Robo judges and the rule of law: Unpacking philosophical and jurisprudential dilemmas

The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the legal domain has sparked critical debates on the legitimacy, ethics, and jurisprudential validity of machine-based adjudication, often symbolized by the term “Robo Judges.” While AI-driven systems offer efficiency, consistency, and data-driven precision, their use in judicial decision-making raises foundational questions about the Rule of Law. This article investigates the philosophical and jurisprudential implications of delegating adjudicatory functions to machines, with particular emphasis on issues of transparency, accountability, legal reasoning, and human dignity. Drawing from classical and contemporary legal theories, including positivism, natural law, Dworkin’s integrity theory, and Fuller’s inner morality of law, the paper argues that the use of AI in judicial functions must be critically constrained by the normative ideals of law and justice. The paper also explores comparative developments in countries experimenting with algorithmic adjudication, such as China and Estonia, and evaluates whether Robo Judges can meet the demands of open-textured legal interpretation, discretion, and moral reasoning. Ultimately, the article asserts that the integration of AI in judicial systems must preserve core humanistic principles underpinning the Rule of Law, and not merely replicate legal outputs through computational logic.