Abstract
AbstractAre certain characteristics of dispute resolution procedures associated with higher levels of procedural justice? We address this question through a quantitative analysis of real-world experiences of 194 professional legal representatives with the objection procedures of 81 Dutch administrative authorities. In our analysis, two general procedural characteristics are taken into account: the involvement of an independent third party and the extent to which the procedure is focused on the conciliation of competing interests. The involvement of an independent third party was not associated with higher levels of procedural justice. Procedures that were perceived to be more focused on the conciliation of competing interests were evaluated as more procedurally just, even more so in disputes where the administrative authority was perceived to have a higher degree of discretion and in disputes that ended in a negative result for the litigant.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Law,Sociology and Political Science,Anthropology
Reference64 articles.
1. Amsler, L. B., Martinez, J. K., & Smith, S. E. (2020). Dispute system design: Preventing, managing, and resolving conflict. Stanford University Press.
2. Anderson, R., & Otto, A. L. (2003). Perceptions of fairness in the justice system: A cross-cultural comparison. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 31(6), 557–563.
3. Ansems, L. F. M. (2021). Procedural justice on trial: A critical test of perceived procedural justice from the perspective of criminal defendants. Department of Law, Economics and Governance, Utrecht University.
4. Ansems, L. F. M., van den Bos, K., & Mak, E. (2020). Speaking of justice: A qualitative interview study on perceived procedural justice among defendants in dutch criminal cases. Law & Society Review, 54(3), 643–679.
5. Asimow, M. (2015). Five models of administrative adjudication. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 63(1), 3–31.