ROBOT JUDGE:

A PHILOSOPHICAL-LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

Authors

  • Aldo Schiavello Università degli Studi di Palermo

Keywords:

AI and law; predictive justice, Rule of Law; legal interpretation, legal certainty; Judge robot.

Abstract

This essay reflects on the impact of artificial intelligence on the law, aiming to avoid the polarisation between ‘tech optimists’ and ‘tech pessimists’. Through the thought experiment of a justice system administered by robot judges, it explores the profound transformations that automated decision-making could bring about in the nature of law itself. The analysis focuses on two key themes: the tension between law and justice, and the choice between two models of the rule of law. It suggests that adopting the ‘robot judge’ should not be viewed solely in terms of system efficiency; rather, the shift in the system’s centre of gravity towards a formal model of the rule of law and the role of the judge as ‘guardian’ of the law must also be considered.

Author Biography

Aldo Schiavello, Università degli Studi di Palermo

Professor titular de Filosofia do Direito na Universidade de Palermo. Doutor em Filosofia Analítica e Teoria Geral do Direito pela Universidade de Milão. LLM em Teoria Jurídica pela Academia Europeia de Teoria Jurídica, de Bruxelas. Codiretor da revista Diritto & Questioni. Integrante da redação da revista Ragion Pratica. Integrante do Comitê Científico da revista Etica & Politica. Diretor do Departamento de Direito. Ex-coordenador do Doutorado em Direitos humanos: Evolução, Proteção e Limites, ex-diretor adjunto do Departamento de Ciências Jurídicas, da Sociedade e do Esporte e ex-delegado do reitor para os doutorados na Universidade de Palermo. Afiliado à Sociedade Italiana de Filosofia do Direito e à Sociedade Italiana de Direito e Literatura.

References

AMATO, S. Biodiritto 4.0. Intelligenza artificiale e nuove tecnologie. Torino: Giappichelli,2020.

ASCARELLI, T. Antigone e Porzia. Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia del Diritto, p. 756-766, 1995.

BARBERIS, M. Possono governare, le leggi? Il dilemma del rule of law. In: Pino, G.; Villa V. Rule of law. L’ideale della legalità. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2016. p. 13-35.

BARBERIS, M. Giustizia digitale e teorie dell’interpretazione. Lo Stato, n. 23, p. 11-28, 2024.

BECCARIA, C. Dei delitti e delle pene (1774). Milano: Feltrinelli, 2001.

BOBBIO, N. 1996. Il positivismo giuridico. Torino: Giappichelli, 1996.

BOBBIO, N. Dalla struttura alla funzione. Nuovi studi di teoria del diritto. (1. ed. Roma-Bari: Laterza, 2007.

CELANO, B. Normative legal positivism, neutrality, and the Rule of Law. In: FERRER, B. J.; MORESO, J. J.; PAPAYANNIS D. (Eds.). Neutrality and Theory of Law. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer, 2013. p. 175-201.

DANOVI, R. Sì all’umanità del diritto contro L’IA truffaldina che genera processi artificiali. Il dubbio, 1 nov. 2025.

DWORKIN, R. La giustizia in toga . Roma-Bari: Laterza, 2010.

FERRAJOLI, L. La sovranità nel mondo moderno. Roma-Bari: Laterza, 1997.

FULLER, L. L. The morality of Law. Rev. ed. 1964. New York: Yale University Press, 1969.

GIABARDO, C. V. Il giudice e l’algoritmo (in difesa dell’umanità del giudicare. GiustiziaInsieme, 2020. Disponível em: https://www.giustiziainsieme.it/it/scienza-e-logica-del-diritto/1224-il-giudice-e-l-algoritmo-in-difesa-dell-umanita-del-giudicare. Acesso em: 23 mar. 2026.

HART, H. L. A. The concept of law. 2nd. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.

HAYEK, von F. A. The road to serfdom. London: Routledge, 2006.

LUCIANI, M. La decisione giudiziaria robotica. Rivista AIC, n. 3, p. 872-893, 2018. Disponível em: https://www.rivistaaic.it/images/rivista/pdf/3_2018_Luciani.pdf. Acesso em: 23 mar. 2026.

JHERING, R. V. La lotta per il diritto e altri saggi. Roma: Castelvecchi, 2024.

POSTEMA, G. J. Law’s rule. The nature, value, and viability of the Rule of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022.

RAZ, J. The Rule of Law and its virtue. In: RAZ, J. The authority of law. Essays on law and morality. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press., 1979. p. 210-229.

SANTOSUOSSO, A.; SARTOR G. La giustizia predittiva: una visione realistica. Giurisprudenza Italiana, v. 7, n. 7, p. 1.760-1.782, 2022.

SCIASCIA, L. Porte aperte. Milano: Adelphi, 2021.

SHAPIRO, S. J. The “Hart-Dworkin” debate: a short guide for the perplexed. In: RIPSTEIN, A. (ed. Ronald Dworkin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. p. 22-55.

SOURDIN, T. Judge v. Robot? Artificial Intelligence and judicial decision-making. U.N.S.W.L.J., n. 41, p. 1114-1133, 2018.

SUSSKIND, R. Tomorrow’s lawyers. An introduction to your future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

TAMANAHA, B. Z. On the Rule of Law, history, politics, theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

WALDRON, J. Is the Rule of Law an essentially contested concept (in Florida)? Law and Philosophy, n. 21, p. 137-164, 2002.

WALDRON, J. The concept and the Rule of Law. Georgia Law Review, v. 43, n. 1, p. 1-61, 2008.

WALDRON, J. The Rule of Law and the Importance of Procedure. NYU School of Law-Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Working Paper n. 10-73, 2010.

WALDRON, J. The Rule of Law as a theater of debate. In: Burley J. (ed.). Dworkin and his critics: with Replies by Dworkin. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. p. 319-336.

Downloads

Published

2026-06-26

Issue

Vol. 20 No. 01 (2026): Revista Direito Mackenzie

Section

Historicism of Law and Legal Rationality and Social Systems

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Aldo Schiavello

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The copyright of the articles published in Mackenzie Law Review belongs to the authors, who grant Mackenzie Presbyterian University the rights of publication of the contents, and the assignment takes effect upon submission of the article, or work in similar form, to the electronic system of institutional publications. The journal reserves the right to make normative, orthographic, and grammatical alterations to the originals, with the aim of maintaining the cultured standard of the language, respecting, however, the style of the authors. The content reported and the opinions expressed by the authors of the articles are their exclusive responsibility.