Hostname: page-component-6587cd75c8-2cm9h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-23T10:08:21.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Continuities and disruptions in the National Council of Justice’s strategy of AI implementation in Brazil: the data-seafarers of Justice 4.0

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2024

Luisa Hedler Open the ORCID record for Luisa Hedler [Opens in a new window]
Luisa Hedler*
Affiliation:
Department of Business Humanities and Law, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The introduction of algorithms in courts is currently the object of much scrutiny, attempting to find balance between increasing efficiency to the legal system and avoiding associated risks. This paper aims to explore how the judiciary organisations responsible for implementing algorithms describe the temporal demands of continuity and change, through a case-study of the Brazilian National Council of Justice (CNJ). Through its centralised, collaborative and open-access based platform, the CNJ views algorithms as a necessary step to deal with excessive case-load, and as a rationality-instituting mechanism for a currently dysfunctional situation. It attempts to deal with risks of disruption by placing itself in a supervisory role regarding all algorithms developed by courts across the country, ensuring the quality of the data and excluding the moment of judicial decision-making from automation, but this does not exclude the representation of the new technology as an instrument to implement specific doctrinal positions.

Keywords

AI and lawsociology of lawalgorithmic governanceBrazilNational Council of Justice
Type
Article
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 20 , Special Issue 4: Property in the Sharing Economy: Paradox, Disruption, and Institutional Design , December 2024 , pp. 617 - 634
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alarie, B (2016) The path of the law: Towards legal singularity. University of Toronto Law Journal 66(4), 443–455. https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj.4008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett Moses, L (2016) Regulating in the face of sociotechnical change. In Brownsword, R., Scotford, E and Yeung, K (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Law, Regulation and Technology, 574–596. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199680832.013.49.Google Scholar
Brasil (1988) Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil. Documentation and Information Center of the Chamber of Deputies, Brazil.Google Scholar
Brownsword, R (2019) Law disrupted, law re-imagined, law re-invented. Technology and Regulation 2019, 10–30. https://doi.org/10.26116/techreg.2019.002.Google Scholar
canaltjrn (2021) Webinário de Lançamento do Programa Justiça 4.0 (24-02-2021) - YouTube. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFV2YgeqNhA&t=6752s&ab_channel=canaltjrn (accessed 21 November 2021).Google Scholar
Candido da Silva Franco, I and Cunha, LG (2013) O CNJ e os discursos do Direito e Desenvolvimento. Revista Direito GV 9(2), 515–534. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1808-24322013000200006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CEPEJ (2018) European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and Their Environment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
CEPEJ (2020) The time parameter within article 5 ECHR – Towards reasonable timeframes for judicial proceedings, Working Group on Judicial time management (CEPEJ-SATURN). Available at https://rm.coe.int/cepej-saturn-2020-2-en-article-5-echr-time-parameter-within-article-5-/16809fea7f (accessed 26 November 2024).Google Scholar
Cobbe, J (2020) Legal Singularity and the Reflexivity of Law. In Deakin, S and Markou, C (eds.), Is Law Computable? Critical Perspectives on Law and Artificial Intelligence. Hart Publishing, 286–290. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509937097.ch-005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conselho Nacional de Justiça (2020a) Plataforma Sinapses – Histórico, Conselho Nacional de Justiça. Available at https://www.cnj.jus.br/sistemas/plataforma-sinapses/historico/ (accessed 10 November 2021).Google Scholar
Conselho Nacional de Justiça (2020b) Resolução n. 332 from 21/08/2020, DJe/CNJ n.274. Available at https://atos.cnj.jus.br/atos/detalhar/3429 (accessed 22 November 2021).Google Scholar
Conselho Nacional de Justiça (2021) Justiça 4.0 - Portal CNJ. Available at https://www.cnj.jus.br/tecnologia-da-informacao-e-comunicacao/justica-4-0/ (accessed 22 November 2021).Google Scholar
Conselho Nacional de Justiça (2021a) Justiça em Números 2021 - Sumário Executivo. Brasília. Available at https://www.cnj.jus.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/justica-em-numeros-sumario-executivo.pdf (accessed 21 November 2021)Google Scholar
Conselho Nacional de Justiça (2021b) Plataforma Sinapses/Inteligência Artificial - Portal CNJ. Available at https://www.cnj.jus.br/sistemas/plataforma-sinapses/ (accessed 21 November 2021).Google Scholar
Conselho Nacional de Justiça (2021c) Presidência - Portal CNJ. Available at https://www.cnj.jus.br/sobre-o-cnj/presidencia/ (accessed 22 November 2021).Google Scholar
Conselho Nacional de Justiça (2022) Relatório Final Gestão Luiz Fux - Programa Justiça 4.0. Brasília-DF. Available at http://repositorio.unan.edu.ni/2986/1/5624.pdf (accessed 22 November 2021).Google Scholar
Conselho Nacional de Justiça (2024) Cartilha Justiça 4.0. Brasília-DF. Available at https://www.cnj.jus.br/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/cartilha-justica-4-0-2024.pdf (accessed 5 August 2024).Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2022) European judicial systems CEPEJ Evaluation Report Part 1 - Tables, graphs and analyses, Cepej. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Delacroix, S (2018) Computer systems fit for the legal profession? Legal Ethics 21(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/1460728x.2018.1551702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, R (1986) Law’s Empire. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
