The judiciary must reflect the diversity of the population it serves to ensure justice is both impartial and perceived as fair. This chapter examines how AI in courts influences judicial diversity and legitimacy. While AI can uncover unconscious biases and enhance case analysis, judicial diversity remains essential to prevent AI from reinforcing existing prejudices. The chapter also explores identity awareness and institutional legitimacy. Like other democratic institutions, courts using AI must uphold representativeness. AI can foster collaborative constitutionalism by incorporating diverse perspectives in constitutional debates, helping address concerns about judicial legitimacy when unelected judges overturn decisions by elected representatives. Finally, the chapter considers how judges’ engagement with AI- driven social media affects transparency and public trust. As these technologies shape perceptions of the judiciary, they must be carefully managed to support judicial diversity and legitimacy. This is particularly important for judges from diverse backgrounds, who face greater risks of digital harassment, potentially undermining institutional trust and judicial integrity.

This chapter introduces the EU AI Act and examines how it will apply to artificial intelligence (AI) used by judicial authorities. The chapter gives an overview of key regulatory concepts of the EU AI Act and discusses its risk classification, particularly which AI systems used by judicial authorities would fall under the category of high- risk AI systems and which other provisions could be relevant for the use of AI by judicial authorities. The chapter investigates practical examples of how the provisions are expected to apply in practice and which obligations follow for judicial authorities, including which exemptions could apply. The author also provides context and rationale for the relevant provisions and their evolution during the legislative process.

This chapter discusses the integration of AI into the judicial systems of Lithuania and Poland. It provides a historical context, outlining the progress of both countries in digitalisation and AI readiness. The chapter notes relevant political and planning documents and then focuses on the current state of AI in non-judicial and judicial activities within the courts of Lithuania and Poland. The authors present technological solutions used for case assignment, case handling, and document processing, anonymisation of judgments, voice-to-text transcription, and tools developed for automating press release preparation. The chapter then explores the potential for AI in judicial decision-making, considering the prospects for partial and full judicial automation and identifying scenarios where AI could play a more significant role without compromising the quality of judicial outcomes. It highlights the Polish pilot project ‘Digital Judge’s Assistant’, and discusses the stringent regulations under the EU AI Act 2024 and the GDPR that govern the use of AI in judicial processes.

This chapter examines the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) tools and digital solutions within the Estonian justice system, highlighting its pioneering approach to digital transformation following independence in 1991. The initial section explores the factors behind Estonia’s rapid digital transition, emphasising the centralisation of support services and the development of a unified public-sector digital infrastructure that has significantly influenced court operations. The Estonian judiciary employs integrated information and communications technology systems that utilise shared data storage, enabling efficient digital and remote court proceedings. These advantages were particularly evident during the Covid-19 pandemic. While AI and machine-driven decisions are restricted to support functions, excluding substantive judicial roles (no ‘robo-judges’), efforts are ongoing to enhance data-driven practices and automation in court proceedings. However, a key legal challenge lies in aligning digital court processes with the constitutional mandate for public justice.

In the absence of a targeted legal framework, the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary’s ‘Guidance for Judicial Office Holders’ remain the primary source of regulatory guidance determining how artificial intelligence (AI) ought to be appropriately used by the judiciary in the United Kingdom. This chapter critically reflects upon the content and effectiveness of these guidelines, ultimately concluding that more extensive – and legally binding – regulatory action is needed to ensure accurate and accountable judicial decision-making in the era of AI. The chapter first surveys general attitudes towards AI within the UK judiciary, before engaging directly with the technical foundations of AI and examples of its usage in administrative and judicial decision-making in the UK. It concludes with an analysis of the guidelines, following discussion of several key legal and constitutional issues that may arise where AI is deployed in judicial settings. Throughout this contribution, we caution that the regular use of AI to make decisions does not simply change the process of discrete procedures, but rather, challenge existing structures within the legal and political system at a broader level.

This chapter focuses on the use of AI at sentencing. First, we note that AI can be used in different ways in the task of sentencing offenders. Second, the chapter considers when a ‘robot’ judge can be said to perform sufficiently well to replace a human judge. We argue that a plausible criterion for the assessment of the performance of a robot judge is contingent on penal ethical considerations and since these have not been sufficiently developed, we do not yet possess an applicable criterion for a comparison robot and human judges. Third, this conclusion also has implications for less radical applications of AI (such as the use of algorithms as sentencing advisory systems), for assessing competing types of AI models, and for carrying out post hoc evaluations of the performance of sentencing algorithms once they have been implemented.

This chapter focuses on the judicial use of AI in German courts. In recent years, the work of German courts has changed significantly due to increasing digitalisation in particular through the introduction of electronic court files and electronic communication with the courts. AI is being used in a number of different applications and is being tested in several pilot projects. After an overview of the court organisation and competences, the most important projects and possible applications of AI in German courts are described. The opportunities and challenges of AI for the German justice system and its impact on the work of German courts are analysed. Applications include automatic speech recognition, data extraction, anonymisation of court decisions, and support for judicial decision-making. These use-cases are then evaluated in the light of German constitutional law and the EU’s AI Act 2024.

