Acadexon

Academic Catalogue of Legal Research

Journal article Open access

Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Decision-Making: Can a Robot Replace a Judge?

By Tatia Dolidze

Law and World · Vol. 12, No. 37, pp. 6-24 · 2026

Access

Visit official source

lawandworld.ge

View full text

Open access

Acadexon indexes bibliographic metadata and links to the publisher. The full text is not stored here, and copyright remains with the authors, publishers or other rights holders.

Abstract

This article examines the concept of the “robot judge” and evaluates the legal, ethical, and human rights implications of using artificial intelligence in judicial decision-making. The study explores whether AI can partially or fully perform judicial functions and assesses the extent to which algorithmic tools may be integrated into courts without undermining the fundamental principles of justice. The article is based on doctrinal legal analysis, comparative review, and a human-rights-oriented approach. It distinguishes between administrative automation, decision-support systems, and fully automated adjudication, arguing that these forms of technological involvement raise different levels of legal concern. The paper demonstrates that AI may offer important benefits for judicial systems, including greater efficiency, faster case processing, improved consistency, and enhanced access to justice, especially in repetitive or low-value disputes. At the same time, the article identifies serious risks associated with algorithmic bias, lack of transparency, limited explainability, accountability gaps, and threats to the right to a fair trial. Attention is given to the relationship between AI and judicial discretion, emphasizing that legal reasoning is not a purely mechanical exercise but a process involving interpretation, contextual evaluation, proportionality, and moral judgment. The article concludes that AI should not replace human judges in the exercise of final judicial authority. A legally acceptable model is the use of AI as a supportive instrument under meaningful human supervision, clear regulatory safeguards, transparency requirements, and effective mechanisms of review. Such an approach best reconciles technological innovation with the rule of law and the protection of human dignity.

Details

Publication type
Journal article
Author
  • Tatia Dolidze - Ph.D in Law, Affiliated Professor at Georgian International University (GIU), Georgia
Journal
Law and World
Publication
March 31, 2026
Volume
12
Issue
37
Pages
6-24
Language
English
DOI
10.36475/12.1.1
ISSN
2346-7916
Institutions
Georgian International University
Access
Open access
Licence
CC BY-SA 4.0
Added to catalogue
Metadata source
Supplied by the publisher

Areas of law

Judiciary and Justice

Keywords

Algorithmic bias judicial discretion fair trial

Cite this record

Dolidze, T. (2026). Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Decision-Making: Can a Robot Replace a Judge?. Law and World, 12(37), 6-24. https://doi.org/10.36475/12.1.1
Dolidze, Tatia. "Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Decision-Making: Can a Robot Replace a Judge?." Law and World 12, no. 37 (2026): 6-24. https://doi.org/10.36475/12.1.1.
@article{dolidze2026_v34ntv,
  title     = {Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Decision-Making: Can a Robot Replace a Judge?},
  author    = {Dolidze, Tatia},
  year      = {2026},
  journal   = {Law and World},
  volume    = {12},
  number    = {37},
  pages     = {6--24},
  doi       = {10.36475/12.1.1},
  issn      = {2346-7916},
  language  = {en},
  url       = {https://lawandworld.ge/index.php/law/article/view/954},
  note      = {Open access}
}
Download BibTeX 
TY  - JOUR
AU  - Dolidze, Tatia
TI  - Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Decision-Making: Can a Robot Replace a Judge?
PY  - 2026
JO  - Law and World
VL  - 12
IS  - 37
SN  - 2346-7916
DO  - 10.36475/12.1.1
LA  - en
UR  - https://lawandworld.ge/index.php/law/article/view/954
AB  - This article examines the concept of the “robot judge” and evaluates the legal, ethical, and human rights implications of using artificial intelligence in judicial decision-making. The study explores whether AI can partially or fully perform judicial functions and assesses the extent to which algorithmic tools may be integrated into courts without undermining the fundamental principles of justice. The article is based on doctrinal legal analysis, comparative review, and a human-rights-oriented approach. It distinguishes between administrative automation, decision-support systems, and fully automated adjudication, arguing that these forms of technological involvement raise different levels of legal concern. The paper demonstrates that AI may offer important benefits for judicial systems, including greater efficiency, faster case processing, improved consistency, and enhanced access to justice, especially in repetitive or low-value disputes. At the same time, the article identifies serious risks associated with algorithmic bias, lack of transparency, limited explainability, accountability gaps, and threats to the right to a fair trial. Attention is given to the relationship between AI and judicial discretion, emphasizing that legal reasoning is not a purely mechanical exercise but a process involving interpretation, contextual evaluation, proportionality, and moral judgment. The article concludes that AI should not replace human judges in the exercise of final judicial authority. A legally acceptable model is the use of AI as a supportive instrument under meaningful human supervision, clear regulatory safeguards, transparency requirements, and effective mechanisms of review. Such an approach best reconciles technological innovation with the rule of law and the protection of human dignity.
KW  - Algorithmic bias
KW  - judicial discretion
KW  - fair trial
KW  - ალგორითმული მიკერძოება
KW  - მოსამართლის დისკრეცია
KW  - სამართლიანი სასამართლო
SP  - 6
EP  - 24
ER  -
Download RIS

Generated from the metadata stored in this record. Please verify against the published version before citing.

Related research

Discussion

No comments yet · Comments are discussion only. They do not change the bibliographic record.

Sign in to join the discussion.

No comments yet. Start the discussion.