In a significant push for modernization, Luc Vermeire, Auditor General at Belgium’s Council of State, has highlighted the urgent need for Belgium’s judiciary to embrace artificial intelligence (AI) technologies.
According to Vermeire, the Belgian legal system is “clearly behind” other countries in adopting AI and must establish a comprehensive strategy to integrate these technologies effectively within its courts.
AI Integration in Belgium’s Judiciary
Vermeire’s remarks come at a time when major law firms in Brussels are already leveraging AI to streamline their operations. As the Council of State, Belgium’s highest administrative court, grapples with an overburdened system and lengthy delays, Vermeire suggests that AI could be a crucial tool in alleviating these pressures.
The Council of State handles disputes regarding government administration and offers advice on draft laws and decrees. Vermeire and his team prepare case files, share opinions during hearings, and provide insights on legislative matters before final rulings are issued.
“AI could help solve certain issues within the judiciary,” Vermeire stated. He envisions AI technologies, such as chatbots, being used to summarize judgments, thus freeing up staff to focus on other areas. He argues that, although AI will not replace judges, its integration into judicial processes is inevitable and necessary.
Global Trends in AI Adoption
Globally, the use of AI in judicial systems is gaining traction. The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) has already outlined ethical guidelines for AI usage within judicial frameworks. Recently, the Netherlands made headlines when a judge used ChatGPT in a verdict, marking a significant milestone in AI’s role in legal decision-making.
Despite the growing adoption of AI across various judiciaries, Vermeire stresses the importance of a cautious approach. “AI must be handled with care,” he warns, noting that poor data can lead to detrimental outcomes. For instance, if historical data reflects gender biases, AI could perpetuate these biases, leading to unjust conclusions.
Potential Risks and Ethical Concerns
Vermeire highlights several potential dangers associated with AI in the legal system. One concern is the reliance on AI to analyze past court decisions and predict future outcomes. This could lead to scenarios where insurance companies, for example, use AI to assess the viability of legal claims based on historical judgments, potentially disadvantaging claimants.
Furthermore, Vermeire points out that AI’s dependency on existing data could inhibit legal evolution. New arguments and evidence presented in cases might be disregarded if AI systems rely solely on historical data, stifling legal progress and innovation.
Calls for Modernization
The call for modernization in Belgium’s judiciary is not new. In July, Belgium’s top three courts—the Council of State, the Constitutional Court, and the Court of Cassation—issued a joint memorandum highlighting several threats to the rule of law.
Among their concerns was the need for the judicial system to modernize and integrate new technologies, including AI.
Vermeire reflects on the slow pace of modernization within the judiciary, noting that while Belgium has moved away from a paper-based system since his start in 1996, many court documents remain inaccessible to the public.
“For citizens to apply or respect the law, they need to be able to access it,” Vermeire explained. He advocates for greater transparency and accessibility in legal documents to foster public trust in the judicial system.
Funding and Resource Challenges
The memorandum from Belgium’s top courts also underscores the need for increased funding and resources. The judiciary is grappling with a backlog of cases, and Vermeire estimates that nearly 40% more judges are needed to address the growing caseload effectively.
However, these calls for additional resources come at a time when the Belgian government is focused on reducing its budget by €28 billion over the next four to seven years due to EU regulators’ concerns about excessive spending and public debt.
Vermeire’s comments on the funding challenges reflect the broader issue of the judiciary’s struggle to meet increasing demands with limited resources. The Belgian government faces criticism for its failure to adequately support the judiciary, impacting the system’s ability to deliver timely justice.
Non-Compliance with Court Rulings
Another pressing concern highlighted by Vermeire is the Belgian government’s non-compliance with court rulings, both domestic and international.
Belgium has faced criticism for failing to implement judgments, including cases where the State has not provided necessary shelter for asylum seekers. The EU’s annual Rule of Law Report for July raised “serious concerns” about Belgium’s lack of adherence to judicial rulings.
“If you expect ordinary citizens to respect judgments, then the government should also do the same,” Vermeire remarked. He emphasizes the importance of respecting human rights and addressing issues of non-compliance to maintain the rule of law.
Conclusion
As Belgium’s judiciary grapples with modernization and efficiency challenges, the integration of AI presents both opportunities and risks.
While AI has the potential to streamline operations and alleviate pressure on the overburdened court system, its implementation must be approached with caution to avoid perpetuating existing biases and limiting legal innovation.
Vermeire’s call for a strategic approach to AI adoption reflects a broader need for modernization within Belgium’s judiciary.
As the legal system faces mounting pressures and resource constraints, embracing new technologies and addressing systemic issues will be crucial in ensuring justice is delivered effectively and fairly in the 21st century.
This article was created using automation technology and was thoroughly edited and fact-checked by one of our editorial staff members