This chapter examines concerns that AI might replace human judges, potentially compromising the right to a fair trial and other fundamental rule of law values. Rather than dismissing these concerns, we present a balanced analysis of the opportunities and challenges posed by AI-enhanced judicial decision-making. We explore this issue through the lens of Article 6 ECHR, examining potential applications, including case management, evidence collection, and legal interpretation. We emphasise the critical need for transparency and robust safeguards to protect due process rights. Equally significant are questions surrounding perceptions of justice and the maintenance of public trust and legitimacy in judicial proceedings. Even sophisticated AI systems require continuous oversight and human interpretive expertise to ensure that litigants and the broader public perceive the technology and judicial role as efficient, fair, and reliable. The chapter concludes by developing a typology of AI in judiciary – from judicial clerks to bureaucratic judges to R. Dworkin’s idealised ‘Judge Hercules’ – examining how AI can enhance traditional judicial capabilities and improve overall judicial performance.

This concluding chapter affirms that the integration of AI into courts is no longer a question of if, but how. Courts, as constitutional institutions, face profound normative questions: how does AI affect transparency, impartiality, and public trust? While AI improves court operations in many jurisdictions, it also risks eroding judicial values and the rule of law. Global examples show diverse adoption paths, yet shared challenges, such as AI opacity, lack of judicial AI literacy, and accountability gaps, demand coordinated oversight. Ultimately, a human-centred approach to judicial AI is essential. Rather than rejecting AI or accepting it uncritically, the authors advocate a balanced path that preserves the human and interpretive role of judging.

Judicial systems, long considered the most tradition-bound of public institutions, are at a critical juncture. From Strasbourg to São Paulo, from Delhi to Wellington, courts around the globe confront a shared challenge: how to navigate justice in an era redefined by artificial intelligence (AI). The question is no longer whether courts will engage with AI – but how, and on whose terms. This Handbook is the first global and comparative volume that systematically examines the use of AI and digital technologies in courts. It provides an interdisciplinary and cross-jurisdictional perspective on how judicial institutions are responding to the opportunities and risks posed by AI – from e-filing systems and predictive tools to ‘robo-judging’ and AI- supported decision-making. The forty-five contributions of the Handbook are arranged across ‘Part I: AI and Courts: Context and Normative Positions’, ‘Part II: AI and Courts: Disciplinary Perspectives’, ‘Part III: AI & Tech Challenges to Judicial Values’, and ‘Part IV: AI in Courts across the Globe: Jurisdictional Perspectives’, with each part offering a distinct analytical lens on justice and judging in the age of AI. The Handbook examines not just what AI can do for courts, but also what courts must do to ensure AI enhances, rather than erodes, their fundamental role in democratic societies.

In recent years, the Brazilian judiciary has announced over 100 initiatives using artificial intelligence (AI) systems, while a mounting number of juridical decisions shape how AI can be used in the country. The chapter analyses how AI impacts the Brazilian judiciary. First, we introduce the Brazilian legal systems, and explore a selection of AI initiatives to expose their benefits and shortcomings. Then we proceed to examine the policy for the usage of AI within courts in the country, focusing on the recent Resolution of the Brazilian National Council of Justice, aimed at regulating the judiciary’s production and use of AI systems. Last, we argue that the integration of AI within Brazil’s judiciary has the potential to enhance procedural efficiency and innovation. Yet, we emphasise that the guarantee of transparency, accountability, legal certainty, and digital sovereignty largely depend on the adoption and coherent implementation of a new AI Regulatory Framework and a new AI Strategy.

This chapter surveys developments related to the use of generative AI in courts in the United States. It discusses a range of current uses of generative AI by judges, lawyers, and ordinary citizens, and explains commonly cited concerns that these uses raise, such as worries about inaccuracy and bias, as well as newly emerging concerns. The chapter also surveys efforts to regulate these tools in the US, such as judicial bans and requirements of disclosure and certification.

The evolution of AI presents both challenges and opportunities for courts. To date, most discussion and examination of AI and courts has focused on decision-making tools, reflecting a broader trend in discourse around courts that unduly centres on courts’ adjudicatory functions. Yet courts perform a far wider set of functions and societal roles. This chapter examines the current and potential uses of AI, questions of suitability and ethics, and the challenges and opportunities that arise through this broader consideration of what it is courts actually do, beyond determining disputes. While AI may enhance access to justice, reduce costs, save time, and potentially improve the quality of justice, significant challenges arise, including the potential erosion of judicial respect, inaccuracy, and concerns for the separation of powers. Crucially, court users and the public ought to be more widely consulted in how AI is developed and deployed for courts to achieve better, fairer, and more effective justice.

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are used in court to analyse legal data, cite case law, evaluate and generate evidence, or support judges with prediction. As technological advancements enter the courtroom, assessing their impact on core judicial values is crucial. This chapter asks whether AI undermines procedural fairness in judicial decision-making. To address this question, it first presents procedural fairness as a normative concept studied across different disciplines. It shows why procedural fairness matters and what values fair procedures aim to foster. Drawing on case studies and scholarly work, it then illustrates how AI systems may impair these values. It then investigates how regulatory attempts and ethical frameworks for AI in judicial systems aim to address the resulting issues by analysing fundamental principles of technology regulation. The main argument of the chapter is that AI regulation must be complemented by specific procedural rules tailored to the judicial domain. In the age of AI, fair procedures should realise participation, increase trust, preserve neutrality, and provide mechanisms to detect errors in AI systems.

This chapter focuses on the present and potential uses of artificial intelligence (AI) in Turkey's court system, including non-judicial tasks. Although Türkiye lacks sophisticated AI applications in a strict technical sense, the National Judiciary Informatics System (UYAP) has modernised judicial processes by digitising legal proceedings. While this system enhances accessibility and efficiency, the Turkish Constitutional Court and the Court of Cassation are exploring more advanced AI models. These courts are leveraging AI for tasks such as case classification, decision support, and reducing backlog.