Цифровые технологии и правовая аргументация: влияние статистических юридических технологий на право

Внедрение «юридических технологий», использующих статистические инструменты, поднимает вопросы о будущем права и юридической практики. Если раньше технологии всегда опосредовали концепцию, практику и структуру права, то сейчас происходит качественный и количественный сдвиг: статистические юридические технологии непосредственно интегрируются в юридическую практику, особенно в судебную. Цифровые приложения, в частности для поиска и создания документов, влияют на то, как практикующие юристы взаимодействуют с правовой системой. Воздействуя на процессы создания права, технологии в конечном итоге формируют само право. Также технологии влияют на творческие элементы судебной практики. Например, за счет автоматизации они обуславливают способ реализации юристами профессиональных и этических обязанностей в рамках дела своего клиента. Все это приводит к тому, что в юридическую практику приложения с использованием технологии машинного обучения должны вводиться с большой осторожностью, если мы хотим избежать тонкого, непреднамеренного, но в конечном итоге фундаментального подрыва действия принципа верховенства права. В статье авторы приходят к выводу, что полагаться на бдительность отдельных юристов недостаточно для защиты от потенциально вредных последствий использования таких систем, учитывая непостижимость алгоритма принятия ими решений, и предполагаем, что ответственность за демонстрацию легитимности своих систем в соответствии со стандартами и принципами права лежит на создателях и поставщиках юридических технологий.

Перевод и публикация данной статьи выполнены на основе лицензии CC BY Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International, на условиях которой данная статья была опубликована на английском языке на сайте https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/ts259/. Статья также была принята к публикации в журнале Communitas (2022).

1. Bankowski, Z. Don’t Think About It Legalism and Legality. In M. M. Karlsson, O. Pall Jonsson and E. M. Brynjarsdottir (eds), Rechtstheorie: Zeitschrift für Logik, Methodenlehre, Kybernetik und Soziologie des Rechts. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1993.

2. Bell, R., Abela, C. A Lawyer’s Duty to the Court. Proceedings of a Symposium on Professionalism, 2012. URL: http://advokat-id.ru/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/11024_10167_CEA-A-Lawyers-Duty-to-the-Court.pdf (дата обращения: 1.11.2021).

3. Brownsword, R. Technological Management and the Rule of Law. Law, Innovation and Technology, 2016. Vol. 8. P. 100.

4. Cabitza, F. Breeding Electric Zebras in the Fields of Medicine [Electronic resource]. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.04077 (дата обращения: 22.08.2022).

5. Chalkidis, I. [et al.]. LEGAL-BERT: The Muppets Straight out of Law School. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 (Online: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020). URL: https://aclanthologyorg/2020.findings-emnlp.261 (дата обращения: 31.10.2021).

6. Cheek, E. Which Types of Briefs Can You Draft Using Compose? URL: https://help.casetext.com/en/articles/4044930which-types-of-briefs-can-you-draft-using-compose (дата обращения: 1.11.2021).

7. Cobbe, J. Legal Singularity and the Reflexivity of Law. In S. Deakin and Ch. Markou (eds). Is Law Computable? Critical Perspectives on Law and Artificial Intelligence, 2020.

8. Diver, L. Normative Shortcuts and the Hermeneutic Singularity. URL: https://www.cohubicol.com/blog/normative- shortcuts-and-the-hermeneutic-singularity (дата обращения: 1.11.2021).

9. Diver, L. Digisprudence: Code as Law Rebooted. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2022.

10. Dijk, N. van The Life and Deaths of a Dispute: An Inquiry into Matters of Law. In K. McGee (ed.). Latour and the Passage of Law. Edinburgh University Press, 2015.

11. Esposito, E. Transparency vs. Explanation: The Role of Ambiguity in Legal AI. Journal of Cross-disciplinary Research in Computational Law, 2021. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 1–13.

12. Ethics in Law. Law Society of England and Wales [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/regulation/ethics-in-law (дата обращения: 1.11.2021).

13. Fish, S. Doing What Comes Naturally: Change, Rhetoric, and the Practice of Theory in Literary and Legal Studies. Durham: Duke University Press, 1989.

14. Gaakeer, J. Judging from Experience: Law, Praxis, Humanities. Edinburgh University Press, 2019.

15. Gadamer, H.-G. Truth and Method. Translation by J. Weinsheimer, D. G. Marshall. London: Bloomsbury, 2013.

16. Gardner, J. The Mark of Responsibility. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2003. Vol. 23.

17. General Terms of Use. Jus Mundi. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://jusmundi.com/en/terms-of-use (дата обращения: 1.11.2021).

18. G’sell, F. Predicting Courts. Decisions Is Lawful in France and Will Remain So. URL: https://gsell.tech/en/predictingcourts-decisions-is-lawful-in-france-and-will-remain-so/ (дата обращения: 30.09.2021).

19. Harvey, D. J. Collisions in the Digital Paradigm: Law and Rule Making in the Digital Age. Bloomsbury, 2017.

20. Hildebrandt, M. Code-Driven Law: Freezing the Future and Scaling the Past. In S. F. Deakin, C. Markou (eds). Is Law Computable? Critical Perspectives on Law and Artificial Intelligence. Oxford, UK; New York, NY: Hart, 2020.

21. Hildebrandt, M. Law as Computation in the Era of Artificial Legal Intelligence: Speaking Law to the Power of Statistics. University of Toronto Law Journal, 2018. No. 68.

22. Hildebrandt, M. Legal and Technological Normativity: More (and Less) than Twin Sisters. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 2008. No. 12.

23. Hildebrandt, M. Privacy as Protection of the Incomputable Self: From Agnostic to Agonistic Machine Learning. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 2019. No. 20.

24. Hildebrandt, M. Smart Technologies and the End(s) of Law: Novel Entanglements of Law and Technology. London: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015.

25. Holmes, O. W. The Path of the Law. Harvard Law Review, 1897. No. 10.

26. Ihde, D. Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth. Indiana University Press, 1990.

27. Katz, D. M. Quantitative Legal Prediction — or — How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Start Preparing for the Data Driven Future of the Legal Services Industry. Emory Law Journal. 2012. No. 62.

28. Kerr, I. Prediction, Pre-Emption, Presumption: The Path of Law After the Computational Turn. In M. Hildebrandt and K. De Vries (eds.), Privacy and Due Process After The Computational Turn: The Philosophy of Law Meets The Philosophy of Technology. London: Routledge, 2013.

29. Kranzberg, M. Technology and History: Kranzberg’s Laws. Technology and Culture, 1986. No. 27.

30. Kuskis, A. We Shape Our Tools and Thereafter Our Tools Shape Us [Electronic resource]. URL: https://mcluhangalaxy.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/we-shape-our-tools-and-thereafter-our-tools-shape-us/ (дата обращения: 31.10.2021).

31. Latour, B. Biography of an Inquiry: On a Book about Modes of Existence. Social Studies of Science, 2013. No. 43.

32. Lawtech and Ethics Principles. Law Society of England and Wales, 2021 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/research/lawtech-and-ethics-principles-report-2021 (дата обращения: 31.10.2021).

33. Lex Machina: Legal Analytics® for the Data-Driven Lawyer. Lex Machina [Electronic resource]. URL: https://lexmachina.com/wp-content/uploads/Legal-Analytics-for-Data-Driven-Lawyer.pdf (дата обращения: 31.10.2021).

34. Livermore, M. A., Rockmore, D. N. (eds). Law as Data: Computation, Text, and the Future of Legal Analysis. Santa Fe: SFI Press, 2019.

35. MacCormick, N. Institutions of Law: An Essay in Legal Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

36. MacCormick, N. Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

37. Mart, S. N. The Algorithm as a Human Artifact: Implications for Legal {Re}Search. Law Library Journal, 2017. No. 109.

38. Mason, S. Artificial Intelligence: Oh Really? And Why Judges and Lawyers Are Central to the Way We Live Now — but They Don’t Know It’. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review. Vol. 23. Issue 8. 2017. Р. 213–225.

39. McQuillan, D. Data Science as Machinic Neoplatonism. Philosophy & Technology, 2018. No. 31.

40. Meneceur, Y., Barbaro, C. Artificial Intelligence and the Judicial Memory: The Great Misunderstanding. Les Cahiers de la Justice. No. 2019/2. Dalloz. June 2019. P. 277–289.

41. Mitchell, T. M. Machine Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.

42. O’Grady, J. Hits and Misses Part 4: Westlaw Edge — Hit, Miss or Hold Off? Customers Respond — Show Me the ROI! [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.deweybstrategic.com/2019/05/hits-and-misses-part-4-westlaw-edge-hit-miss-or-hold-off-customers-respond-show-me-the-roi.html (дата обращения: 1.11.2021).

43. Parallel Search (Casetext) [Electronic resource]. URL: https://casetext.com/parallel-search/ (дата обращения: 31.10.2021).

44. Paterson, A. Duties to the Court. Law, Practice & Conduct for Solicitors. 2nd edn., W Green/Thomson Reuters, 2014.

45. Regulation and Compliance. Law Society of Scotland [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/regulation-and-compliance/ (дата обращения: 1.11.2021).

46. Rouvroy, A., Stiegler, B. The Digital Regime of Truth: From the Algorithmic Governmentality to a New Rule of Law. La Deleuziana: Online Journal of Philosophy, 2016. No. 3.

47. Rovira, C., Codina, L., Lopezosa, C. Language Bias in the Google Scholar Ranking Algorithm. Future Internet, 2021. No. 13.

48. Sax, M. Optimization of What? For-Profit Health Apps as Manipulative Digital Environments. Ethics and Information Technology. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3752597

49. Search Results Evaluation Efforts at Casetext [Electronic resource]. URL: https://casetext.com/blog/search-resultsevaluation-efforts-at-casetext/ (дата обращения: 1.11.2021).

50. Smith, B. C. The Promise of Artificial Intelligence: Reckoning and Judgment. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2019.

51. Strathern, M. Improving Ratings: Audit in the British University System. European review. 1997. No. 5.

52. Sætra, H. S. Robotomorphy. AI Ethics, 2022. No. 2. P. 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00092-x.

53. THE FUTURE OF LAW Judge Analytics: Predicting The Behavior of the Courtroom’s Boss. Lex Machina [Electronic resource]. URL: https://pages.lexmachina.com/Website_-Future-of-Law-Webcast_The-Future-of-Law-3.html (дата обращения: 31.10.2021).

54. Volokh, E. Chief Justice Robots. Duke Law Journal, 2018. No. 68.

55. Waddington, M. Research Note. Rules as Code. Law in Context. A Socio-legal Journal, 2020. No. 37.

56. Waldron, J. The Rule of Law and the Importance of Procedure. Nomos, 2011. No. 50.

57. Where to Find Briefs. Supreme Court of the United States. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.supremecourt.gov/meritsbriefs/briefsource.aspx (дата обращения: 1.11.2021).

58. Winner, L. Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus, 1980.