Fifteen years ago, the digitalisation of civil procedure was put on the agenda in Norway by the new Dispute Act. Only now, though, does e-justice appear to be gaining ground. The article sketches out the existing e-justice elements in the Dispute Act and outlines the new test schemes for electronic communication and paperless court hearings. It then tries to explain why so little has happened over the last 15 years. Against this background, the potential of e-justice reform of Norwegian civil procedure is discussed, along with the challenges it faces.
This article grows out of a symposium on the experiences of the judicial system in Norway and other countries during the Second World War. It considers the experience of Fascist Italy and the Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway and Sweden) during this period, with a special emphasis on anti-Jewish laws and persecutions. The article also considers the role of legal positivism, if any, in contributing to the abuses of this period, and the lessons for future lawyers.
As with other family law regimes, Muslim family law in Egypt plays an important role in shaping gender norms. In this article, I discuss adjudication by family courts during the period 2008-2013. I argue that the most important developments in this regard are: (1) standardisation of the way in which court rulings are written down, which contributed to a normalisation of the male-dominated nuclear family; and (2) the significant inclusion of Islamic sources in court rulings. A central question in this regard is how judges without a background in classical Islamic jurisprudence have applied the modern legal codes derived from shari‘a. I argue that a move towards greater standardisation of practice has taken place through a closer union between law and religious morality, with Quranic verses and the Sunna being used by judges in creative ways. Thus, shari‘a is continuously reinscribed in state law and its meaning construed in ways which differ from classical Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh). I also highlight the importance of key contextual factors, such as judicial training, time pressure, and the influence of computer technology, behind these developments.