More than ten years ago, at the 2010 International Association of Procedural Law (IAPL) conference, the focus was on technology and adapting systems of civil procedure to electronic technology (hereinafter “e-technology”). The most recent IAPL Congress, the 16th World Congress for the IAPL, held in Kobe, Japan, asks us to think about “Challenges for Civil Justice as We Move Beyond Globalization and Technological Changes.” I posit here that “moving beyond” would require us to focus on the fundamental ways in which globalization and technology have changed civil justice. Perhaps unsurprisingly, globalization and technology have impacted civil procedure in invidious and fundamental ways.

The global economy produces disputes spanning national borders, and e-technology spurs such transactions. We are now seeing technology not only in ways that shape how litigation is conducted, but also in how civil justice is delivered. Ten years ago, the issue was electronic filings, e-discovery, video-conferencing and proceedings on the Web. The concern was on how technology can aid procedure, increase access to courts, and the development of “social electronic justice” rules. Today, the issues are perhaps more fundamental.

What I would like to focus on here is the more invasive effects of e-technology on civil procedure. Not only is technology changing how we process disputes, but it has also changed our views of what process is due. I argue that technology has also changed some fundamental legal concepts in civil procedure, specifically, American civil procedure. Through the technology lens and the global economy filter, we see how the notion of “consent” has been stretched; “notice” and ideas of “presence” have been modified, and judgments have been replaced by algorithms. If due process is fundamentally notice and the opportunity to be heard, with a decision rendered by an impartial decision maker, then notions of due process itself may have been altered. Lessons drawn from the U.S. context will have resonance in other countries too.

Moving away from the concept of physicality, electronic presence and digital consent have shifted our barometers of notice and opportunity to be heard. And human decision makers may be replaced by artificial intelligence. Protection of the due process rights of the individual may be taking a second seat to sovereignty.