ALGORITHMS IN THE COURTS: IS THERE ANY ROOM FOR A RULE OF LAW?
Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. The Rule of Law in Times of Digital Technologies. – 3. Judicial Independence under the Influence of Digitalisation. – 4. The Algorithmisation of Decision-making. – 5. Conclusions.
Abstract
The rule of law is one of the fundamental pillars, along with human rights and democracy, which are affected by digitalisation today. Digital technologies used for the victory of populism, the manipulation of opinions, attacks on the independence of judges, and the general instrumentalisation of the law contribute significantly to the onset of negative consequences for the rule of law. Particularly dangerous are the far-reaching consequences of the algorithmisation of decision-making, including judicial decisions.
The theoretical line of this research is based on the axiological method since the rule of law, democracy, and human rights are not only the foundations of legal order, but also values recognised in many societies and supported at the individual level. The study also relied on the phenomenological method in terms of assessing the experience of being influenced by digital technologies in public and private life. The practical line of research is based on the analysis of cases of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice to illustrate the changes in jurisprudence influenced by digitalisation.
This article argues that the potential weakening of the rule of law could be related to the impact of certain technologies itself, and to their impact on certain values and foundations which is significantly aggravated.
Judicial independence is affected since the judges are involved in digital interactions and are influenced by technologies along personal and public lines. That technologies often belong private sector but are perceived as neutral and infallible, which is highly predictive of court decisions. This leads to a distortion of the essence of legal certainty and a shift of trust from the courts to certain technologies and their creators.
The possibility of algorithmic decision-making raises the question of whether the results will be fairer, or at least as fair, as those handed down by human judges. This entails two problems, the first of which is related to the task of interpreting the law and the second of which involves the need to explain decisions. Algorithms, often perceived as reliable, are not really capable of interpreting the law, and their ability to provide proper explanations for decisions or understand context and social practices is questionable. Even partial reliance on algorithms should be limited, given the growing inability to draw a line between the human and algorithmic roles in decision-making and determine who should be responsible for the decision and to what extent.
About Authors
Yulia Razmetaeva: Cand of Science of Law (Equiv. Ph.D. (Law), Head of the Center for Law, Ethics and Digital Technologies, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Kharkiv, Ukraine; Visiting Researcher, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. yu.s.razmetaeva@nlu.edu.ua https://orcid. org/0000-0003-0277-0554
Corresponding author, solely responsible for text (responsible for conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, methodology and writing). Competing interests: The author declares there is no conflict of interest. Disclaimer: The author declares that her opinion and views expressed in this manuscript are free of any impact of any organizations.
Funding: The research supporting this article was fully sponsored by the Central European University Foundation of Budapest (CEUBPF). The theses explained here represent the ideas of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the CEUBPF.
Managing editor – Dr. Tetiana Tsuvina. English Editor – Dr. Sarah White.
Copyright: © 2022 Yu Razmetaeva. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
References
1. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, Bollegala D, ‘Explanation in AI and law: Past, present and future’ (2020) 289 Artificial Intelligence 103387. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2020.103387.
2. Besselink L, ‘Rule of Law as Problems of Democracy’ in A Bakardjieva Engelbrekt, A Moberg, J Nergelius (eds), Rule of law in the EU: 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall (Hurt Publishing, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing 2021) 39-50.
3. Bugaric B, ‘Populism, liberal democracy, and the rule of law in Central and Eastern Europe’ (2008) 41 Communist and Post-Communist Studies 191-203.
4. Butler G, ‘The European Rule of Law Standard, the Nordic States, and EU Law’ in A Bakardjieva Engelbrekt, A Moberg, J Nergelius (eds), Rule of law in the EU: 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall (Hurt Publishing, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing 2021) 243-264.
5. Crompton L, ‘The decision-point-dilemma: Yet another problem of responsibility in human-AI interaction’ (2021) 7-8 Journal of Responsible Technology 100013. doi:10.1016/j.jrt.2021.100013.
6. De Sousa WG et al, ‘Artificial intelligence and speedy trial in the judiciary: Myth, reality or need? A case study in the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF)’ (2022) 39 Government Information Quarterly 101660. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2021.101660.
7. Dippel C, Poyker M, ‘Rules versus norms: How formal and informal institutions shape judicial sentencing cycles’ (2021) 49 Journal of Comparative Economics 645-659. doi:10.1016/j.jce.2021.02.003.
8. Fałkowski J, Lewkowicz J, ‘Are Adjudication Panels Strategically Selected? The Case of Constitutional Court in Poland’ (2021) 65 International Review of Law and Economics 105950. doi:10.1016/j.irle.2020.105950.
