SUD JARAYONLARIDA SUN’IY INTELLEKTDAN FOYDALANISHNI JORIY ETISH ZARURATI
Keywords:
sun’iy intellekt, sud jarayoni, algoritmik xolislik, javobgarlik, raqamli adliya, huquqiy tahlil, empirik tadqiqot.Abstract
Ushbu maqolada O‘zbekistonda sud jarayonlariga sun’iy intellekt (SI) texnologiyalarini joriy etish zarurati ilmiy-nazariyva empirik asosda tahlil qilinadi. Tadqiqotning asosiy maqsadi — SI sud tizimida samaradorlik, shaffoflik va korrupsiyani kamaytirish kabi yo‘nalishlarda qanday natija berishi va mavjud huquqiy bazaning bunda qanchalik yetarli ekanini aniqlashdir. Maqolada Yevropa Kengashining “European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems” (2019) hujjati, shuningdek O‘zbekistondagi PQ–4996 (2021) va PQ–358 (2024) qarorlarining tanqidiy tahlili keltiriladi. Empirik tahlil sifatida 35 respondent o‘rtasida o‘tkazilgan so‘rovnoma natijalari qo‘llanilgan bo‘lib, unda 77,1% ishtirokchi SIsud tizimiga ijobiy ta’sir ko‘rsatishini bildirgan. Natijalar shuni ko‘rsatadiki, aholining aksariyati SI’ni samaradorlik vositasi sifatida ko‘radi, biroq javobgarlik va ma’lumotlar xavfsizligi kabimasalalar bo‘yicha huquqiy mexanizmlarning kuchaytirilishini kutmoqda. Muallif SI joriy etishning asosiy ehtiyojlari, huquqiy bo‘shliqlar va xalqaro hujjatlar bilan taqqoslash orqali O‘zbekiston uchun zarur amaliy takliflarni beradi.
References
1. Novelli, C., Hacker, P., Morley, J., Trondal, J., & Floridi, L. (2024). A Robust Governance for the AI Act: AI Office, AI Board, Scientific Panel, and National Authorities. arXiv.
2. Sousa e Silva, N. (2024). The Artificial Intelligence Act: Critical Overview. ArXiv.
3. Nay, J. J. (2022). Law Informs Code: A Legal Informatics Approach to Aligning Artificial Intelligence with Humans. arXiv.
4. Prajescu, A. I., & Confalonieri, R. (2025). Argumentation Based Explainability for Legal AI: Comparative and Regulatory Perspectives. arXiv.
5. Khan, A. A., Akbar, M. A., Fahmideh, M., Liang, P., Waseem, M., Ahmad, A., Niazi, M., & Abrahamsson, P. (2022). AI Ethics: An Empirical Study on the Views of Practitioners and Lawmakers. arXiv.
6. Veale, M., Van Kleek, M., & Binns, R. (2018). Fairness and Accountability Design Needs for Algorithmic Support in High-Stakes Public Sector Decision Making. arXiv.
7. Oberto, G. (2024). Artificial intelligence and judicial activities: the position of CEPEJ. In IAJ UIM Conference Proceedings.
8. OECD. (2025). AI in justice administration and access to justice: Governing with Artificial Intelligence. OECD Publishing.
9. OECD. (2019). Artificial Intelligence in Society. OECD Publishing.
10. OECD. (2019; updated 2024). AI Principles. OECD.
11. Council of Europe (CEPEJ). (2018). European Ethical Charter on the use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and their Environment. Council of Europe.
12. Council of Europe. (2024). Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law. Council of Europe. (Bu konventsiya CEPEJ va CoE doirasida muhokama qilinmoqda.)
