Artificial intelligence in the system of electronic justice by consideration of corporate disputes

Authors

  • Vladimir K. Andreev Moscow State Law University named after O. E. Kutafin (MSLA), 9, Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya ul., Moscow, 125993, Russian Federation https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8615-5868
  • Vasiliy A. Laptev Moscow State Law University named after O. E. Kutafin (MSLA), 9, Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya ul., Moscow, 125993, Russian Federation https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6495-1599
  • Sergey Yu. Chucha Moscow State Law University named after O. E. Kutafin (MSLA), 9, Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya ul., Moscow, 125993, Russian Federation

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2020.102

Abstract

Trends in the development of modern public relations illustrate a desire to use artificial intelligence in the field of electronic justice. The developed ideas of technological aspects in the work of artificial intelligence do not add up in terms of justice for both domestic and foreign jurists. The unpreparedness of a legislator to define a legal regime of work for artificial intelligence is caused by lack of experience in its use. Implementation of artificial intelligence in the activities of society will show the merits and demerits only after some time. Under the specified circumstances, forecasting the prospects of development for mechanisms of legal regulation in the work of machine intelligence is represented very conditionally. In the present article, possible ways and legal consequences for the implementation of artificial intelligence in the system of electronic justice in Russia on the example of corporate disputes are investigated. The chosen category of disputes is not accidental. By considering corporate disputes, artificial intelligence will allow courts to quickly and authentically establish the essential facts of the case, to check arguments of participants in the process and, as a result, it is essential to reduce the time of acceptance of the objective decision. In corporate relations often an assessment is required of the conscientiousness behavior of participants regardless of the emotional and psychological factors, in particular influencing the work of the judge-person. The understanding of artificial intelligence as a digital program on the basis of its programmers of mathematical algorithms, developing “new” solutions (machine thinking), demands research of algorithms of its work in court, including in terms of optimization of trial and the purpose for establishment of the truth in business. In the work, two scopes of artificial intelligence in court are divided by consideration of corporate disputes: office-work and the general judicial proceedings; assessment of proofs and establishment of legally significant circumstances in a corporate dispute.

Keywords:

court, legal proceedings, artificial intelligence, electronic justice, corporate disputes, electronic proofs, legal proceedings language, digital protocol, judicial cloud, large deals

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

Библиография

Алексеева, Екатерина. 2018. «Как взыскать убытки, если рассчитать их точный размер не получается? Обзор судебной практики». ЭЖ-Юрист 28 (1029): 8–9.

Лаптев, Василий А. 2017. «Электронные доказательства в арбитражном процессе». Российская юстиция 2: 56–59.

Лаптев, Василий А. 2018. «Новые подходы в правовом режиме совершения экстраординарных сделок в постановлении Пленума ВС РФ от 26 июня 2018 г. № 27». Российская юстиция 9: 10–12.

Лаптев, Василий А., Нина И. Соловяненко, Сергей Ю. Чуча. 2017. Электронное правосудие. Электронный документооборот. Москва: Проспект.

Морхат, Петр Н. 2018. «Правосубъектность искусственного интеллекта в сфере права интеллектуальной собственности: гражданско-правовые проблемы». Автореф. дис. … д-ра юрид. наук.Российская государственная академия интеллектуальной собственности.

Привалов, Александр. 2019. «Искусственный интеллект научился выносить приговоры». Дата обращения 21 января, 2019. https://www.popmech.ru/technologies/362972-iskusstvennyy-intellektnauchilsya-vynosit-prigovory.

Савельев, Сергей Л. 2019. «Корпоративные споры в арбитражных судах: статистика». Дата обращения 21 января, 2019. https://pravo.ru/opinion/207761/?desc_search=.

Чуча, Сергей Ю., Ирина В. Сорокина, Екатерина А. Кулагина. 2011. «Электронное судопроизводство как фактор снижения конфликтности в российском обществе». Закон 2: 73–76.

Шартогашева, Анастасия. 2019. «Искусственный интеллект IBM стал адвокатом». Дата обращения 21 января, 2019. https://www.popmech.ru/gadgets/238535-iskusstvennyy-intellekt-ibm-staladvokatom.

