XALQARO SUDLARDA SUDYALAR TOMONIDAN SUN’IY INTELLEKT YORDAMCHILARIDAN FOYDALANISH IMKONIYATLARI VA CHEGARALARI
Keywords:
sun’iy intellekt, xalqaro sudlar, sud qarorlarini qabul qilish, huquqiy texnologiyalar, algoritmik shaffoflik, inson huquqlari.Abstract
Ushbu maqolada xalqaro sudlarda sudyalar tomonidan sun’iy intellekt yordamchilaridan foydalanish imkoniyatlari va chegaralari tahlil qilinadi. Xalqaro Sud, Xalqaro Jinoyat Sudi va Inson Huquqlari bo‘yicha Yevropa Sudi kabi xalqaro sud organlari tobora ortib borayotgan murakkab ish hajmi, ko‘p tilli hujjatlar va katta hajmdagi dalillar bilan bog‘liq qiyinchilikka duch kelmoqda. Huquqiy ma’lumot izlash tizimlari, bashoratli tahlil vositalari, mashina tarjimasi va ko‘p tilli modellarini o‘z ichiga oluvchi sun’iy intellect yordamchilari samaradorlik, izchillik va adolatga erishish imkoniyatini oshirishni va’da qilmoqda. Shu bilan birga, ularni joriy etish shaffoflik, hisobdorlik, sud hokimiyatining mustaqilligi, tegishli yuridik jarayon va asosiy huquqlarni himoya qilish borasida jiddiy xavotirlarga sabab bo‘lmoqda. Ilmiy adabiyotlar, me’yoriy-huquqiy hujjatlar va bashoratli sud modellari bo‘yicha tadqiqotlarni o‘rganib chiqish asosida maqolada sun’iy intellektni inson-sudyalarni almashtiruvchi emas, balki qaror qabul qilishni qo‘llab-quvvatlovchi vosita sifatida faoliyat yurituvchi gibrid model taklif etiladi.
References
1. Aletras, N., Tsarapatsanis, D., Preoţiuc-Pietro, D., & Lampos, V. (2016). Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: A natural language processing perspective. PeerJ Computer Science, 2, e93.
2. Buocz, T. J. (2018). Artificial intelligence in court: Legitimacy problems of AI assistance in the judiciary. Copenhagen Journal of Legal Studies, 2(1), 41–59.
3. Chiao, V. (2019). Fairness, accountability and transparency: Notes on algorithmic decision-making in criminal justice. International Journal of Law in Context, 15(2), 126–139.
4. Contini, F. (2020). Artificial intelligence and the transformation of humans, law and technology interactions in judicial proceedings. Law, Technology and Humans, 2(1), 4–18.
5. Council of Europe. (2024). Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, CETS No. 225. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
6. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2018). European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and their Environment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
7. Medvedeva, M., Vols, M., & Wieling, M. (2020). Using machine learning to predict decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 28(2), 237–266.
8. Re, R. M., & Solow-Niederman, A. (2019). Developing artificially intelligent justice. Stanford Technology Law Review, 22(2), 242–289.
9. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), OJ L, 12 July 2024.
10. Reiling, A. D. (2020). Courts and artificial intelligence. International Journal for Court Administration, 11(2), 8.
11. Sourdin, T. (2018). Judge v Robot? Artificial intelligence and judicial decision-making. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 41(4), 1114–1133.
12. State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016).
13. Susskind, R. (2019). Online courts and the future of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Paris: UNESCO.
15. Volokh, E. (2019). Chief Justice Robots. Duke Law Journal, 68(6), 1135–1192.
16. Zalnieriute, M., Moses, L. B., & Williams, G. (2019). The rule of law and automation of government decision-making. Modern Law Review, 82(3), 425–455.
