Online first
Artículos

Decentralised Justice: How Kleros Empowers Jurors in Online Dispute Resolution

PDF HTML
  • Nicolas Kyriakides,
  • Eva Manolova,
  • Nicoletta Zacharopoulos
Nicolas Kyriakides
Assistant Professor, Director of the Procedural Law Unit, University of Nicosia
Eva Manolova
Research Associate, Procedural Law Unit, University of Nicosia
Nicoletta Zacharopoulos
Research Associate, Procedural Law Unit, University of Nicosia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37417/rivitsproc/3338

Published 2026-04-15

Keywords

  • decentralised justice,
  • kleros,
  • judicial artificial intelligence,
  • digital dispute resolution

How to Cite

Kyriakides, N., Manolova, E., & Zacharopoulos, N. (2026). Decentralised Justice: How Kleros Empowers Jurors in Online Dispute Resolution. Revista Ítalo-Española De Derecho Procesal, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.37417/rivitsproc/3338

Copyright (c) 2026 Nicolas Kyriakides, Eva Manolova, Nicoletta Zacharopoulos

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

This paper argues that decentralised justice, as exemplified by Kleros, offers complementary model to judicial AI by combining partial automation with transparent, human-centred decision-making. While not a substitute for courts, decentralised systems highlight how transparency, proportionality, and visible human oversight can mitigate risks of opacity, bias and legitimacy loss in digitally enabled justice.