9. Giansiracusa N, Ricciardi C, ‘Computational geometry and the U.S. Supreme Court’ (2019) 98 Mathematical Social Sciences 1-9. doi:10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2018.12.001.
10. Ji D, Tao P, Fei H, Ren Y, ‘An end-to-end joint model for evidence information extraction from court record document’ (2020) 57 Information Processing and Management 102305. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102305.
11. Kurvers R et al., ‘Pooling decisions decreases variation in response bias and accuracy’ (2021) 24 iScience 102740. doi:10.1016/j.isci.2021.102740.
12. Kuziemski M, Misuraca G, ‘AI governance in the public sector: Three tales from the frontiers of automated decision-making in democratic settings’ (2020) 44 Telecommunications Policy 101976. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2020.101976.
13. Lanagan S, Choo KKR, ‘On the need for AI to triage encrypted data containers in U.S. law enforcement applications’ (2021) 38 Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation 301217. doi:10.1016/j.fsidi.2021.301217.
14. Magna Carta of Judges (Fundamental Principles) CCJE (2010)3 <https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168063e431> accessed 3 August 2022.
15. Mumcuoğlu E, Öztürk CE, Ozaktas HM, Koç A, ‘Natural language processing in law: Prediction of outcomes in the higher courts of Turkey’ (2021) 58 Information Processing and Management 102684. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102684.
16. Noriega M, ‘The application of artificial intelligence in police interrogations: An analysis addressing the proposed effect AI has on racial and gender bias, cooperation, and false confessions’ (2020) 117 Futures 102510. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2019.102510.
17. Nowotko PM, ‘AI in judicial application of law and the right to a court’ (2021) 192 Procedia Computer Science 2220-2228. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2021.08.235.
18. O’Hara K, ‘Explainable AI and the philosophy and practice of explanation’ (2020) 39 Сomputer Law & Security Review 105474. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105474.
19. Ojiako U, Chipulu M, Marshall A, Williams T, ‘An examination of the ‘rule of law’ and ‘justice’ implications in Online Dispute Resolution in construction projects’ (2018) 36 International Journal of Project Management 301-316. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.10.002.
20. Pakamanis M, ‘Interaction between the doctrines of forum non conveniens, judgment enforcement, and the concept of the rule of law in transnational litigation in the United States’ (2015) 1 International Comparative Jurisprudence 106-112. doi: 10.1016/j.icj.2015.12.003.
21. Phillips-Wren G, Jain L, ‘Artificial Intelligence for Decision Making’ in B Gabrys, RJ Howlett, LC Jain (eds), Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems (KES 2006, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4252, Springer). doi: 10.1007/11893004_69.
22. Psychogiopoulou E, ‘Judicial Dialogue and Digitalization: CJEU Engagement with ECtHR Case Law and Fundamental Rights Standards in the EU’ (2022) 13 JIPITEC 145 para 1 <https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-13-2-2022/5541> accessed 12 August 2022.
23. Razmetaeva Yu, Barabash Yu, Lukianov D ‘The Concept of Human Rights in the Digital Era: Changes and Consequences for Judicial Practice’ (2022) 3(15) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 41-56. doi:10.33327/AJEE-18-5.3-a000327.
24. Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on ‘Impact of New Technologies on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Context of Assemblies, Including Peaceful Protests’, 24 June 2020, A/HRC/44/24 <https://undocs.org/en/a/hrc/44/24> accessed 19 July 2022.
25. Solanke AA, ‘Explainable digital forensics AI: Towards mitigating distrust in AIbased digital forensics analysis using interpretable models’ (2022) 42 Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation 301403. doi:0.1016/j.fsidi.2022.301403.
26. Sourdin T, Li B, McNamara DM, ‘Court innovations and access to justice in times of crisis’ (2020) 9 Health Policy and Technology 447–453. doi:10.1016/j.hlpt.2020.08.020.
27. Tamanaha BZ, Law as a Means to an End Threat to the Rule of Law. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
28. The rule of law on the Internet and in the wider digital world. Council of Europe (2014, December) Issue paper published by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Executive summary and Commissioner’s recommendations <https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/news/2014/dec/coe-hr-comm-rule-of-law-on-the%20internet-summary.pdf> accessed 8 August 2022
Wachter S, Mittelstadt B, Russell C, ‘Why fairness cannot be automated: Bridging the gap between EU non-discrimination law and AI’ (2021) 41 Computer Law & Security Review 105567. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105567.
Reviews for article
Add a Review
How to cite it?
-
Razmetaeva Yu ‘Algorithms in The Courts: Is There any Room For a Rule of Law’ 2022 4 (16) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 87-100. https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-5.4-a000429
