
Background. The article analyzes the possibilities and limitations of integrating artificial intelligence into the judicial system of the Russian Federation using the example of procedural legislation. Purpose. The purpose of the study is to assess the compatibility of artificial intelligence technologies with the domestic legal system, identify legal conflicts and develop recommendations for adapting legislation. Methodology. During the research, the method of analysis, formal legal, comparative legal and hermeneutic approaches were used. The study used regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, the EU, Canada, the USA and China, scientific legal research and the legal press. Results. The main results of the study showed that the current procedural legislation of the Russian Federation is not adapted to the use of artificial intelligence. Experiments with "weak artificial intelligence" in contract manufacturing (Belgorod and Amur regions) have confirmed the need for legislative changes. Key problems were identified: algorithmic bias (using the COMPAS system as an example), lack of legal entity status for artificial intelligence, risks of cyber-attacks, contradiction to the principles of competitiveness, internal persuasion and independence of judges. Practical implications. Based on the analysis of foreign experience, recommendations are proposed: the consolidation of artificial intelligence as an auxiliary tool, the development of standards for the transparency of algorithms, the introduction of a risk-based approach, the training of judges and the creation of specialized legislation. The recommendations can also be used by the legislator when conducting research on the topic of the article. The importance of maintaining a balance between innovation and respect for the fundamental principles of law is emphasized. EDN: YRZZSB
innovations in law, civil proceedings, procedural legislation, foreign experience, K, legal risks, digitalization, Law, algorithmic transparency
innovations in law, civil proceedings, procedural legislation, foreign experience, K, legal risks, digitalization, Law, algorithmic transparency
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