PDF HTML

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Aditya, A., & Kumar, H. The Symphony of Smart Contracts & Blockchain Arbitration: Automating Justice in Decentralized Systems. Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume V Issue III| ISSN, 2583, 0538.
  2. Aljinovi?, N. (2024). Artificial intelligence in judicial decision-making: challenges of bias and lack of transparency of predictive algorithms. ORGANIZER, 782.
  3. Assy, R., & Higgins, A. (Eds.). (2020). Principles, Procedure, and Justice: Essays in Honour of Adrian Zuckerman. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198850410.001.0001
  4. Bannon, A. L., & Keith, D. (2020). Remote court: principles for virtual proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Nw. UL REv., 115, 1875.
  5. Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big data’s disparate impact. Calif. L. Rev., 104, 671. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2477899
  6. Bergolla, L., Seif, K.& Eken, C. 37 (2022). Kleros: A Socio-Legal Case Study of Decentralized Justice & Blockchain Arbitration. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 55-98 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3918485
  7. Capasso, V. (2024). For an…«Artificially Intelligent» Process: When Access to Justice and Efficient Court Management go Hand in Hand. International Journal of Procedural Law, 14(2), 245-272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/30504856-14020002
  8. Carnat, I. (2024). Addressing the risks of generative AI for the judiciary: The accountability framework (s) under the EU AI Act. Computer Law & Security Review, 55, 106067. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106067
  9. Contini, F., & Lanzara, G. F. (2014). The circulation of agency in e-justice. Interoperability and Infrastructures for European. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7525-1
  10. Costabel, A. M. (2023). The Future of Online Justice According to Susskind: From COVID-19 Emergencies to Global Platforms. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 15(1), 79-86.
  11. Cohen, J. E. (2021). From lex informatica to the control revolution. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 36(3), 1017-1050.
  12. Donoghue, J. (2017). The rise of digital justice: Courtroom technology, public participation and access to justice. The Modern Law Review, 80(6), 995-1025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12300
  13. Dhungel, A. K., & Beute, E. (2024). AI systems in the judiciary: amicus curiae? Interviews with judges on acceptance and potential use of intelligent algorithms.
  14. Desai, A. (2024). Integrating Smart Contracts with Hybrid Online Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in Cross-Border Commercial Transactions. Jus Corpus LJ, 5, 194.
  15. De Filippi, P., Wray, C., & Sileno, G. (2021). Smart contracts. Internet Policy Review, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.2.1549 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.2.1549
  16. Dancy, T., & Zalnieriute, M. (2025). AI and Transparency in Judicial Decision Making. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, gqaf030. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5331491
  17. Engstrom, D. F. (2021). Digital civil procedure. U. Pa. J. Const. L., 23, 2178.
  18. Fabri, M. (2021). Will COVID-19 accelerate implementation of ICT in courts? In IJCA (Vol. 12, p.1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.384
  19. Fine, A., Berthelot, E. R., & Marsh, S. (2025). Public Perceptions of Judges’ Use of AI Tools in Courtroom Decision-Making: An Examination of Legitimacy, Fairness, Trust, and Procedural Justice. Behavioral Sciences, 15(4), 476. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15040476
  20. Fomin, V. V., & Astromskis, P. (2023). The Black Box Problem. Future Law, Ethics, and Smart Technologies, 112-125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004682900_012
  21. Gabuthy, Y. (2023). Blockchain-based dispute resolution: insights and challenges. Games, 14(3), 34.
  22. Galindo Ayuda, F. (2025). Literacy, Judicial Justice and Artificial Intelligence. Revista Democracia Digital e Governo Eletrônico, Florianópolis, 1(24), 2-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5130279
  23. Greenstein, S. (2022). Preserving the rule of law in the era of artificial intelligence (AI). Artificial Intelligence and Law, 30(3), 291-323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-021-09294-4
  24. Gabuthy, Y. (2023). Blockchain-based dispute resolution: insights and challenges. Games, 14(3), 34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/g14030034
  25. Henckel, K. (2023). Issues of conflicting laws – a closer look at the EU’s approach to artificial intelligence. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht, 2023(2), 199-226. Article NIPR 2023-12.
  26. Ilchyshyn, N. (2025). Impact of digitalisation on the justice system: Challenges of administrative justice. Social and Legal Studios, 2(8), 238-247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32518/sals2.2025.238
  27. Jaodun, M., & Bouafia, K. (2025). Analysis and Evaluation of a Blockchain-Based Framework for Decentralized Rental Agreements and Dispute Resolution. Blockchains, 3(2), 8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/blockchains3020008
  28. Kozlova, M. Y., & Davydova, M. L. (2024). Digital Technology in Courts as a Tool for Smart Regulation: Opportunities and Risks. In Ecological Footprint of the Modern Economy and the Ways to Reduce It: The Role of Leading Technologies and Responsible Innovations (pp. 207-211). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49711-7_36
  29. Kamalova, J. (2024). Exploring Blockchain-Based Alternative Dispute Resolution: Limitations of Traditional Methods and Prospects for Further Research. Harv. Negot. L. Rev., 29, 87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4748761
  30. Langbroek, P. M. (2019). Why judges should be in control: IT’s and Artificial Intelligence may improve courts services but are no panacea for backlogs and speeding up proceedings. The Court Administrator, 5, 22-25.
  31. Landfried, C. (1992). Judicial policymaking in Germany: The federal constitutional court. West European Politics, 15(3), 50-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402389208424920
  32. Maag, L., Jagielski, B., Pyers, Z., & Steele, K. (2022). The Use of Crowdsource Funding and Game Theory in the Decentralized Arbitration Process. Int’l. In-House Counsel J., 15, 7917.
  33. McKay, C. (2020). Predicting risk in criminal procedure: actuarial tools, algorithms, AI and judicial decision-making. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 32(1), 22-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2019.1658694
  34. Mefford, A. (1997). Lex informatica: Foundations of Law on the Internet. Ind. J. Global Legal Stud., 5, 211.
  35. Moyaux, T., & McBurney, P. (2012). Centralized vs. market-based and decentralized decision Kozlova, M. Y., & Davydova, M. L. (2024). pp.207-208.
  36. Novakovi?, M. (2022). A review of the efficiency of justice and other elements of the 2022–2025 CEPEJ action plan: “Digitalisation for a better justice”. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56461/ZR_22.DUKPP.15
  37. Prescott, J. J. (2024). Next Steps in Online Courts: Accelerating Access to Justice Through Court Technology. Alaska L. Rev., 41, 93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5156564
  38. Piers, M. (2025). ADR in the Age of NFTs: Smart Disputes, Smarter Justice!. In Routledge Handbook of NFT Law (pp. 318-341). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032690667-26
  39. Poncibò, C., Gangemi, A., & Ravot, G. S. (2024). Blockchain justice: Exploring decentralising dispute resolution across borders. JL, Mkt. & Innovation, 14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5050702
  40. Reiling, D., & Contini, F. (2022). E-justice platforms: Challenges for judicial governance. In IJCA (Vol. 13, p. 1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.445
  41. Reidenberg, J. R. (1997). Lex informatica: The formulation of information policy rules through technology. Tex. L. Rev., 76, 553.
  42. Rodríguez, A. M. L. (2021). Applicable law to smart contracts and lex cryptographia. Cuadernos Derecho Transnacional, 13, 441. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20318/cdt.2021.5966
  43. Sela, A. (2019). e-Nudging justice: the role of digital choice architecture in online courts. J. Disp. Resol., 127.
  44. Surden, H. (2022). Values embedded in legal artificial intelligence. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 41(1), 66-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2022.3147542
  45. Sourdin, T. (2018). Judge v Robot?: Artificial intelligence and judicial decision-making. University of New South Wales Law Journal, The, 41(4), 1114-1133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53637/ZGUX2213
  46. Toohey, L., Moore, M., Dart, K., & Toohey, D. (2019). Meeting the access to civil justice challenge: Digital inclusion, algorithmic justice, and human-centred design. Macquarie LJ, 19, 133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3438538
  47. van Domselaar, I. (2022). Inquiry and Imagination in Adjudication: The Case of Digitalisation. Neth. J. Legal. Phil., 51, 187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5553/NJLP/221307132022051002008
  48. Von Eschenbach, W. J. (2021). Transparency and the black box problem: Why we do not trust AI. Philosophy & technology, 34(4), 1607-1622. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00477-0
  49. Waseem; Sharma, Anupam; Kumar, Akhil. (2023). Transforming Access to Justice in the Digital Age: The Role of E-Courts. NUJS J. Regul. Stud., 8, 43.
  50. Wachter, S. (2023). Limitations and loopholes in the EU AI Act and AI Liability Directives: what this means for the European Union, the United States, and beyond. Yale JL & Tech., 26, 671. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4924553
  51. Wright, A., & De Filippi, P. (2015). Decentralized blockchain technology and the rise of lex cryptographia. Available at SSRN 2580664. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2580664
  52. Zeggari, M., Lambiotte, R., Abadi, A., & Kassab, M. (2023, March). An efficient and decentralized blockchain-based commercial alternative. In 2023 IEEE 20th International Conference on Software Architecture Companion (ICSA-C) (pp. 231-238). IEEE. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSA-C57050.2023.00057
  53. Zhuk, A. (2023). Applying blockchain to the modern legal system: Kleros as a decentralised dispute resolution system. International Cybersecurity Law Review, 4(3), 351-364. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1365/s43439-023-00086-x
  54. Zhuk, A. (2025). Enhancing online dispute resolution through natural language processing: a case study of kleros. International Cybersecurity Law Review, 6(4), 599-625. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1365/s43439-025-00161-5

Update cookies preferences