IGF Judiciary Engagement

Whether or not AI is used in courts is no longer an issue. The issue is now whether Courts are prepared to maintain the human element in the field of technology. One of the most important aspects of Judging is empathy- the ability to enter into the shoes of another without losing objectivity. Further, in numerous jurisdictions, especially in criminal matters, courts’ decisions have to be made on the judge’s own conviction and assessment. This has contributed to the enduring legitimacy and integrity of courts in many jurisdictions. Is the fear that AI could compromise fundamental principles of justice and/or replace the human elements in judging justified?

The aim of this session is to examine the implications of the use of AI in the judiciary, and examine ethical consequences, in the light of new and emerging regulatory frameworks.  Discussions will center on current initiatives by UN agencies and other stakeholders to develop norms for effective use of AI in the judiciary.

1. How prepared are the judicial systems, in different jurisdictions, to handle the rise of AI-generated evidence and arguments?
2. As AI becomes more advanced and harder to detect, how can courts ensure they’re not being manipulated by fake or misleading content?
3. Can judicial systems afford to delay regulatory responses while technology advances rapidly?
4. Can AI-generated evidence be admissible in courts? Should it be held to the same standards as human expert testimony? Why or why not?
5. What is the difference between using basic scientific tools (like breathalyzers) and advanced AI models in courts—and why should one be exempt from stricter rules?
6. How reliable is public feedback in shaping legal rules about AI? Can non-experts meaningfully contribute to this conversation?
7. Is it ethical for lawyers to rely on AI without verifying every detail? Should there be professional consequences if they don’t?
8. Are automated courts and online sentencing fair alternatives to traditional trials—or do they risk removing human judgment and empathy from the process?
9. Does AI strengthen access to justice?
10. How far are we from a courtroom where both the defendant and the victim are represented by AI?
11. What safeguards need to be put in place now to protect the integrity of the justice system in the age of AI?
12. Will future generations view today’s legal system as outdated, just like we see old courtroom practices today?
13. Ultimately, can justice still be blind in the age of artificial intelligence—or will it be blinded by it?

• Hon. Justice Adel Maged, Egypt
• Tatevik Grigoryan, UNESCO
• Milos Jovanovic, OpenLink
• Mohamed Farahat, Lawyer and Legal Consultant
• Maureen Fondo, Head of Copyright, ARIPO
• Hon. Eliamani Laltaika, Judge, High Court of Tanzania, United Republic of Tanzania

Artificial Intelligence (AI) made it way in almost every possible aspect of human life: from daily routine to complex decision-making processes. And judiciary system is no exception. For example, in 2023 in Columbia ChatGPT was first used in making a court decision: a judge turned to AI when deciding on compensation for insurance payments. The chatbot formulated a decision for the judge, providing him with links to the practice and explanations of the local Supreme Court. In this case, the plaintiff was satisfied and the decision seemed fair, what if it was vice versa?

The jury is still out on the matter. On the one hand, AI can analyze extensive legal datasets swiftly, providing invaluable insights while prompting critical discussions regarding regulatory frameworks to govern these technologies. Proponents of this theory also believe that AI will help with automatization of screening processes and in time a complicated AI model would be able to make unbiased judgment on any case as a judge. For instance, such a thing is widely used in China: ML-based system is connected to the desk of every judge in the country and help them with cases by developing legal arguments and correcting alleged human errors in the judicial act. In case of disagreement with AI, judges are required to submit written objections.

Others disagree stating that there are still risks of algorithmic bias and the potential for perpetuating systemic inequalities. As AI systems are often trained on historical data, which may reflect existing societal biases and inequalities, these beliefs can be inherited and even amplified by AI tools, leading to unjust outcomes in sentencing, case evaluations, and other critical judicial decisions. And the main question arises: will AI be able to ever understand how intertwined are the principles of justice and humanism in sentencing, and the spirit of a law itself?

Apart from ethical concerns, there are also cybersecurity and regulation. AI would require access to vast amounts of sensitive data, raising concerns about how this information is collected, stored, and utilized (especially in court). Ensuring that individuals' rights are protected while leveraging data for AI applications poses a complex challenge both for lawmakers and legal practitioners. Needless to say, that the regulatory framework is still needed to govern this technology.

As the session progresses, participants will engage in a collaborative dialogue focused on developing robust regulatory approaches to ensure ethical AI usage in the judiciary. Experts from diverse backgrounds will share their perspectives on creating standards that prioritize justice and equity in an increasingly digital landscape.

This session promises to be an engaging and thought-provoking exploration of the opportunities and challenges presented by AI in the judicial system. Attendees will leave with a deeper understanding of the responsibilities that accompany technological advancements and a commitment to fostering integrity and foresight in the pursuit of justice.

1. What are the ethical dilemmas about usage AI in legal system?
2. What are the possible ways out?
3. How to regulate this edge-cutting technology?
4. Can AI be fully unbiased, especially in this sensitive matter?
5. Should there be any limits to usage of technology: for example, only for screening?
6. How can AI help and what harm can it make?
7. Who will benefit from AI on judiciary?
8. Will the judge as a human profession disappear?

• Alexandra Kozina, Lawyer in dispute resolution, ART DE LEX
• Milos Jovanovic, President, OpenLink Group 
• Gabriella Marcelja, CEO, SG Impact Ventures AG 
• Becky Burr, Member of the Board of Directors, ICANN
• Khaled Fattal, Chairman, MLi Group
• Anda Bologa, Digital Innovation Fellow, Center for European Policy Analysis 
• Hon. Eliamani Laltaika, Judge, High Court of Tanzania, United Republic of Tanzania (moderator)