Aletras, Nikolaos, Dimitrios Tsarapatsanis, Daniel Preoţiuc-Pietro, Vasileios Lampos. 2016. “Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective”.PeerJ Computer Science 2: e93. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.93.

Buocz, Thomas J. 2018. “Artificial Intelligence in Court: Legitimacy Problems of AI Assistance in the Judiciary”. Retskraft — Copenhagen Journal of Legal Studies 2 (1): 41–59.

Peshkin, Michael A., James E. Colgate Witaya Wannasuphoprasit, Carl A. Moore, Prasad Akella, Richard B. Gillespie. 2001. “Cobot Architecture”. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 17 (4): 377–390. doi: 10.1109/70.954751.

Pittman, Kagan. 2016. “Infographic: A Brief History of Collaborative Robots”. Дата обращения 21 января,2019. https://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/12169.

References

Alekseeva, Ekaterina. 2018. “How to claim damages if it is impossible to calculate their exact size? Review of judicial practice”. EZh-Iurist 28 (1029): 8–9. (In Russian)

Aletras, Nikolaos, Dimitrios Tsarapatsanis, Daniel Preoţiuc-Pietro, Vasileios Lampos. 2016. “Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective”.PeerJ Computer Science 2: e93. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.93.

Buocz, Thomas J. 2018. “Artificial Intelligence in Court: Legitimacy Problems of AI Assistance in the Judiciary”. Retskraft — Copenhagen Journal of Legal Studies 2 (1): 41–59.

Chucha, Sergey Yu., Irina V. Sorokina, Ekaterina A. Kulagina. 2011. “Electronic legal proceedings as factor of decrease in conflictness in the Russian society”. Zakon 2: 73–76. (In Russian)

Laptev, Vasily A. 2017. “Electronic proofs in arbitration process”. Rossiiskaia iustitsiia 2: 56–59. (In Russian)

Laptev, Vasily A. 2018. “New approaches in a legal regime of commission of extraordinary transactions in the resolution of the Plenum of Russian Armed Forces of June 26, 2018 No. 27”. Rossiiskaia iustitsiia 9: 10–12. (In Russian)

Laptev, Vasily A., Nina I. Solovyanenko, Sergey Yu. Chucha. 2017. Electronic justice. Electronic document flow. Moscow, Prospekt Publ. (In Russian)

Morkhat, Peter N. 2018. “Legal personality of artificial intelligence in the sphere of intellectual property right: civil problems”. Dr. Sci. Thesis in Law. Russian state academy of intellectual property. (In Russian)

Peshkin, Michael A., James E. Colgate Witaya Wannasuphoprasit, Carl A. Moore, Prasad Akella, Richard B. Gillespie. 2001. “Cobot Architecture”. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 17 (4): 377–390. doi: 10.1109/70.954751.

Pittman, Kagan. 2016. “Infographic: A Brief History of Collaborative Robots”. Дата обращения 21 января,2019. https://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/12169.

Privalov, Aleksandr. 2019. “The artificial intelligence learned to pronounce sentences”. Accessed January 21, 2019. https://www.popmech.ru/technologies/362972-iskusstvennyy-intellekt-nauchilsya-vynositprigovory.(In Russian)

Savelyev, Sergey L. 2019. “Corporate disputes in arbitration courts: statistics”. Accessed January 21, 2019. https://pravo.ru/opinion/207761/?desc_search=. (In Russian)

Shartogasheva, Anastasia. 2019. “The artificial intelligence of IBM became the lawyer”. Accessed January 21, 2019. https://www.popmech.ru/gadgets/238535-iskusstvennyy-intellekt-ibm-stal-advokatom. (In Russian)

Published

2020-03-31

How to Cite

Andreev, V. K., Laptev, V. A., & Chucha, S. Y. (2020). Artificial intelligence in the system of electronic justice by consideration of corporate disputes. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law, 11(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2020.102

Issue

Section

Public and Private Law: Applied Research