Adapting Artificial Intelligence in ADR Processes in BRICS Countries: Trends and Prospects for the Next 20 Years
Abstract views: 10
/ 
PDF downloads: 9
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.287Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Access to Justice, Algorithmic Accountability, AI Ethics, BRICS, Legal TechnologyAbstract
This study undertakes a comprehensive examination of the current landscape, emerging trends, opportunities and challenges associated with integrating artificial intelligence (AI) technologies into alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems across the BRICS nations of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa over the next 20 years. Through extensive analysis of scholarly literature, national policies and regulations, it develops a strategic framework comprised of tailored principles, policies and priority actions aimed at steering the adoption of AI in the ADR domain in a responsible, ethical and socially aligned manner. The research highlights the significant risks posed by the irresponsible deployment of AI, including the perpetuation of biases, the undermining of due process, the erosion of human discretion and oversight, and the replication or amplification of broader societal inequalities if adequate governance safeguards are not proactively instituted. It proposes priority policies for BRICS countries including public outreach campaigns promoting awareness of AI impacts on law and ethics, legislation mandating contestability of algorithmic decisions, networks for policy coordination and best practice sharing, and investments in regional centers of excellence researching AI-powered dispute resolution.
References
AllahRakha, N. (2025). National Policy Frameworks for AI in Leading States. International Journal of Law and Policy, 3(1), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.270 DOI: https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.270
AllahRakha, N. (2024). UNESCO’s AI Ethics Principles: Challenges and Opportunities. International Journal of Law and Policy, 2(9), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.225 DOI: https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.225
Bench-Nieuwoudt, C. (2020). AI identity: Ethical categorisation to minimise algorithmic prejudice. AI and Ethics, 1.
Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology. (2021). Brazilian artificial intelligence strategy.
Cowgill, B., & Tucker, C. E. (2019). Economics, fairness and algorithmic bias. Preprint. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3361280
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Department of Science and Technology. (2019). South African national research and development strategy for artificial intelligence. Government of South Africa.
Estlund, C. (2018). What should we do after work? Automation and employment law. Yale Law Journal, 128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3007972
Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., et al. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
Friedman, B., & Hendry, D. G. (2019). Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10855.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7585.001.0001
Government of Russia. (2019). National strategy for artificial intelligence for the period up to 2030. https://tass.com/economy/1082644
Gulyamov, S., Rustambekov, I., Narziev, O., & Xudayberganov, A. (2021). Draft concept of the Republic of Uzbekistan in the field of development artificial intelligence for 2021-2030. Yurisprudensiya, 1, 107-121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51788/tsul.jurisprudence.1.1./QUGT2226
Gunning, D., Stefik, M., Choi, J., Miller, T., Stumpf, S., & Yang, G. Z. (2021). Explainable artificial intelligence. Science Robotics, 6(37), eabd9190. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.abd9190
Hagendorff, T. (2019). The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and Machines, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8
Katyal, S. K. (2019). Private accountability in the age of artificial intelligence. UCLA Law Review, 66(1). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3309397
Kennedy, J. B., Michelman, F. I., & Mark, N. C. (2002). Are judges political?: An empirical analysis of the federal judiciary. Brookings Institution Press.
Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(11). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337015694_Principles_alone_cannot_guarantee_ethical_AI DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4
Morley, J., Floridi, L., Kinsey, L., & Elhalal, A. (2019). From what to how: An initial review of publicly available AI ethics tools, methods and research to translate principles into practices. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.06876. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3830348
NITI Aayog. (2018). National strategy for artificial intelligence. Government of India.
Rabinovich-Einy, O., & Katsh, E. (2019). The new new courts. UL Review, 68, 165.
Rahwan, I. (2018). Society-in-the-loop: Programming the algorithmic social contract. Ethics and Information Technology, 20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9430-8
Raymond, A. H., & Shackelford, S. J. (2022). Technology, ethics, and access to justice: Should an algorithm be deciding your case? Michigan Journal of Race & Law, 43. https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol35/iss3/1/
Remus, D., & Levy, F. S. (2015). Does legal doctrine matter? Unpacking law and regulation in innovation. Regulation & Governance, 9(3).
Remus, D., & Levy, F. S. (2017). Can robots be lawyers? Computers, lawyers, and the practice of law. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 30, 501. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2701092
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Simon and Schuster. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Diffusion-of-Innovations-5th-Edition/Everett-M-Rogers/9780743222099
Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2020). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Pearson. https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/artificial-intelligence-a-modern-approach/P200000003500/9780134610993
State Council of China. (2017). New generation artificial intelligence development plan. http://fi.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/kxjs/201710/P020210628714286134479.pdf
Tsang, D. (2019). Misclassification in machine learning and big data analytics. Preprint.
Varshney, K. R. (2020). Engineering safety in machine learning. Communications of the ACM, 63(7), 27-29. https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.04126
Whittaker, M., et al. (2018). AI Now Report 2018. AI Now Institute, NYU.
Zalnieriute, M., & Moses, L. B. (2019). The rule of law and automation of government decision-making. Modern Law Review, 82(3), 425-455. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331713467_The_Rule_of_Law_and_Automation_of_Government_Decision-Making DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12412
Zeleznikow, J. (2013). Don't fear robo-justice. Wisconsin Law Review, 31.
Zhong, R., Xu, C., Whalen, R., Hu, R., Siau, K., & Xiao, N. (2022). Artificial intelligence, alternative dispute resolution, and access to justice. China Legal Science, 1(1), 101-124.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Jahangir Juraev
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