European Parliament (2024) Artificial Intelligence Act: MEPs Adopt Landmark Law, European Parliament. Available at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240308IPR19015/artificial-intelligence-act-meps-adopt-landmark-law (accessed 26 November 2024).Google Scholar
Gowder, P (2018) Transformative legal technology and the rule of law. University of Toronto Law Journal 68(Cl), 82–105. https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj.2017-0047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedler, L (2022) Algorithms, efficiency and the two faces of courts – A case study of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ). Soziale Systeme 26(1–2), 370–395. Available at https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/sosys-2021-0014/html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedler, L (2023) Time, Law, and Tech: The Introduction of Algorithms to Courts of Law. Copenhagen Business School [Phd]. https://doi.org/10.22439/PHD.17.2023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedler, L (2024) Risk and danger in the introduction of algorithms to courts: A comparative framework between EU and Brazil. Oñati Socio-Legal Series. https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernes, T (2022) Organization and Time. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192894380.003.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hildebrandt, M (2016) Smart Technologies and the End(s) of Law. Elgar.Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, M (2019) Privacy as protection of the incomputable self: From agnostic to agonistic machine learning. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 20(1), 83–121. https://doi.org/10.1515/til-2019-0004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orbuch, TL (1997) People’s accounts count: The sociology of accounts. Annual Review of Sociology 23, 455–478. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.455. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ost, F (2005) O Tempo do Direito. 1st edn. Edusc.Google Scholar
Papagianneas, S (2022) Towards smarter and fairer justice? A review of the Chinese scholarship on building smart courts and automating justice. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs 51(2), 327–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/18681026211021412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasquale, F (2019) A rule of persons, not machines: The limits of legal automation. George Washington Law Review 87(1), 1–55.Google Scholar
Pasquale, F and Cashwell, G (2018) Prediction, persuasion, and the jurisprudence of behaviourism. University of Toronto Law Journal 68, 63–81. https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj.2017-0056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M (2004) Experience as horizon: Koselleck, expectation and historical time. Cultural Studies 18(2–3), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950238042000201518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plutarch (1917) Lives, Volume V: Agesilaus and Pompey. Pelopidas and Marcellus. Translated by Perrin B. Loeb Classical LIbrary 87. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Realing, AD (2020) Courts and artificial intelligence. International Journal for Court Administration 11(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.36745/IJCA.343.Google Scholar
Roller, MR (2019) A quality approach to qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences compared to other qualitative methods. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 20(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-20.3.3385.Google Scholar
Roque, AV (2021) Inteligência Artificial na tomada de decisões judiciais: três premissas básicas. Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual 22(1), 58–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salomão LF, (2022) Artificial Intelligence Technology applied to conflict management within the brazilian judiciary. Available at https://repositorio.fgv.br/items/89149bfb-04df-4260-8a6c-6d5729cd622a (accessed 26 November 2024).Google Scholar
Schreier, M (2012) Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice City Road: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529682571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shi, C, Sourdin, T and Li, B (2021) The smart court – A new pathway to justice in China? International Journal for Court Administration 12(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Susser, D (2019) Invisible influence: Artificial intelligence and the ethics of adaptive choice architectures. In AIES 2019 - Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pp. 403–408. https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ugwudike, P (2020) Digital prediction technologies in the justice system: The implications of a “race-neutral” agenda. Theoretical Criminology, 24 (3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480619896006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNDP (2020) BRA/20/015 - Justiça 4.0. - Justiça para todos. Brasïlia-DF. Available at https://info.undp.org/docs/pdc/Documents/BRA/BRA20015%20Revis%C3%A3o%20Geral%201%20assinada.pdf (accessed 26 November 2024).Google Scholar
Veale, M, Matus, K and Gorwa, R (2023) AI and global governance: Modalities, rationales, tensions. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 19, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-020223-040749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virilio, P (2012) The Great Accelerator. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar