IS AN E-JUDGE A JUDGE? ARE THE DECISIONS IT MAKES LEGAL?

Affiliation: Institute of State and Municipal Administration, National Research University Higher School of Economics
Address: Moscow, Myasnitskaya st., 20, Moscow, 101000

Abstract

The introduction of information technology into practice significantly changes the structure of the economy and society, social dynamics, and the nature of professional activity in most sectors. The legal profession is no exception: if previously it was just about automation of some local types of lawyer's work, nowadays the prospects of replacing a lawyer by a machine in many areas of legal activity are quite clear.

This paper focuses on technologies for automating legally significant decision-making and the profound consequences of their introduction for the legal profession and the law. Can we say that the mechanisms for making such decisions using technology remain legal and can be attributed to law as a mode of social coordination? At what point does increase automation of certain legal activities lead to a qualitative change when such activities can no longer be called legal?

The paper attempts a comparative analysis of the traditional legal decision-making mechanism and various algorithms supporting legal activity. One of the author's conclusions is that the usage of legal metaphors ("machine-readable law", "e-judge", etc.) should not be misleading because as technology advances, the mechanisms for making legally relevant decisions have less and less in common with the traditional legal mechanism.

Keywords

court, justice, online justice, big data, artificial intelligence, open texture of law

Received

17.01.2022

Number of characters

74307

GOST	Kashanin A. IS AN E-JUDGE A JUDGE? ARE THE DECISIONS IT MAKES LEGAL? // Gosudarstvo i pravo URL: http://ras.jes.su/gp/s102694520018275-3-1-en-2 (circulation date: 19.04.2024).
MLA	Kashanin, Andrey "IS AN E-JUDGE A JUDGE? ARE THE DECISIONS IT MAKES LEGAL?." Gosudarstvo i pravo DOI: 10.31857/S102694520018275-3
APA	Kashanin A. (). IS AN E-JUDGE A JUDGE? ARE THE DECISIONS IT MAKES LEGAL?. Gosudarstvo i pravo DOI: 10.31857/S102694520018275-3

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

1. Albov A. P. Digital technologies of law enforcement: new models and risks // Academic Proceedings of the Russian Academy of Advocacy and Notaries. 2020. №. 2. P. 29 (in Russ.).

2. Atazhanov A., Ismailov B. Foreign experience of introduction of modern technologies in system of justice // Society and Innovations. 2020. Т. 1. №. 2/S. P. 279 (in Russ.).

3. Biryukov S. V. Legal law and other social regulators: problems of differentiation // Vestnik of Omsk University. Series: Law. 2016. №. 3. P. 39 (in Russ.).

4. Borisova L. V. Electronic justice as a form of judicial protection in Russia // Actual problems of Russian law. 2020. №. 6. P. 108 (in Russ.).

5. Vilkova T. Y., Maslennikova L. N. Legality and unification in criminal proceedings: from forms of procedural documents to electronic criminal case // Vestnik of Perm University. Legal Sciences. 2019. №. 46. P. 743 (in Russ.).

6. Dvorkin, R. On rights in earnest. М., 2004 (in Russ.).

7. Dolmatov A. V., Dolmatova L. A. Opportunities and prospects of application of artificial intelligence technologies in jurisprudence // Vestnik (Herald) of Saint Petersburg Law Academy. 2020. №. 1. P. 44-49 (in Russ.).

8. Zakhartsev S. I., Salnikov V. P. Robot judge in criminal proceedings: good or bad? // Juridicheskaya nauka: historii i sovremennost'. 2018. №. 7. P. 178 (in Russ.).

9. Zenin S. S., Kuteynikov D. L., Yapryntsev I. M. Big Data in Legislative Process // Actual Problems of Russian Law. 2020. №. 9. P. 19-31 (in Russ.).

10. Ivanova S. A., Miroshnikova V. A. Problems of development of the system of electronic justice //Education and law. 2020. №. 4. P. 236 (in Russ.).

