Risk and danger in the introduction of algorithms to courts: A comparative framework between EU and Brazil
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1859Keywords:
risk, algorithms, court management, system theory, Riesgo, algoritmos, gestión de tribunales, teoría de sistemasAbstract
In a context where public debate regarding technological advances has the potential to deeply impact the functioning of courts of law, both academics and practitioners regularly employ the concept of risk, which has a prominent role in both academic discourse and regulation attempts regarding this matter. Through a qualitative content analysis of the European Ethical Charter on the use of Artificial Intelligence in judicial systems and their environments, as well as the Brazilian Resolution n. 223/2020 of the National Council of Justice, which address the same issue, I compare the EU normative responses to the possibility of introducing algorithms to Courts to their heavily inspired Brazilian counterparts, especially highlighting the commonalities on how risk is communicated about through the documents.
En un contexto en el que el debate público sobre los avances tecnológicos tiene un profundo potencial de impacto en el funcionamiento de los tribunales de justicia, tanto académicos como profesionales emplean habitualmente el concepto de riesgo, que tiene un papel destacado tanto en el discurso académico como en los intentos de regulación en esta materia. A través de un análisis de contenido cualitativo de la Carta Ética Europea sobre el uso de la inteligencia artificial en los sistemas judiciales y sus entornos, así como de la Resolución brasileña n. 223/2020 del Consejo Nacional de Justicia, que abordan la misma cuestión, comparo las respuestas normativas de la UE a la posibilidad de introducir algoritmos en los tribunales con sus homólogas brasileñas, fuertemente inspiradas, destacando especialmente los puntos en común sobre cómo se comunica el riesgo a través de los documentos.
Downloads
Metrics
Downloads:
First_Online_Hedler_OSLS 66
References
Adams, M., 2011. Doing What Doesn’t Come Naturally. On the Distinctiveness of Comparative Law. In: M. Van Hoecke, ed., Methodologies of Legal Research: What Kind of Method for What Kind of Discipline? London: Hart, pp. 229–240.
Battistelli, F., and Galantino, M.G., 2019. Dangers, risks and threats: An alternative conceptualization to the catch-all concept of risk. Current Sociology [online], 67(1), pp. 64–78. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392118793675 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392118793675
Beck, U., 1986. Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt am Mein: Suhrkamp.
Bennett Moses, L., 2016. Regulating in the Face of Sociotechnical Change. In: R. Brownsword, E. Scotford and K. Yeung, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Law, Regulation and Technology. Oxford University Press, p. 574. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199680832.013.49
Berk, R., et al., 2021. Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art. Sociological Methods and Research [online], 50(1), pp. 3–44. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118782533 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118782533
Boholm, M., 2012. The Semantic Distinction Between “Risk” and “Danger”: A Linguistic Analysis. Risk Analysis [online], 32(2), pp. 281–293. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01668.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01668.x
Brownsword, R., 2019. Law Disrupted, Law Re-Imagined, Law Re-Invented. Technology and Regulation [online], pp. 10–30. Available at: https://doi.org/10.26116/techreg.2019.002
CEPEJ, 2018. European ethical Charter on the use of Artificial Intelligence in judicial systems and their environment [online]. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/cepej-european-ethical-charter-on-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-judicial-systems-and-their-environment
Chamberlain, J., 2022. The Risk-Based Approach of the European Union’s Proposed Artificial Intelligence Regulation: Some Comments from a Tort Law Perspective. European Journal of Risk Regulation [online], 14(1), pp. 1–13. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2022.38 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2022.38
Citron, D.K., and Pasquale, F., 2014. The scored Society: due process for automated predictions. Washington Law Review [online], 89(1), pp. 1–33. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol89/iss1/2/
Cobbe, J., 2020. Legal Singularity and the Reflexivity of Law. In: S. Deakin and C. Markou, eds., Is Law Computable? Critical Perspectives on Law and Artificial Intelligence. Oxford: Hart, pp. 286–290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509937097.ch-005
Collingridge, D., 1980. The social control of technology. London: Frances Pinter.
Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, 1988. Documentation and Information Center of the Chamber of Deputies.
Conti, J.M., 2019. A autonomia financiera do poder judiciário [online]. 2nd ed. São Paulo: Blucher. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5151/9788580394061 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5151/9788580394061
Council of Europe (CEPEJ), 2019. European ethical charter on the use of Artificial Intelligence in judicial systems and their environment [online]. Adopted at the 31st Plenary Meeting of the CEPEJ, December 2018, pp. 1–77. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/ethical-charter-en-for-publication-4-december-2018/16808f699c
Council of Europe (CEPEJ), 2022. European judicial systems CEPEJ Evaluation Report Part 1 - Tables, graphs and analyses, CEPEJ [online]. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/cepej-report-2020-22-e-web/1680a86279
Danaher, J., 2016. The Threat of Algocracy: Reality, Resistance and Accommodation. Philosophy and Technology [online], 29(3), pp. 245–268. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-015-0211-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-015-0211-1
David, M.L., 2011. Sobre os conceitos de risco em Luhmann e Giddens. Em Tese [online], 8(1), pp. 30–45. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5007/1806-5023.2011v8n1p30 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1806-5023.2011v8n1p30
Derave, C., Genicot, N., and Hetmanska, N., 2022. The Risks of Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence: The Case of the European Travel Information and Authorisation System. European Journal of Risk Regulation [online], 13(3), pp. 389–420. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2022.5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2022.5
Esposito, E., 2013. Digital prophecies and web intelligence. In: M. Hildebrandt and K. de Vries, eds., Privacy, Due Process and the Computational Turn [online]. London: Routledge, pp. 117–138. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203427644 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203427644
European Commission, 2021. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act, The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (COM(2021)206 final) [online]. Available at: https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/the-act/
European Parliament, 2023. Press release AI Act : a step closer to the first rules on Artificial Intelligence [online]. European Parliament News. 11 May. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20230505IPR84904/ai-act-a-step-closer-to-the-first-rules-on-artificial-intelligence
Goldsworthy, D., 2019. Dworkin’s dream: Towards a singularity of law. Alternative Law Journal [online], 44(4), pp. 286–290. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X19875825 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X19875825
Governo Digital, 2019. Do Eletrônico ao Digital, Estratégia de Governança Digital [online]. Last updated 6 January 2023. Available at: https://www.gov.br/governodigital/pt-br/estrategia-de-governanca-digital/do-eletronico-ao-digital
Gowder, P., 2018. Transformative legal technology and the rule of law. University of Toronto Law Journal [online], 68(Cl), pp. 82–105. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj.2017-0047 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj.2017-0047
Hart, R., 2023. Elon Musk And Tech Leaders Call for AI “Pause” Over Risks To Humanity. Forbes [online], 29 March, pp. 1–5. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2023/03/29/elon-musk-and-tech-leaders-call-for-ai-pause-over-risks-to-humanity/?sh=5f5bbd136dfc
Hedler, L., 2022. Algorithms, Efficiency and the Two Faces of Courts – A Case Study of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ). Soziale Systeme [online], 26(1–2), pp. 370–395. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/sosys-2021-0014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sosys-2021-0014
Hedler, L., 2023. Time, Law, and Tech: The Introduction of Algorithms to Courts of Law [online]. PhD Thesis. Copenhagen Business School. Available at: https://doi.org/10.22439/phd.17.2023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22439/phd.17.2023
Hildebrandt, M., 2016. Smart Technologies and the End(s) of Law [online]. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849808774 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849808774
Hildebrandt, M., 2017. Law As an Affordance: The Devil Is in the Vanishing Point(s). Critical Analysis of Law [online], 4(1), pp. 116–128. Available at: https://doi.org/10.33137/cal.v4i1.28154 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/cal.v4i1.28154
King, M., and Thornhill, C., 2003. Niklas Luhmann’s theory of politics and law [online]. London/Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230503588 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230503588
Kitchin, R., 2014. Big Data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data and Society [online], 1(1), pp. 1–12. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714528481 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714528481
Kokol, P., Kokol, M., and Zagoranski, S., 2022. Machine learning on small size samples: A synthetic knowledge synthesis. Science Progress [online], 105(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/00368504211029777 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00368504211029777
Luhmann, N., 1989. Law as a social system. Northwestern University Law Review, 136(1 & 2), pp. 136–150.
