Access to Justice & Civil Remedies

The “justice gap” affects more than five billion people worldwide, according to recent UN estimates, yet the concept defies simple quantification. Access is multidimensional: it involves affordability, availability, approachability, and adaptability. Traditional court-centric metrics—filings per capita, clearance rates—catch only a fraction of unmet legal need. Innovative household surveys, such as the WJP’s General Population Poll, reveal that employment, family, and land disputes dominate ordinary people’s legal problems; criminal matters form only a small slice.

Barriers exist along a continuum. Cost and complexity deter litigants even in high-income states: in England, median civil-case costs can exceed claim values for disputes under £10 000. Geographic and linguistic hurdles marginalise rural and minority populations. Legal-empowerment deficits—low knowledge of rights and procedures—further skew outcomes toward the powerful.

Reform experiments cluster around three strategies. First, simplification and triage: small-claims tracks, plain-language forms, and online portals reduce procedural drag. Second, alternative dispute resolution (ADR): community paralegals, mediation centres, and hybrid customary-state mechanisms provide culturally resonant pathways. Randomised evaluations in Kenya and Liberia show that community-based paralegals can secure enforceable agreements at a fraction of court costs while enhancing perceptions of fairness. Third, technology-driven legal aid: AI chatbots and document-assembly tools democratise basic legal assistance, though digital divides persist.

Scholars caution that technological optimism must not obscure structural inequities. Courts that digitise filings without fee waivers may worsen exclusion. Sustainable access therefore requires holistic ecosystems that couple user-centred design with upstream policies—living wages, fair contracts—that prevent disputes. Measuring success demands people-centred indicators: time-to-resolution, user satisfaction, and compliance with outcomes. When civil-remedy systems meet these standards, they convert law from an abstract promise into a tangible public good.