Artificial Intelligence in Courts and Dispute Resolution: Challenges and Opportunities

New Models of Collaboration Between Criminal Justice and Mental Health Systems

This paper aims to look at the staffing dispute resolution pursuant to Act No. 43 of 1999 in terms of aspects of employment law and the system of Judicial Administration. Existence Personnel Advisory Board in the resolution of employment disputes, competency State Administrative Court and State Administrative High Court in the resolution of employment disputes and the status of the decision. Personnel Advisory Board and the position of the State Administrative Court judgment in the resolution of employment disputes. Normative legal research, analysis departs from the laws that describe the legal aspects related to the employment dispute resolution. Approach (statute approach), a conceptual approach (conceptual approach), approach the case (case approach). So that the position can be known BAPEK. Provide consideration to the president in the imposition of disciplinary punishment to the civil servants who are administratively BAPEK as body functioning decide administrative appeals filed by civil servants. Competence of the Administrative Court in the resolution of employment disputes, receive examine and decide disputes unrelated personnel by imposing rules violations Servants Discipline, and the dispute resolution employment appeal against the decision issued by the administrative court and BAPEK and Position decision BAPEK as Administrative Decision state that can be appealed to the judge’s decision Cosmos.<br />Keywords: Resolution, Employment Disputes and Justice System Administrations.<br /><br />

This paper defines the utilisation of ‘soft law’ concepts and structures generally, considers the application of soft law to the perceived gap between artificial intelligence (AI) approaches and normal human behaviours, and subsequently explores the challenges presented by this soft law application. The authors submit that AI is only becoming more prevalent, and increased uses of this technology logically create greater opportunities for ‘friction’ when human norms and AI processes intersect — especially those processes that seek to replace human actions, albeit inconsistently and imperfectly. This paper considers that friction as inevitable, but instead of offering wholesale objections or legal requirement application to AI’s imperfect intrusions into humans’ daily lives, the authors consider ways in which soft law can smooth the path to where we are collectively headed. As human–computer interaction increases, the true role of AI and its back-and-forth with humans on a day-to-day basis is itself rapidly developing into a singular field of study. And while AI has undoubtedly had positive effects on society that lead to efficient outcomes, the development of AI has also presented challenges and risks to that which we consider ‘human’ — risks that call for appropriate protections. To address those concepts, this paper establishes definitions to clarify the discussion and its focus on discrete entities; examines the history of human interaction with AI; evaluates the (in)famous Turing Test; and considers why a gap or ‘uncanny valley’ between normal human behaviour and current AI approaches is unsettling and potentially problematic. It also considers why certain types of disclosure regarding AI matter are appropriate and can assist in addressing the problems that may arise when AI attempts to function as a replacement for ‘human’ activities. Finally, it examines how soft law factors into the equation, filling a need and potentially becoming a necessity. It considers the use-case of how one US legislative body initiated such a process by addressing problems associated with AI and submits that there is a need for additional soft law efforts — one that will persist as AI becomes increasingly important to daily life. In sum, the paper considers whether the uncanny valley is not a challenge so much as a barrier to protect us, and whether soft law might help create or maintain that protection.

This study analyzes mediation in administrative dispute resolution in Indonesian Administrative Courts. The settlement of administrative disputes through mediation is not recognized in the Administrative Court procedural law. Mediation in the dispute resolution process in Administrative Courts is still a matter of debate. One of the parties to the dispute is a public body or official who is included in the realm of public law, so that mediation is not possible. The execution of Administrative Court decisions that have permanent legal force does not guarantee justice and legal certainty. This research aims to analyze the development and implementation of mediation in settlement of public disputes in Administrative Courts. The research method used is doctrinal research or library research with secondary data sources in the form of legislation on Administrative Courts, Supreme Court regulations on mediation, and scientific journals of research results. The results showed that mediation in public dispute resolution is used as an alternative to dispute resolution and has long been applied in several countries. Mediation in administrative dispute resolution can be carried out in two ways. First, mediation can be carried out outside the Administrative Court, and then the lawsuit is revoked. Second, mediation can be carried out through Court-connected mediation in the Administrative Court. There is a need to develop and strengthen the application of Court-connected mediation for administrative dispute resolution from the aspects of procedural law and Administrative Court resources that support the mediation process.

