds), Evolution in Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration (Cambridge University Press 2011). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139043809
  44. Armin von Bogdandy and Ingo Venzke (eds), International Judicial Lawmaking: On Public Authority and Democratic Legitimation in Global Governance (Springer 2012). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29587-4
  45. Douglas Birsch, Introduction to Ethical Theories; A Procedural Approach (Waveland Press 2014).
  46. Giacinto Della Cananea, Due Process of Law Beyond the State, Requirements of Administrative Procedure (Oxford University Press 2016). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198788386.001.0001
  47. Ola Johan Settem, Applications of the 'Fair Hearing' Norm in ECHR Article 6(1) to Civil Proceedings (Springer 2016). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24883-7
  48. Charles T. Kotuby Jr. and Luke A. Sobota, General Principles of law and International Due Process, Principles and Norms Applicable in Transnational Disputes (CILE Studies, Oxford University Press 2017).
  49. Maud Piers and Christian Aschauer (eds), Arbitration in the Digital Age, The Brave New World of Arbitration (Cambridge University Press 2018). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108283670
  50. Richard Susskind, Online Courts and the Future of Justice (Oxford University Press 2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198838364.001.0001
  51. Haukur Logi Karlsson, Conceptualising Procedural Fairness in EU Competition Law (HART 2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509935444
  52. Daniel J. Gervais (ed), Fairness, Morality and Ordre Public in Intellectual Property (Edward Elgar 2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839104374
  53. Maxi Scherer, Niuscha Bassiri and Mohamed S. Abdel Wahab (eds), International Arbitration and the COVID-19 Revolution (Kluwer Law International 2020)
  54. Hisham Zowin, the Economic court and the new electronic lawsuit, explanation of economic court (Dar Al-Kanoun 2020).
  55. Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration (3rd edition, Kluwer Law International 2021).
  56. Richard Susskind and Danial Susskind, The Future of the Professions. How Technology will transform the Work of Human Experts (Oxford University Press 2022).
  57. Ricardo Lillo Lobos, Understanding Due Process in Non-Criminal Matters, how to Harmonize Procedural Guarantees with the Right to Access to Justice (Springer 2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95534-2
  58. Isabel Lischewski, Lawful by Design; Measuring Procedural Justice in Global Governance (Cambridge University Press 2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009039529
  59. Abdel Monem Zamzam, International Investment Law (Dar Misr 2022-2023).
  60. Franco Ferrari, Friedrich Jakob Rosenfeld and Dietmar Czernich (eds), Due Process as a Limit to Discretion in International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2023).
  61. David Freeman Engstrom (ed), Legal Tech and the Future of Civil Justice (Cambridge University Press 2023). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009255301
  62. Articles, researches and papers:
  63. Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, ‘Globalization of Arbitral Procedure’, (oct 2003), Vol 36/4, Vanderbilt Journal of. Transnational Law.
  64. Yves Derains and Eric A. Schwartz, ‘Due process paranoia and the procedural judgment rule: a safe harbour for procedural management decisions by international arbitrators’ (July 2016) Vol 32/3 Arbitration International, Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiw020
  65. Rémy Gerbay, ‘Due Process Paranoia’, (June 2016) Kluwer Arbitration Blog.
  66. Rémy Gerbay and Badar Al Raisi ‘Due Process Paranoia (part 2) Assessing the Enforcement Risk under the English Arbitration Act’, (February 2017) Kluwer Arbitration Blog.
  67. Micheal Polkinghorne and Benjamin Ainsley Gill, ‘Due Process Paranoia: Need We Be Cruel to Be Kind’, (2017), Vol 34/6, Journal of International Arbitration, Kluwer Law International. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/JOIA2017044
  68. Lucy Reed, ‘Ab(use) of due process: sword vs shield’ (2017), Vol 33/3 Arbitration International, Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aix022
  69. Rutger Metsch and Rémy Gerbay, ‘Prospect Theory and Due Process Paranoia: what behavioural models say about arbitrators’ assessment of risk and uncertainty’ (2020), Vol 36/2 Arbitration International Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiaa017
  70. Jasmine Feng and Benjamin Teo, ‘Judicial Support against Due Process in International Arbitration’, (June 2020), Kluwer Arbitration Blog.
  71. William Lucy, ‘Access to Justice and the Rule of Law’, (2020), Vol 40/2, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqaa012
  72. Simon Sloane and Emily Wyse Jackson, ‘Due Process and Procedural Irregularities: Challenges’ (June 2021), Global Arbitration Review.
  73. LAU, Louis Yi Hang. ‘Two steps forward, one step back? An attempt to cure due process paranoia’, (2021), 1, (1), 17-35. Singapore Law Journal (Lexicon).
  74. Koji Takahashi, ‘Exclusion of Arbitral Procedure from the Scope of Public Policy Scrutiny as a Measure to Curb Due Process Paranoia, a Proposal under the UNCITRAL Model Law’, (2021), Vol. 29.3, Michigan State International Law Review.
  75. Tamara D. Bogdanova and Svetlana S. Simonova, ‘the use of artificial intelligence and information technology in the training and professional activities of lawyers’, (August 2021), Vol 11/1 (20th Annual Conference), Journal of Legal and Economic Research, Mansura University.
  76. Mahmoud Elhagrasy, ‘Towards an Electronic Egyptian Civil Judiciary’, (October 2022), Vol 2/2, Journal of Law and Emerging Technologies (JOLETS).
  77. Robert Bradshaw, ‘Arbitration Tech Toolbox: Cross Examination? There’s an App for that’, (February 2023), Kluwer Arbitration Blog.
  78. Ahmed Mohamed Essam, ‘electronic litigation procedures in the economic court’, the Law Journal (ISSN: 2537-0758).
  79. News, reports and press releases:
  80. Lord Neuberger, the President of the UK Supreme Court, Justice – Tom Sargant Memorial Lecture, Justice in an Age of Austerity, October 2013.
  81. Queen Mary University of London and white & Case LLP, International Arbitration: Improvement and Innovation in International Arbitration, the executive summary, 2015.
  82. The ‘Procedural Manual for Remote Litigation’, the Ministry of Justice, the Saudi Arabia.
  83. The Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedom, Legal comment on the conclusion of extension of remands’ hearings remotely, a published report.
  84. Doug Clark and Elizabeth Chan, Notice-ably Wrong: The Importance of Proper Notice in Arbitration Proceedings, Tanner de Witt, September 2023.
Read More

السيرة الشخصية للمؤلف

شهاب الدين إسماعيل، محامي تسوية المنازعات الدولية

مجلة القانون والتكنولوجيا هي مجلة بحثية علمية مُحكمة ومتخصصة،تصدر بصورة نصف سنوية، تأسست في كلية القانون بالجامعة البريطانية في مصر في عام 2020. وهي تغطي جميع الجوانب القانونية ذات الصلة بالتكنولوجيا، بما في ذلك على سبيل المثال لا الحصر، الاقتصاد الرقمى، والتقاضى الإلكترونى، والتكنولوجيا الحيوية وقانون الخصوصية، التجارة والمعاملات الإلكترونية والجرائم الإلكترونية، وقانون الفضاء، وقانون الاتصالات والإنترنت.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
Share |
تنزيل هذا الملف
PDF (ENGLISH)
Statistic
Read Counter : 1035 Download : 311

التنزيلات

بيانات التنزيل غير متوفرة بعد.