Modularising the adjudicative encounter
Procedural differentiation and institutional continuity in Chinese online litigation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2767Keywords:
Online adjudication, modularisation, courtroom presence, procedural configuration, ChinaAbstract
Online adjudication is often analysed through contrasts between physical and remote participation, or through the coexistence of online and offline modes. This article examines a more granular institutional transformation: how procedural rules make components of the adjudicative encounter separately configurable while preserving their legal continuity. Using a theory-informed socio-legal documentary analysis of Chinese online-litigation rules from 2018–2022, the article identifies three linked patterns: regulated separability across participants and procedural stages; bounded temporal separability for selected activities; and selective institutional reconstitution through authentication, spatial and role qualification, procedural classification, and common records. These findings support the concept of the modularisation of adjudicative space. Modularisation is distinguished from hybridity and procedural-justice evaluation: it identifies the rule-governed relationship between procedural differentiation and institutional continuity. China is used as a theory-revealing institutional case, not as a universal model of digital justice.
Downloads
Metrics
Global Statistics ℹ️
|
86
Views
|
13
Downloads
|
|
99
Total
|
|
References
Ahl, B., and Tieben, H., 2015. Modern Chinese court buildings, regime legitimacy and the public. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law [online], 28(3), 603–626. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-015-9416-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-015-9416-y
Belloni, P., Jaspaert, E., and de Vocht, D., 2025. Presence, proximity and participation: Online court communication from a procedural justice perspective. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice [online], 33(1–2), 154–186. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-bja10069 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-bja10069
Branco, P., Casaleiro, P., and Dias, J. P., 2025. (Re)inventing the house of justice: From courthouse buildings to the metaverse. Cronos: Revista da Pós-Graduação em Ciências Sociais, 26(1), 82–94. Available at: https://doi.org/10.21680/1982-5560.2025v26n1ID35867 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21680/1982-5560.2025v26n1ID35867
Cappelletti, M., and Garth, B., 1978. Access to justice: The newest wave in the worldwide movement to make rights effective. Buffalo Law Review, 27, 181–292.
Contini, F., and Reiling, D., 2022. Double normalization: When procedural law is made digital. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 12(3), 654–688. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1305 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1305
de Vocht, D., and Jacobs, P., 2024. Can remote trials be fair trials? Exploring the potential effects of communication technology in the criminal justice context from an interdisciplinary perspective. Tilburg Law Review [online], 29(2), 1–9. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5334/tilr.383 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/tilr.383
Dubuc, C., and Sobański, K., 2026. Transforming attendance at the International Criminal Court: Judicial approaches to remote participation of witnesses and the accused. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2683 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2683
Dumoulin, L., and Licoppe, C., 2016. Videoconferencing, New Public Management, and organizational reform in the judiciary. Policy & Internet [online], 8(3), 313–333. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.124 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.124
Esko, T., 2025. Designing technology for legal work: A case study on boundaries and legal expertise. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 15(4), 1425–1449. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2263 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2263
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), 2023. Fundamental rights of older people: Ensuring access to public services in digital societies [online]. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2023/older-people-digital-rights
Flower, L., 2025. Virtual justice rituals: A sociological examination of the transition from physical presence to virtual participation. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice [online], 33(1–2), 64–83. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-bja10065 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-bja10065
Gao, W., and Xu, L., 2025. Online courts in China: A new hybrid model for access to justice. The China Review, 25(1), 75–106.
Genn, H., 1999. Paths to justice: What people do and think about going to law. Oxford: Hart.
He, X., and Feng, J., 2021. Unfamiliarity and procedural justice: Litigants’ attitudes toward civil justice in southern China. Law & Society Review [online], 55(1), 104–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12525 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12525
Hedler, L., 2024. Risk and danger in the introduction of algorithms to courts: A comparative framework between EU and Brazil. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 14(5), 1315–1336. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1859 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1859
McKay, C., 2018. The pixelated prisoner: Prison video links, court “appearance” and the justice matrix. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315111506
Mulcahy, L., 2008. The unbearable lightness of being? Shifts towards the virtual trial. Journal of Law and Society [online], 35(4), 464–489. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2008.00447.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2008.00447.x
Mulcahy, L., 2011. Legal architecture: Justice, due process and the place of law. Abingdon: Routledge.
Mulcahy, L., and Tsalapatanis, A., 2022. Exclusion in the interests of inclusion: Who should stay offline in the emerging world of online justice? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law [online], 44(4), 455–476. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2136713 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2136713
Mulcahy, L., and Tsalapatanis, A., 2024. Digital justice: Engineering disadvantage? [online]. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65265-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65265-3
Poulin, A. B., 2004. Criminal justice and videoconferencing technology: The remote defendant. Tulane Law Review, 78, 1089–1167.
Rossner, M., 2021. Remote rituals in virtual courts. Journal of Law and Society [online], 48(3), 334–361. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12304 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12304
Rossner, M., and Tait, D., 2023. Presence and participation in a virtual court. Criminology & Criminal Justice [online], 23(1), 135–157. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958211017372 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958211017372
Rowden, E., and Wallace, A., 2018. Remote judging: The impact of video links on the image and the role of the judge. International Journal of Law in Context [online], 14(4), 504–524. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552318000216 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552318000216
Trevaskes, S., 2004. Propaganda work in Chinese courts: Public trials and sentencing rallies as sites of expressive punishment and public education in the People’s Republic of China. Punishment & Society [online], 6(1), 5–21. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474504039087 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474504039087
Trevaskes, S., 2007. Courts and criminal justice in contemporary China. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Turner, J. I., 2025. Rethinking courtroom presence in the virtual era. Indiana Law Journal [online], 101(1), 1–52. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol101/iss1/1
Tyler, T. R., 2006. Why people obey the law. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400828609
Wang, Z., and Chew, M. M., 2025. A new way to justice? Multimodal meaning construction in videoconferencing technology-based online criminal courts in China. Social Semiotics [online], 35(1), 18–35. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2023.2247354 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2023.2247354
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Lingxiang Chen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence and it regulates how others can use your work. Further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
