Statizoid

Enforcing contracts: Court automation (0-4) in Libya

Libya: Enforcing contracts: Court automation (0-4) was 0 DB17-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)
0 DB17-20 methodology
World rank
118th
of 188 countries
All-time high
0 DB17-20 methodology
in 2015
All-time low
0 DB17-20 methodology
in 2015
Years of data
5
2015–2019

Enforcing contracts: Court automation (0-4) in Libya, 2015–2019

00.20.40.60.812015201720192015: 0 DB17-20 methodology2016: 0 DB17-20 methodology2017: 0 DB17-20 methodology2018: 0 DB17-20 methodology2019: 0 DB17-20 methodology

Source: World Bank. Measured in DB17-20 methodology.

Analysis

The most recent figure for enforcing contracts: court automation (0-4) in Libya is 0 DB17-20 methodology, measured in 2019. That is the highest value across all 5 years on record.

Libya ranks 118th of 188 countries on this measure, in the middle of the range.

Countries ranked near Libya

  1. 118 Nigeria 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  2. 118 Russia 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  3. 118 Afghanistan 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  4. 118 Algeria 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  5. 118 Angola 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  6. 118 Belarus 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  7. 118 Belgium 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  8. 118 Benin 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  9. 118 Bhutan 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  10. 118 Bolivia 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  11. 118 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  12. 118 Botswana 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  13. 118 Burkina Faso 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  14. 118 Burundi 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  15. 118 Cape Verde 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  16. 118 Cambodia 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  17. 118 Cameroon 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  18. 118 Central African Republic 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  19. 118 Chad 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  20. 118 Comoros 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  21. 118 Democratic Republic of Congo 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  22. 118 Congo 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  23. 118 Cote d'Ivoire 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  24. 118 Dominican Republic 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  25. 118 Ecuador 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  26. 118 Egypt 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  27. 118 Equatorial Guinea 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  28. 118 Eritrea 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  29. 118 Ethiopia 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  30. 118 Gabon 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  31. 118 Gambia 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  32. 118 Ghana 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  33. 118 Guinea 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  34. 118 Guinea-Bissau 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  35. 118 Guyana 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  36. 118 Haiti 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  37. 118 Honduras 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  38. 118 Iraq 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  39. 118 Kuwait 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  40. 118 Kyrgyzstan 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  41. 118 Laos 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  42. 118 Lebanon 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  43. 118 Liberia 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  44. 118 Madagascar 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  45. 118 Mali 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  46. 118 Morocco 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  47. 118 Mozambique 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  48. 118 Myanmar 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  49. 118 Nepal 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  50. 118 Nicaragua 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  51. 118 Niger 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  52. 118 Oman 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  53. 118 Peru 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  54. 118 Philippines 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  55. 118 Qatar 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  56. 118 Sao Tome and Principe 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  57. 118 Senegal 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  58. 118 Sierra Leone 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  59. 118 Somalia 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  60. 118 South Sudan 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  61. 118 Sudan 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  62. 118 Suriname 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  63. 118 Syria 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  64. 118 Tajikistan 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  65. 118 Tanzania 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  66. 118 East Timor 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  67. 118 Togo 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  68. 118 Tunisia 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  69. 118 Palestine 0 DB17-20 methodology compare
  70. 118 Yemen 0 DB17-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 190 places →

More reference data data for Libya

All data for Libya →

Frequently asked questions

What is enforcing contracts: court automation (0-4) in Libya?
Enforcing contracts: court automation (0-4) in Libya was 0 DB17-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest enforcing contracts: court automation (0-4) recorded in Libya?
The highest recorded value was 0 DB17-20 methodology in 2015.
What is the lowest enforcing contracts: court automation (0-4) recorded in Libya?
The lowest recorded value was 0 DB17-20 methodology in 2015.
How does Libya rank for enforcing contracts: court automation (0-4)?
Libya ranks 118th out of 188 countries with data for 2019.
Where does this Libya data come from?
The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Enforcing contracts: Court automation (0-4) (DB17-20 methodology). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

Download this data

CSV · JSON — 5 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).

About this data

Indicator
Enforcing contracts: Court automation (0-4) (DB17-20 methodology)
Unit
DB17-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 950 data points, 2015–2019
Last refreshed

The court automation evaluates four aspects: (i) whether the initial complaint can be filed electronically; (ii) whether the initial complaint can be served electronically; (iii) whether court fees can be paid electronically; and (iv) whether judgments rendered in commercial matters are made available to the public. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.