Conference on Innovation within the Judiciary
On 9 March 2023, the Council for the Judiciary organized a conference on innovations within the judiciary, which took place in the building of the Dutch Supreme Court. The central conference theme was judicial innovation and what we can learn from various forms of socially effective justice (‘maatschappelijk effectieve rechtspraak’) in practice. Researchers affiliated with the Leiden research group on Institutions for Conflict Resolution (COI) also contributed to the conference.
After the opening of the conference by Ariane Dorsman (member of the Council for the Judiciary), the Dutch Minister for Legal Protection Franc Weerwind had the floor. President of the Supreme Court Dineke de Groot also addressed the conference participants, in her case via a video message. Subsequently, Robine de Lange (President of the District Court of The Hague and chair of the Innovation steering group) updated the participants on innovations within the judiciary and the various streams in which innovation takes place: simple civil proceedings, multi-problems, debt management and complex divorces.
Another refreshing contribution was the keynote speech by Paul Iske (Institute for Brilliant Failures), who discussed the upside of failures of, for example, innovative pilots. He showed that failures offer learning opportunities, provided that the attempt is preceded by a vision, and emphasized the importance of involving the persons for whom you are trying to come up with a solution. The parallel between the squirrel bridge Iske showed (where an expensive bridge was built over a busy road to allow squirrels to cross from one half of the forest to the other half, but after two years had been used by exactly one squirrel) and involving litigants in judicial innovations was easy to draw.
Subsequently, the conference theme was discussed in more detail during various parallel sessions. In the morning there were parallel sessions about decompartmentalization (in which one judge handles all legal problems of a litigant), setting realistic goals and managing expectations for innovations, and about the role of the judge in a broader perspective. Miranda Boone also took part in this last parallel session as the leader of the research group on Institutions for Conflict Resolution. She raised the question of whether judges can actually live up to all the problem-solving expectations put in them, what risks for judicial legitimacy could arise if this turns out not to be the case according to (some of) the parties involved, and whether other institutions should not make a collective effort at conflict resolution during the earlier stages of conflicts.
In the afternoon, there were parallel sessions on the role of expert (non-judicial) members in in administrative law benches, the future of criminal law, and the role of the judiciary in front portals that help litigants to choose between different routes to a solution of their (legal) problem. The latter panel included Rogier Hartendorp who, in addition to his position as judge, is affiliated with the research group on Institutions for Conflict Resolution. Rogier also took part in the closing plenary panel discussion in which panel members had discussions with each other and with the audience, taking several propositions relating to innovations within the judiciary as a point of departure. This discussion raised several important questions, such as what social effectiveness exactly means, how this can be measured properly, and what the role of the judge is or should be in this regard. Rogier called for socially effective justice, but expressed his worries regarding a lack of growth and national implementation. Thus, the conference provided not only insight into socially effective justice, but also a lot of food for thought.