Modern criminal justice faces new challenges due to digitalization and the potential implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. Despite their potential to enhance the efficiency of criminal justice, these technologies pose risks and threats to the fundamental principles of criminal procedure, such as fairness, transparency, adversarial proceedings, and judicial independence. Special attention is given to the opacity of AI algorithms, which may undermine trust in the justice system. Furthermore, the lack of a clear regulatory framework for the use of AI creates additional legal risks for participants in criminal proceedings. The study aims to identify the risks and threats of integrating AI into criminal justice and to develop recommendations for establishing a risk management system. The goals include detection challenges arising from the digital transformation of criminal procedural activities, study of regulatory frameworks governing the digitalization of public administration, assessing the compatibility of AI technologies with traditional principles of criminal procedure, and proposing measures to mitigate risks. The study employs a risk-oriented approach, which involves risk identification, analysis, and management. The authors categorize risks into several types: geopolitical, infrastructural, operational, project-related, information security, and legal risks. The methods used include analysis of regulatory frameworks, forecasting, and a systematic approach to integrating AI into criminal justice. The study outlines the stages of creating a risk management system, including planning, identification, analysis, and management. In conclusion, the article emphasizes the need for a legal framework to regulate the use of AI technologies in criminal proceedings and highlights the importance of establishing a system to monitor, prevent, and manage risks. Such a system would facilitate the effective integration of new technologies while preserving the fundamental principles of criminal justice. In this context, enhancing the transparency of the criminal justice system and defining a core risk management strategy are of particular urgency and significance.

This paper explores the level of readiness, potential, and risks of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Brunei Darussalam in the area of dispute resolution. In this research, the research methodology adopts an interactionist approach; a literature review and interviews with 12 sample of experts consisting AI developers from Singapore and Hong Kong, IT experts from Brunei Darussalam, Yemen, and India, experienced legal experts, and dispute resolution experts from Brunei Darussalam, Singapore, and Malaysia. AI’s efficiency and adaptability make it a powerful tool, especially in routine tasks potentially displacing jobs. Based on analysis and findings, due to its nature on algorithm inputs, high dependencies on input mechanisms and algorithms can be limiting, particularly in areas involving human error or emotions, such as dispute resolution. At its current stage, AI may struggle to fully comprehend and respond to human emotions or nuanced contexts. As nations compete in AI advancement, managing associated risks, including concerns about AI's reliability, accuracy, and ethical implications, remains a challenge. Disclaimers remind users to exercise discretion and due diligence when using AI-derived information. While AI is recognized globally as a powerful tool, it is not infallible and should be used with human oversight. As AI evolves through algorithm upgrades and input updates, it is hoped that these issues will be addressed, making AI more adaptable and dependable. Until then, this research recommended a cautious and informed approach to integrating AI into sensitive areas like dispute resolution. Ongoing research remains essential to advance this discourse, as AI continues to be a work in progress.

Background: The rapid development of Artificial Intelligence has profoundly transformed various aspects of social life, including the criminal justice system. In criminal proceedings, the collection and processing of biometric, behavioral, and emotional data may threaten the right to privacy, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a fair trial. This study examines the intersection between technological innovation and personal data protection in criminal justice through a comparative legal analysis of the European Union and Vietnam. By analyzing the EU’s GDPR, Law Enforcement Directive, and AI Act 2024 alongside Vietnam’s legal framework, the paper identifies key areas of convergence, divergence, and regulatory gaps. Methods: The study employs comparative legal analysis, combined with a human rights–based approach, to clarify the relationship between technological innovation and the right to personal data protection in criminal justice. The sources of reference include the legal frameworks of the European Union and Vietnam, case law and reports from bodies of EU and United Nations. Results and Conclusions: The study aims to establish fundamental legal principles that balance technological innovation with the protection of the right to personal data in criminal justice—an approach that has received limited attention in Vietnam. Based on this foundation, it proposes legal reforms toward a framework of “human rights–oriented digital justice”, ensuring that the digitalization and application of AI in the justice system not only enhance operational efficiency but also strengthen the rule of law and protect people.

