IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlawss/v13y2024i6p71-d1527731.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

AI Accountability in Judicial Proceedings: An Actor–Network Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Francesco Contini

    (Institute on Lega Informatics and Judicial Systems, National Research Council of Italy, 40125 Bologna, Italy)

  • Elena Alina Ontanu

    (Tilburg Law School, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, 5037 AB Tilburg, The Netherlands)

  • Marco Velicogna

    (Institute on Lega Informatics and Judicial Systems, National Research Council of Italy, 40125 Bologna, Italy)

Abstract

This paper analyzes the impact of AI systems in the judicial domain, adopting an actor–network theory (ANT) framework and focusing on accountability issues emerging when such technologies are introduced. Considering three different types of AI applications used by judges, this paper explores how introducing non-accountable artifacts into justice systems influences the actor–network configuration and the distribution of accountability between humans and technology. The analysis discusses the actor–network reconfiguration emerging when speech-to-text, legal analytics, and predictive justice technologies are introduced in pre-existing settings and maps out the changes in agency and accountability between judges and AI applications. The EU legal framework and the EU AI Act provide the juridical framework against which the findings are assessed to check the fit of new technological systems with justice system requirements. The findings show the paradox that non-accountable AI can be used without endangering fundamental judicial values when judges can control the system’s outputs, evaluating its correspondence with the inputs. When this requirement is not met, the remedies provided by the EU AI Act fall short in costs or in organizational and technical complexity. The judge becomes the unique subject accountable for the use and outcome of a non-accountable system. This paper suggests that this occurs regardless of whether the technology is AI-based or not. The concrete risks emerging from these findings are that these technological innovations can lead to undue influence on judicial decision making and endanger the fair trial principle.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesco Contini & Elena Alina Ontanu & Marco Velicogna, 2024. "AI Accountability in Judicial Proceedings: An Actor–Network Approach," Laws, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:13:y:2024:i:6:p:71-:d:1527731
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/13/6/71/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/13/6/71/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Czarniawska, Barbara, 2004. "On Time, Space, and Action Nets," GRI-rapport 2004:5, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg Research Institute GRI.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anne Kokkonen & Pauli Alin, 2015. "Practice-based learning in construction projects: a literature review," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(7), pages 513-530, July.
    2. Lambert Jerman & Julien Raone, 2014. "Dompter La Verite Dans L'Organisation : La Subjectivation Comme Production De L'Animal Confessant," Post-Print hal-01899765, HAL.
    3. Lindberg, Kajsa, 2014. "Performing multiple logics in practice," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 485-497.
    4. Caroline A. Bartel & Raghu Garud, 2009. "The Role of Narratives in Sustaining Organizational Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 107-117, February.
    5. Fenna Blomsma & Mike Tennant & Ritsuko Ozaki, 2023. "Making sense of circular economy: Understanding the progression from idea to action," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 1059-1084, March.
    6. repec:dau:papers:123456789/13554 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Marianna Lena Kambanou, 2020. "Life Cycle Costing: Understanding How It Is Practised and Its Relationship to Life Cycle Management—A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-19, April.
    8. Siedlok, Frank & Hibbert, Paul & Sillince, John, 2015. "From practice to collaborative community in interdisciplinary research contexts," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 96-107.
    9. Ewa Bogacz-Wojtanowska & Anna Góral, 2018. "Networks or Structures? Organizing Cultural Routes Around Heritage Values. Case Studies from Poland," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 253-277, December.
    10. Pipan, Tatiana & Czarniawska, Barbara, 2010. "How to construct an actor-network: Management accounting from idea to practice," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 243-251.
    11. Barbara Czarniawska, 2010. "Translation impossible? Accounting for a city project," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 23(3), pages 420-437, March.
    12. Riitta Forsten-Astikainen & Kyllikki Taipale-Erävala, 2018. "Clay Workshop as Staff’s Competency Self-Evaluation Related to Business Strategy," International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, International School for Social and Business Studies, Celje, Slovenia, vol. 7(2), pages 141-164.
    13. Henrikke Baumann & Mathias Lindkvist, 2022. "A sociomaterial conceptualization of flows in industrial ecology," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(2), pages 655-666, April.
    14. Garud, Raghu & Gehman, Joel & Karunakaran, Arvind, 2014. "Boundaries, breaches, and bridges: The case of Climategate," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 60-73.
    15. Wai Fong Chua & Habib Mahama, 2007. "The Effect of Network Ties on Accounting Controls in a Supply Alliance: Field Study Evidence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 47-86, March.
    16. Huikku, Jari & Mouritsen, Jan & Silvola, Hanna, 2017. "Relative reliability and the recognisable firm: Calculating goodwill impairment value," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 68-83.
    17. Sarah Kaplan & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2013. "Temporal Work in Strategy Making," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 965-995, August.
    18. Grégory Jemine & François Pichault & Christophe Dubois, 2021. "New Ways of Working in academia: maneuvering in and with ambiguity in workspace design processes," Post-Print hal-03419339, HAL.
    19. Fabianski, Caroline, 2018. "Partnering for quality and performance: A standpoint for enhanced services," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 135-143.
    20. Garud, Raghu & Gehman, Joel, 2012. "Metatheoretical perspectives on sustainability journeys: Evolutionary, relational and durational," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 980-995.
    21. Johnson, Hannes & Styhre, Linda, 2015. "Increased energy efficiency in short sea shipping through decreased time in port," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 167-178.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:13:y:2024:i:6:p:71-:d:1527731. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.