Adjudicative and Enforcement Authority over Heterogeneous Subjects: A Preliminary Jurisprudence of Judgment, Expertise, Contestability, and Legal Power

This preliminary study investigates adjudicative and enforcement authority in disputes involving heterogeneous legal subjects and forms of expertise. Using source-specific international and domestic legal materials, it distinguishes competence to adjudicate, interpretation and reason-giving, specialized evidentiary contributions, decision adoption, procedural safeguards, remedies, sanction ordering, enforcement, and cross-jurisdictional recognition. The analysis compares human adjudication, AI-assisted and hybrid workflows, and prospective autonomous artificial adjudicators without inferring judicial authorization from computational capacity or AI regulation. Source-indexed documentary records clarify the distribution of legal power and technical dependency, the contestation of consequential evidence, and the risks created by opaque institutional infrastructures. Comparative cases address human-rights procedural protections, statutory representation of natural entities, expert evidence, judicial independence, corporate administrative sanctions, international adjudication, and recognition of judgments and awards. A three-level Generative Relational reconstruction examines historically constituted legal relationships and their documentary manifestations while suspending claims about ultimate subjectivity. The resulting framework remains provisional: legal validity, empirical reliability, normative acceptability, and ethical research safeguards require distinct forms of justification. Existing procedural protections retain their independent force, and hypothetical forms of artificial or extraterrestrial adjudication require separate juridical and institutional argument. The conclusion identifies research interfaces with heterogeneous social-contract formation and the jurisprudence of humanitarian aid and protection.