(MENAFN) Artificial intelligence is increasingly being used in courtrooms worldwide, promising speed and efficiency but also raising significant concerns about fairness, accountability, and the essence of judicial decision-making.

A recent UN report highlights that many courts adopt digital tools “on an ad hoc basis,” without proper safeguards to protect judicial independence. Margaret Satterthwaite, UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, told reporters that the shift is profound and carries serious risks if limits are not established.

“It’s very important that we really insist on this right to a human judge when we’re thinking about the use of artificial intelligence in judicial systems,” she said. “Reasoning is unique to human beings … Artificial intelligence is not actually reasoning. It is predicting.”

While courts can benefit from AI, Satterthwaite stressed that the technology must never replace the human moral reasoning at the heart of judicial decisions. AI lacks the “human experience, the human sense of right and wrong, and a connection,” all essential for true reasoning.

The report acknowledges AI’s potential to reduce barriers to justice. Globally, 49% of people encounter at least one legal problem every two years, yet fewer than one-third seek help due to cost, distance, or language barriers. Innovations such as Spain’s Carpeta Justicia, Mexico’s Sor Juana system, and Nigeria’s Podus AI offer translation, simplification, and legal guidance without replacing human judgment.

However, AI embedded deeper in court processes can undermine fairness. China’s Smart Court network, for example, automates millions of cases using facial recognition and algorithmic sentencing recommendations, raising transparency and accountability concerns. “Such systems may increase political oversight, rein in judicial autonomy, and ultimately undermine independence,” the report warns.

The “black box” nature of AI complicates oversight. In Poland, the Random Allocation of Judges System allegedly skewed case assignments, while in the US, algorithms like COMPAS influence bail and sentencing, disproportionately affecting racial minorities. Satterthwaite emphasized, “If there’s bias in the data that’s used to train a large language model ... that bias will be baked into the results.”

She also highlighted the risk of “techno-capture,” where private vendors supplying AI tools gain influence over court operations. In lower-income countries, companies digitizing entire court systems in exchange for access to judicial data create a concerning transfer of power. Over-reliance on AI could also erode judges’ skills, particularly in drafting reasoned decisions:
“If you allow an AI to draft your reasoned decision, are you sort of outsourcing the reasoning part?” she asked, noting that many judges prefer AI for summaries but want to retain control over judgment writing because “writing and thinking are so closely intertwined.”

Satterthwaite called for urgent rules to safeguard judicial independence, ensure fair outcomes, and prevent AI from reinforcing inequalities. She stressed that judges must decide how to use AI, supported by appropriate training, and that international cooperation is essential given AI’s concentration in the hands of a few companies and states.

She also raised the environmental impact of AI, noting that some processes might need to remain manual to reduce climate harm.

Ultimately, Satterthwaite concluded, courts must integrate technology without compromising justice, emphasizing that reasoning and judgment are “so central to what the task is” and cannot be automated.

MENAFN20112025000045017640ID1110371833