This article critically examines the legal and regulatory challenges posed by artificial intelligence (AI) within the European Union’s (EU) digital economy, focusing on the recently adopted EU Ai Act (Regulation 2024/1689). While previous studies have addressed AI's ethical and theoretical dimensions, this research fills a gap by analyzing the Act’s practical application across its temporal, personal, material, and territorial scopes. The study adopts a qualitative legal methodology, integrating doctrinal interpretation, comparative analysis, and systemic review of EU and international legal instruments. Key findings reveal that the EU AI Act establishes a pioneering risk-based regulatory framework, distinguishing itself through strong safeguards for fundamental rights, transparency, and human oversight. However, critical limitations remain, including ambiguous high-risk classifications, reliance on provider self-assessment, and exemptions for national security that may undermine human rights protections. The article compares the EU approach with those of the United States and China, illustrating divergent models of AI regulation and their global implications. It argues that while the EU AI Act sets an ambitious precedent, its success depends on effective enforcement, stakeholder compliance, and international regulatory convergence. By addressing these challenges, the EU can shape a globally influential framework for ethical and responsible AI deployment. This study contributes to the evolving academic and policy debate on AI governance by offering practical insights and recommendations for future research and legal development.

Introduction. The article examines the application of the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL) and other sources of "soft law" of the European Union in international commercial arbitration. It highlights the legal foundations, practical aspects, and particularities of integrating these instruments into the practices of European arbitral institutions. Summary of the main results of the study. It is determined that although "soft law" instruments such as the PECL and the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts are not formally binding, they increasingly influence the resolution of commercial disputes. This is due to their ability to effectively bridge gaps in national legislation and international treaties, ensuring uniform legal standards and enhancing predictability in arbitration awards. The practices of major European arbitration institutions, such as ICC (Paris), LCIA (London), SCC (Stockholm), VIAC (Vienna), and DIS (Germany), were analyzed. It was established that these institutions actively refer to the PECL and the UNIDROIT Principles both for direct application (when explicitly chosen by the parties) and for interpreting contractual provisions and filling normative gaps when no explicit choice of law is made. Arbitration practice particularly demonstrates extensive reliance on the PECL and the UNIDROIT Principles in matters related to interpreting obligations of the parties and applying the principles of good faith and reasonableness. Conclusion. It is substantiated that the integration of "soft law" sources into the arbitration practices of arbitral jurisdictions reflects contemporary trends in international commercial law and meets the needs of international trade. However, further expansion of their application requires enhancing legal certainty, clarifying the scope of application of such instruments, and further standardizing the practices of European arbitration centers. In perspective, strengthening the role of the PECL and UNIDROIT Principles in international commercial arbitration can promote further harmonization of contract law at the European and global levels.

Abstract: This paper examines the potential role of artificial intelligence in addressing the critical issue of case backlogs plaguing the Indian judiciary. The integration of artificial intelligence within the Indian judiciary presents a transformative potential for enhancing efficiency, accessibility, and consistency in legal processes, yet it also raises complex ethical, technical, and institutional challenges. This paper systematically analyses the prospective applications of artificial intelligence in the judicial system, including case management, legal research, predictive analytics, automated drafting of judgments, and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Artificial intelligence-powered tools can significantly reduce the backlog of cases, which currently plagues the Indian courts, by streamlining procedural workflows, assisting judges in identifying precedents, and providing data-driven insights for case outcomes, thereby facilitating informed and timely decision-making. Moreover, artificial intelligence can democratize access to legal information for the public and lower-income litigants, offering real-time guidance on legal procedures and potential remedies, which aligns with the constitutional mandate of equal justice. However, the deployment of Artificial intelligence in judicial processes faces multifaceted challenges. Key concerns include algorithmic bias, transparency, accountability, and the interpretative nature of law, which often requires nuanced human judgment that Artificial intelligence may not fully replicate. Data privacy and security issues are particularly critical in the Indian context, where sensitive personal and institutional information must be safeguarded against misuse. Institutional resistance, inadequate digital infrastructure, and the lack of specialized training for judicial officers and legal professionals further complicate Artificial intelligence adoption. Additionally, the regulatory and ethical frameworks governing Artificial intelligence in legal contexts remain nascent, necessitating the development of robust guidelines to ensure that Artificial intelligence complements rather than compromises judicial independence and the rule of law. This study also explores international experiences with Artificial intelligence -assisted judicial processes, drawing lessons from jurisdictions such as Singapore, the United States, and the European Union, to assess the feasibility, risks, and best practices for India. By adopting a structured methodology that combines doctrinal legal analysis, technological evaluation, and empirical assessment, the paper identifies strategic pathways for integrating Artificial intelligence in the judiciary while mitigating associated risks. The findings underscore that while Artificial intelligence has the potential to revolutionize judicial efficiency, it cannot substitute the discretionary, interpretative, and ethical responsibilities inherent in judicial decision-making. Therefore, a phased, carefully regulated, and human-centric approach is recommended, wherein Artificial intelligence functions as an augmentative tool to assist judges, lawyers, and administrative staff without undermining procedural fairness or legal accountability. Overall, this study contributes to the scholarly discourse on technology-enabled justice in India, highlighting the dual imperative of leveraging Artificial intelligence for efficiency gains while safeguarding the foundational principles of transparency, equity, and the rule of law, and offers policy recommendations, implementation strategies, and frameworks for continuous monitoring and evaluation of AI interventions in the Indian judicial system.