11. Kabriak R. Codification. М., 2007 (in Russ.).

12. Kalashnikov-Rosen Y. S. Artificial Intelligence as a competitor to Lawyer // Innovations. Science. Education. 2021. №. 29. P. 521-525 (in Russ.).

13. McGinnis J. O., Pierce R. J. The Great Disruption: How Artificial Intelligence is Changing the Role of Lawyers in the Delivery of Legal Services // Russian Journal of Economics and Law. 2019. №2. P. 1230-1250 (in Russ.).

14. Mezentsev I. V. What does the e-judge think about? //Criminology: yesterday, today, tomorrow. 2019. №. 1. P. 55 (in Russ.).

15. Miroshnichenko O. I. I., Safin N. I., Khokhlova M. S. Artificial Intelligence in Professional Legal Activity: Tool for Development or Threat to Existence? // Baltic Humanitarian Journal. 2019. Т. 8. №. 4 (29). P. 362 (in Russ.).

16. Moreyeva S. N. Ways of development of legal profession and legal education in conditions of" digital economy": rejoinder to the discussion // Law and State: Theory and Practice. 2019. №. 2. P. 127-131 (in Russ.).

17. Pevtsova E. A. Influence of artificial intelligence on human legal activity // Journal of Russian Law. 2020. №. 9. P. 19-31 (in Russ.).

18. Petukhov S. V., Racheeva Y. V. Transformation of legal profession in the conditions of digitalization //Sustainable development of science and education. 2018. №. 10. P. 247-251 (in Russ.).

19. Radbruch G. Introduction to the science of law. М., 1915 (in Russ.).

20. Rozhkova M. A. On automation of online arbitration and online resolution of commercial and consumer disputes // E-commerce and interconnected areas (legal regulation). 2019. P. 218 (in Russ.).

21. Sentemov A. A. Simulation of judicial process with the use of software tools // Alley of Science. 2017. Т. 2. №. 16. P. 754 (in Russ.).

22. Hayek F. Law, Legislation, Freedom. М., 2006 (in Russ.).

23. Hart G.L.A. Concept of Law. Sppb, 2007 (in Russ.).

24. Chervonyuk V. I. I. Innovative juridical technologies // Juridical technics. 2021. №. 15. P. 273-293 (in Russ.).

25. Chernogor N. N., Zaloilo M. V. Metamorphosis of Law and Challenges to Legal Science in Conditions of Coronavirus Pandemic // Journal of Russian Law. 2020. №. 7. P. 5-26 (in Russ.).

26. Sharypova T. N., Kropiva K. E. Modern information technologies in law // Alley of Science. 2019. Т. 5. №. 1. P. 81 (in Russ.).

27. Scherer M. International Arbitration 3.0: How Artificial Intelligence Will Change Dispute Resolution // Arbitration.ru. No. 10, (14) November 2019. P. 25-26, 30 (in Russ.).

28. Bennett Moses L., Chan J. Using Big Data for Legal and Law Enforcement Decisions: Testing the New Tools // University of New South Wales Law Journal. Vol. 37. No 2. 2014. P. 670, 674, 675.

29. Branting L. K. Techniques for automated drafting of judicial documents //International Journal of Law and Information Technology. 1998. Vol. 6. №. 2. P. 216.

30. Caldarola M. C., Schrey J. Big Data and Law. Hart Publishing, 2020.

31. Casey A. J., Niblett A. The Death of Rules and Standards. Indiana Law Journal. 2015. P. 30.

32. Cohen J. E., What Privacy Is For // Harvard Law Review. Vol. 126. 2013. P. 1904, 1918–1919, 1927.

33. Deltsova N. V. Artificial Intelligence Technologies in the Field of Legal Services: Relevant Aspects // Current Achievements, Challenges and Digital Chances of Knowledge Based Economy. 2021. P. 389-396.

34. Devins C., Felin T., Kauffman S., Koppl R. The law and big data // Cornell journal of law and public policy. Vol. 27, 2017 P. 368, 403, 407, 411, 412.

