{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020639147802929428, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.036144578313253, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Alternative dispute resolution in digital government

A significant number of people around the world have difficulties with access to justice, and most of the legal conflicts do not reach the consideration by public authorities. Nowadays e-justice and law tech are removing some barriers. The workload in the courts has increased all over the world. The problem of “not everyone can go to the court” turns into a problem of “not everyone will receive a quality service in the court”. The solution can be Digital Dispute Resolution (DDR) as an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) option. The analysis of ADRs in different countries showed that most states use classical conflict resolution methods. However, some countries are implementing online dispute resolution (ODR) which is not able to change the situation significantly and prevent a “docket explosion” in the justice. One possible way to change the situation is to integrate ADR into digital government. The authors have substantiated the necessity of developing DDR and analyzed the difference between this technology and e-justice. The DDR systems are being tested in some countries, but it used in the highly specialized cases, for example, in the smart contract disputes. The proposed ADR system describing in the article has to be integrated with digital government. The authors present main DDR principles and prove that the Artificial Intelligence disputes conclusion is not a part of justice and should be regarded exclusively as ADR.