Housing insecurity and adolescent well-being: Relationships with child welfare and criminal justice involvement

A miscarriage of justice is considered a situation when an incorrect decision has been made in a trial, and a guilty person is sentenced and punished. This is a very common problem in the criminal justice system of Pakistan, which has not been rectified for a very long time. In spite of measures being taken in the quest to eliminate such occurrences, miscarriages of justice are apparent for various causes, including wrong eyewitness identification, tainted confessions and inadequate counsel. The failure of justice is a denial of rights as well as the offenders to justice compartments the system's credibility. In recent years, with the aid of stiff progress in artificial intelligence (AI), it seems probable that miscarriages of justice can be reduced by accurately and efficiently facilitating criminal justice. Hence, this research adopts a doctrinal method to analyze the factual position of the miscarriage of justice system in Pakistan. This work will be very useful in dealing with the problem of miscarriage of justice in Pakistan. Therefore, it can be claimed that by defining the causal factors of wrongful convictions and providing specific recommendations, this study may help build a more efficient and just criminal justice system in Pakistan.

The rapid integration of Artificial Intelligence into systems of justice delivery has significantly altered the landscape of Alternate Dispute Resolution. Mediation, arbitration, negotiation, and Online Dispute Resolution mechanisms increasingly employ AI-driven tools for dispute triage, case management, outcome prediction, settlement facilitation, and legal analytics. While Artificial Intelligence promises efficiency, scalability, and improved access to justice, its deployment within Alternate Dispute Resolution frameworks has also generated serious concerns regarding fairness, transparency, accountability, and the preservation of core Alternate Dispute Resolution values. This article undertakes a comprehensive global analysis of the use of Artificial Intelligence in Alternate Dispute Resolution processes, identifying jurisdictions and Alternate Dispute Resolution methods where Artificial Intelligence is currently operational. It further examines real-time, documented cases where Artificial Intelligence has negatively impacted dispute resolution by producing incorrect predictions, reinforcing bias, undermining due process, or distorting settlement dynamics. Drawing upon judicial decisions, institutional reports, empirical studies, and scholarly literature, the article critically evaluates the risks associated with AI-driven Alternate Dispute Resolution and concludes by outlining what can go wrong when Artificial Intelligence is deployed without adequate safeguards. The article argues for a human-centric, ethically governed, and transparent integration of Artificial Intelligence in Alternate Dispute Resolution.