35. Emelianova T. V. Affect of Artificial Intelligence Technologies and Digitalisation on Jurisprudence and Education // Artificial Intelligence in Industry 4.0: A Collection of Innovative Research Case-studies that are Reworking the Way We Look at Industry 4.0 Thanks to Artificial Intelligence. 2021. P. 173.

36. Engle E. The Problems of Indeterminacy and Autonomy of Law // India Law Journal. Vol. 2, 2009.

37. Feinman J.M. Critical Approaches to Contract Law // UCLA Law Review. Vol. 30. 1983. P. 847.

38. Feller U. Folgenerwägungen und Rechtsanwendung. Zürich, 1998. P. 74-76.

39. Galligan D.J. Discretionary Powers. Oxford, 1986.

40. Gould P. Letting the data speak for themselves // Annals of the Association of American Geographers, No 71(2). 1981 P. 166–176.

41. Haraway D. Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. Routledge. 1991.

42. Hart H. The Concept of Law. 1961. Цит. по изданию Харт Г. Понятие права. Спб, 2007. С. 127 и сл.

43. Kaufmann A. Grundprobleme der Rechtsphilosophie. München, 1994, P. 68.

44. Kennedy D. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Entitlement Problem: A Critique // Stanford Law Review. Vol. 33. 1981. P. 387.

45. Kennedy D. The Rise and Fall of Classical Legal Thought. 1975, 1998.

46. Kitchin R. Big data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts // Big Data and Society, No 1. 2014. P. 4-5.

47. Llewellyn K.N. The Bramble Bush. On Our Law and Its Study. 1996.

48. Nonet P., Selznick P. Law and Society in Transition: Toward Responsive Law. 1978.

49. Pamela M. Casey. Using Offender Risk and Needs Assessment Information at Sentencing: Guidance for Courts from a National Working Group. URL: http://www.ncsc.org/~/ media/Microsites/Files/CSI/BJA%20RNA%20Final%20Report_Combi ned%20Files%208-22-14.ashx.

50. Porat A., Strahilevitz L. Personalizing Default Rules and Disclosure with Big Data. Michigan Law Review. 2014. P. 32, 1417.

51. Ribes D., Jackson S.J. Data bite man: The work of sustaining long-term study. In: Gitelman L (ed.) «Raw Data» is an Oxymoron // MIT Press. Cambridge, 2013. P. 147–166.

52. Rohr J. G. Smart Contracts and Traditional Contract Law, or: The Law of the Vending Machine // Cleveland State Law Review, 2019. Vol. 67. P. 71.

53. Semmler S., Rose Z. Artificial intelligence: Application today and implications tomorrow // Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 2017. Vol. 16. P. 85.

54. Singer J.W. The player and the Cards: Nihilism and Legal Theory. Yale Law Journal. Vol. 94. 1984-1985. P. 15-16.

55. Solum L.B. On the Indeterminacy Crisis: Critiquing Critical Dogma // The University Chicago Law Review. Vol. 54. 1987.

56. Stevenson D., Wagoner N. Bargaining in the Shadow of Big Data // Florida Law Review, Vol. 66, No. 5, 2014, P. 1381.

57. Sunstein C. Choosing not to choose: understanding the value of choice. 2015, P. 205, 220.

58. Susskind R. Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford University Press, 2019. P. 246, 277.

59. Tushnet M. A Note on the Revival of Textualism in Constitutional Theory. Southern California Law Review. Vol. 58. 1985.

60. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1974. P. 1130.

61. Walters R., Novak M. Artificial Intelligence and Law // Cyber Security, Artificial Intelligence, Data Protection & the Law. Springer, Singapore, 2021. P. 39-69.

62. Winn P.A., Judicial Information Management in an Electronic Age: Old Standards, New Challenges, 3 The federal courts law review. Vol. III. No. 2 2009. P. 135-136, 141.

63. Wittgenstein L. Philosophical Investigations. 1958.

64. Wroblewski J. Contemporary Models of the Legal Sciences. Wydawnictwo polskiej akademii nauk. Wroclaw ect., 1989.

65. Završnik A. Criminal justice, artificial intelligence systems, and human rights // ERA Forum. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2020. Vol. 20. №. 4. P. 579.