Navigating the Maze: AI and Automated Decision-Making Systems in Private International Law
Abstract views: 76
/ 
PDF downloads: 48
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.198Keywords:
AI, Automated Decision-Making, Private International Law, Cross-Border Legal Processes, Transparenc, Accountability, Judicial Systems, ArbitrationAbstract
Navigating the intricate landscape of AI and automated decision-making systems within private international law presents both challenges and opportunities. This paper explores the integration of AI technologies in cross-border legal processes, highlighting their potential to enhance efficiency and accuracy. It addresses the legal and ethical implications of using AI in judicial and arbitration settings, including issues of transparency, accountability, and bias. By examining case studies and existing legal frameworks, the research identifies best practices and proposes guidelines for the responsible deployment of AI in private international law. The analysis underscores the need for robust regulatory mechanisms to ensure that AI applications uphold the principles of justice and fairness in an increasingly interconnected world. Ultimately, this study aims to contribute to the development of a coherent legal approach that balances technological innovation with fundamental legal values.
References
Ajunwa, I., Crawford, K., & Schultz, J. (2017). Limitless Worker Surveillance. California Law Review, 105(3), 735-776.
Cath, C., Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018). Artificial Intelligence and the 'Good Society': The EU, UK, and US Approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(2), 505-528. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9901-7
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2019). Judgment in Case C-507/17 Google LLC v CNIL.
European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act).
European Parliament. (2020). Resolution on a Civil liability regime for artificial intelligence (2020/2014(INL)).
Financial Stability Board. (2020). Artificial intelligence and machine learning in financial services.
Gal, M. S., & Elkin-Koren, N. (2017). Algorithmic Consumers. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 30(2), 309-353.
Global Partnership on AI. (2020). Working Group on Responsible AI. // https://gpai.ai/projects/responsible-ai/
High-Level Expert Group on AI. (2019). Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. European Commission.
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-09/cp190112en.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021PC0206
https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380455
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0276_EN.html
https://www.fsb.org/2020/11/artificial-intelligence-and-machine-learning-in-financial-services/
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389-399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
OECD. (2019). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence.
Roberts, H., Cowls, J., Morley, J., Taddeo, M., Wang, V., & Floridi, L. (2021). The Chinese approach to artificial intelligence: an analysis of policy, ethics, and regulation. AI & Society, 36, 59-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00992-2
Smuha, N. A. (2021). From a 'race to AI' to a 'race to AI regulation': regulatory competition for artificial intelligence. Law, Innovation and Technology, 13(1), 57-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2021.1898300
Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks And Designs [2021] EWCA Civ 1374
UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence.
Veale, M., & Borgesius, F. Z. (2021). Demystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Computer Law Review International, 22(4), 97-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9785/cri-2021-220402
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76-99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx005
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Mukhammadali Turdialiev
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