The study is devoted to the definition of artificial intelligence as a legal category. At the same time, the peculiarity of the term and its general social significance determine the fact that in order to find an answer to the question of the legal nature of artificial intelligence, it is relevant to analyze not only purely legal scientific ideas, but also philosophical, psychological, social, religious and other aspects of understanding artificial intelligence and the impact of this phenomenon on various spheres of public life. In order to define the concept of artificial intelligence, the author examined the attempts to define it that have already been used in legislation. In particular, the author analyzed the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), which entered into force in the EU on August 1, 2024, and concluded that this law does not answer the question of the subjectivity or lack thereof of artificial intelligence. Considerable attention is paid to the legal framework of Ukraine, in particular, the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 1556-p of December 2, 2020, which approved the Concept of Artificial Intelligence Development in Ukraine. This policy document uses the basic principles of the Guidelines of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on Artificial Intelligence (Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence), which Ukraine joined in 2019. The definition of artificial intelligence as a legal category in legal doctrine encounters a number of fundamental problems, but they all have a common denominator in identifying the legal nature of the bearers of such intelligence. The analysis of modern legal doctrine has revealed general approaches to understanding the relationship between the use of artificial intelligence and its liability for actions, namely: 1) positioning of robots with artificial intelligence as an object of social relations (under this approach, robots with artificial intelligence are perceived only as possible assistance in social relations where the subjects are individuals and legal entities) 2) positioning of artificial intelligence robots as separate subjects of legal relations (under this approach, artificial intelligence robots are perceived as separate independent subjects of social relations with the ability to realize and assess the significance of their actions and actions of other persons relatively independently and to a sufficient extent). Based on the study, the author offers her own solution to the problem of determining the legal status of artificial intelligence (robot, intellectual agent). First of all, the author proves the need to gradually prepare the legal system for the emergence of a new subject - an electronic person. It is timely to discuss the practical possibility of granting in the future the status of a quasi-legal entity to the most advanced artificial intelligence systems with a high degree of autonomy, since it does not fall under the category of a legal entity (which is also a fiction). It is substantiated that electronic persons should be understood as powerful artificial intelligence systems endowed with the status of a "quasi-legal" person having an appropriate scope of special legal capacity depending on their functional purpose and capabilities. The study draws historical and legal parallels with the experience of Ancient Rome in terms of using (involving) phenomena which were not originally subjects of law and then acquired such a possibility (municipalities, institutions, slaves, etc.) to participate in civil circulation. Recognition of artificial intelligence robots ("electronic persons", "intellectual agents") as a quasi-legal entity will entail a number of additional legal consequences. In particular, there is a need to include "cyber capacity" in the list of types of legal personality of a legal entity, i.e. the ability to be an active participant in relations in the IT sphere (to enter into contracts as a user, to be a member of social networks, to participate in interactive campaigns, etc.) Cyber capacity can be realized through both transactions and legal acts. As with legal entities, electronic entities should be subject to mandatory state registration in the relevant electronic registers. At the same time, a system of licensing the types of activities of such entities and establishing standards and norms to which such entities must comply, depending on the type of activity, is also possible. In addition to the development of the necessary regulations and standards, it is very important to use soft law. In this case, ethical standards of artificial intelligence are its value basis - they must be observed by all participants in legal relations: both private companies and executive authorities. The author argues that an electronic person can be defined as a set of technologies which are recognized by law as a participant in property and non-property relations. Such a person has the legal status of a quasi-legal entity, is registered in accordance with the procedure established by law, and has a special legal personality depending on the functional purpose (field of activity).

The article explores the prospects for the legal regulation of the application of artificial intelligence in the justice system of Ukraine. The study begins with an analysis of the Concept for the Development of Artificial Intelligence in Ukraine, approved by the Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated 2 December 2020. It also explores the new provisions of the Code of Judicial Ethics, as amended by the Decision of the Congress of Judges as of 18 September 2024, regarding the use of artificial intelligence technologies by judges. The article notes the absence of a special law on the legal regulation of artificial intelligence in Ukraine. Reference is made to the ‘White Paper on Artificial Intelligence Regulation in Ukraine: Vision of the Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine’ (version for consultation, June 2024), which provides for two stages in the introduction of artificial intelligence regulation in Ukraine: stage 1 (preparatory) and stage 2 (adoption of a law analogous to the EU Regulation on Artificial Intelligence, the Artificial Intelligence Act). The article also refers to sectoral recommendations developed for the use of artificial intelligence in various fields, in particular, “Recommendations on the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers”, “Recommendations on the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence by Public Servants”, “Recommendations on the Responsible Use of AI: Intellectual Property Rights Issues”, “Recommendations on the Responsible Development of Systems Using Artificial Intelligence Technologies”, “Recommendations on the Responsible Implementation and Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Higher Education Institutions”, “Instructional and Methodological Recommendations on the Introduction and Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in General Secondary Education Institutions”, “Recommendations on the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Field of Advertisement and Marketing Communications”, “Recommendations on the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Media”. The provisions of the Concept of the UJICS, approved by Order No. 178 of the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine dated 30 April 2025, regarding the use of artificial intelligence in the functioning of the UJICS (Unified Judicial Information and Communication System) subsystems, are analyzed in detail. The importance of developing and adopting the recommendations (guidelines) or a model regulation on the use of artificial intelligence in the Ukrainian justice system, particularly in courts, is emphasized. The prospects and necessity of developing and adopting a special law on the regulation of artificial intelligence in Ukraine, analogous to the EU Regulation on Artificial Intelligence (the Artificial Intelligence Act), is noted. Such a law should, among other things, include provisions on the use of artificial intelligence in the justice system. In addition, the importance of guiding, in particular by the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation when developing provisions of Ukrainian legislation on the use of artificial intelligence in Ukraine’s justice system is noted. It is concluded in the article that the effective implementation of artificial intelligence in the justice system of Ukraine should be based on an appropriate regulatory framework that takes into account both the opportunities and risks associated with the use of artificial intelligence.