The article examines the legal, ethical and practical dimensions of the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in national court proceedings and international arbitration through the lens of the rule of law. AI is analysed along a continuum ranging from auxiliary functions, such as document management, legal analytics and translation, through decision-support tools, to “automated legal judgment” capable of independently determining the outcome of a case. The authors argue that the principal challenge lies not in the use of AI itself but in the blurring of the boundary between the auxiliary role of algorithms and the de facto delegation of judicial and arbitral decision-making authority. The principal risks are examined, including algorithmic opacity (the “black box” problem), hallucinations generated by large language models, fabricated citations in procedural documents, the reproduction and amplification of historical biases, the absence of empathy, and the inability to verify the reasoning underlying machine-generated conclusions. National courts are compared with international arbitration, in which procedural flexibility and party autonomy create broader opportunities for experimentation while simultaneously raising concerns about the legitimacy of arbitral awards. Particular attention is paid to the Ukrainian context, including the digitalisation of the judiciary, prospects for AI integration, private legal analytics services, and judicial practice recognising AI solely as an auxiliary tool subject to meaningful human oversight. The article concludes that adjudication must remain an exclusively human function and that the personal responsibility of judges and arbitrators, together with intelligible reasoning of decisions, constitutes the minimum condition for maintaining trust in digital justice.

Edited books

1. Perry M, ‘What do judicial officers need to know about the risks of AI?’, Handbook for Judicial Officers (Judicial Commission of New South Wales 2021) 1310–1323.

Journal articles

2. Blechová A, Loutocký P, ‘Online courts and the future of justice. Susskind, R. E.’ [2020] 14(2) Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology 329–341 https://doi.org/10.5817/ MUJLT2020-2-9.

3. de Bruijn Y, Warnier M, Janssen M, ‘The perils and pitfalls of explainable AI: Strategies for explaining algothithmic decision-making’ [2022] 39(2) Government Information Quarterly https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101666.

4. Dhungel A-K, Heine M, ‘Cui bono? Judicial decision-making in the era of AI: A qualitative study on the expectations of judges in Germany’ [2024] 33(1) Journal for Technology Assessment in Theory and Practice 14–20 https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.33.1.14.

5. Dorsey C, ‘Hypothetical AI arbitrators: a deficiency in empathy and intuitive decision making’ [2021] 13 Arbitration Law Review (accessed 26.06.2026).

Newspaper articles

6. Lawless J, ‘UK judge warns of risk to justice after lawyers cited fake AI-generated cases in court’ (AP news, June 7, 2025) (accessed 26.06.2026).

7. Neupane T, ‘As more lawyers fall for AI hallucinations, ChatGPT says: Check my work’ (Cronkite News, October 28, 2025) (accessed 26.06.2026).

8. Krat V, Holubovskyi I, ‘Shtuchnyi intelekt i sudochynstvo’ (Iurydychna hazeta №3(781) 2024) (accessed 26.06.2026) (in Ukrainian).

Websites

9. Arbitration and AI (White&Case. 02 June 2025) (accessed 26.06.2026).

10. Demystifying Artificial Intelligence in Court Processes. Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada. 2024 (accessed 26.06.2026).

11. Grieman K, ‘Judge Dread: AI and Judicial Integrity’ (accessed 26.06.2026).

12. Hodge N, ‘Technology: UK judge warns lawyers about risks of AI use in court’ (IBA 28 July 2025) (accessed 26.06.2026).

13. Israni E, ‘Algorithmic Due Process: Mistaken Accountability and Attribution in State v. Loomis’ (August 31, 2017) (accessed 26.06.2026).

14. Reynolds S, ‘US Court Considered whether to Vacate an Award because of Arbitrator’s Alleged Use of AI’ (Sillicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center. 11.04.2025) (accessed 26.06.2026).

15. Stidston W, ‘AI hallucinations in court: Lessons from the UK, US and Australia’ (Barry Nilsson 06 August 2025) (accessed 26.06.2026).

16. Stryker C, Kavlakoglu E, ‘What is Artificial Intelligence (AI)?’ (IBM, 09 August 2024) (accessed 26.06.2026).

17. Weatherbed J, ‘Errors found in US judge’s withdrawn decision stink of AI’ (Jul 25, 2025) (accessed 26.06.2026).

18. When Arbitrators Use AI: LaPaglia v. Valve and the Boundaries of Adjudication (Aceris Law LLC. 19.04.2025) (accessed 26.06.2026).

19. Bernaziuk Yan, ‘Shtuchnyi intelekt u diialnosti Verkhovnoho Sudu: etychni ta orhanizatsiini ramky’ (accessed 26.06.2026) (in Ukrainian).

20. Petriv O, ‘Rol shtuchnoho intelektu v modernizatsii sudovoi systemy: instrumenty dlia suddiv’ (28 liutoho 2024 roku) (accessed 26.06.2026) (in Ukrainian).

21. Shtuchnyi intelekt u sudakh ta Dii – posyliuiemo mizhnarodni partnerstva iz ShI (Pres-ofis Ministerstva tsyfrovoi transformatsii Ukrainy) (accessed 26.06.2026) (in Ukrainian).

22. Shtuchnyi intelekt vzhe v sudakh (Natsionalna shkola suddiv Ukrainy) (accessed 26.06.2026) (in Ukrainian).

23. Yak advokatu podavaty dokumenty, koly visyt “Elektronnyi sud”? (Natsionalna asotsiatsiia pravnykiv Ukrainy. 01.10.24) (accessed 26.06.2026) (in Ukrainian).