Luhmann, N., 1991. Soziologie des Risikos. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Luhmann, N., 2018. Organization and Decision, Organization and Decision [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108560672 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108560672
Maas, M.M., 2019. Innovation-Proof Global Governance for Military Artificial Intelligence? How I Learned to Stop Worrying, and Love the Bot. Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies [online], 10(1), pp. 129–157. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/18781527-01001006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/18781527-01001006
Martins, R.C., 2015. Beck in Brazil by Rodrigo Constante Martins — in memoriam. Theory, Culture & Society [online], 12 March. Available at: https://www.theoryculturesociety.org/blog/beck-in-brazil-by-rodrigo-constante-martins
Mölders, M., 2021. Legal Algorithms and Solutionism: Reflections on Two Recidivism Scores. SCRIPT-ed [online], 18(1), pp. 57–82. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2966/scrip.180121.57 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2966/scrip.180121.57
Ost, F., 2005. O Tempo do Direito. 1st ed. Edusc.
Pasquale, F., 2018. A Rule of Persons, Not Machines : The Limits of Legal Automation [online]. University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2018-08. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=3135549
Pasquale, F., and Cashwell, G., 2018. Prediction, persuasion, and the jurisprudence of behaviourism. University of Toronto Law Journal [online], 68(Issue supplement 1), pp. 63–81. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj.2017-0056 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj.2017-0056
Possa, J., 2023. Entenda o projeto que prevê a regulamentação da IA no Brasil. UOL Giz [online], 9 May. Available at: https://gizmodo.uol.com.br/entenda-o-projeto-que-preve-a-regulamentacao-da-ia-no-brasil/
Projeto de Lei n. 2338 de 2023. Brazilian Federal Senate.
Ranchordás, S., and Van’t Schip, M., 2020. Future-Proofing Legislation for the Digital Age. In: S. Ranchordás and Y. Roznai, eds., Time, Law and Change: an interdisciplinary study [online]. Oxford: Hart, pp. 347–365. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509930968.ch-016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509930968.ch-016
Rasborg, K., 2021. Ulrich Beck - Theorising World Risk Society and Cosmopolitanism [online]. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89201-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89201-2
Reiling, A.D., 2020. Courts and Artificial Intelligence. International Journal for Court Administration [online], 11(2), pp. 1–10. Available at: https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.343 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.343
Renn, O., 2008. Concepts of risk: An interdisciplinary review. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society [online], 17(2), pp. 196–204. Available at: https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.17.2.7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.17.2.7
Resolução n. 332 from 21/08/2020, DJe/CNJ n.274 [online]. Conselho Nacional de Justiça. Available at: https://atos.cnj.jus.br/atos/detalhar/3429
Roller, M.R., 2019. A quality approach to qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences compared to other qualitative methods. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung [online], 20(3). Available at: https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-20.3.3385
Supiot, A., 2017. Governance by numbers: The making of a legal model of allegiance. Oxford: Hart.
Susser, D., 2019. Invisible influence: Artificial intelligence and the ethics of adaptive choice architectures. AIES 2019 - Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society [online], pp. 403–408. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314286 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314286
Ugwudike, P., 2020, Digital prediction technologies in the justice system: The implications of a “race-neutral” agenda. Theoretical Criminology [online], 24(3), pp. 1–20. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480619896006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480619896006
Veale, M., Matus, K., and Gorwa, R., 2023. AI and Global Governance : Modalities , Rationales , Tensions. Annual Review of Law and Social Science [online], 19, pp. 1–30. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-020223-040749 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-020223-040749
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Luisa Hedler
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
