Acceso usuarios
Artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping civil justice systems worldwide. While digital technologies have long been used to enhance court efficiency, the integration of AI into judicial decision-making and case management raises persistent concerns regarding transparency, procedural fairness, and judicial accountability. Existing scholarship, howe-ver, broadly examines AI governance within individual jurisdictions, often focusing on regu-latory frameworks or specific institutional experiments, without systematically comparing how different civil justice systems embed AI within their procedural and governance struc-tures. This article addresses this gap through a comparative analysis of AI-enabled civil jus-tice in three contrasting jurisdictions: the European Union, China, and Singapore. Rather than assuming convergence toward a standard model of AI-driven justice, the article con-ceptualizes AI integration as an institutional design problem shaped by procedural values, governance arrangements, and capacity constraints. Methodologically, the study adopts a qualitative comparative approach, drawing on legislative texts, institutional reports, and existing empirical evaluations. The analysis reveals three distinct institutional logics. The EU prioritizes human-centric procedural safeguards and accountability, often constraining the scale and speed of AI adoption. China adopts an efficiency-first model of judicial mo-dernization, embedding AI deeply into court infrastructure to enhance capacity and consis-tency, while narrowing opportunities for procedural contestation. Singapore occupies an intermediate position, pursuing pragmatic, governance-driven innovation grounded in pro-fessional responsibility and incremental adoption. Sum, the article demonstrates that there is no one-size-fits-all model and that AI redistributes procedural risk across participation, accountability, and efficiency in institutionally path-dependent ways.
