No. 1 (2026): From Gavel to Grid: Reimagining Civil Justice in the Digital Era
Artículos

Human-centric Or Efficiency-driven? Comparative Lessons From AI In Civil Justice Across The EU, China, And Singapore

PDF HTML

Published 2026-06-29

Keywords

  • AI in civil justice,
  • Human-centric AI,
  • efficiency-driven justice,
  • EU,
  • China,
  • Singapore
    • ...More
    Less

Copyright (c) 2026 Luu Lan Phuong Nguyen

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Human-centric Or Efficiency-driven? Comparative Lessons From AI In Civil Justice Across The EU, China, And Singapore. (2026). Revista Ítalo-Española De Derecho Procesal, 1, 261-284. https://doi.org/10.37417/rivitsproc/3339

Abstract

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, however, broadly examines AI governance within individual jurisdictions, often focusing on regulatory frameworks or specific institutional experiments, without systematically comparing how different civil justice systems embed AI within their procedural and governance structures. This article addresses this gap through a comparative analysis of AI-enabled civil justice in three contrasting jurisdictions: the European Union, China, and Singapore. Rather than assuming convergence toward a standard model of AI-driven justice, the article conceptualises 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 prioritises human-centric procedural safeguards and accountability, often constraining the scale and speed of AI adoption. China adopts an efficiency-first model of judicial modernisation, embedding AI deeply into court infrastructure to enhance capacity and consistency, while narrowing opportunities for procedural contestation. Singapore occupies an intermediate position, pursuing pragmatic, governance-driven innovation grounded in professional 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.

PDF HTML

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Alessa, H. (2022). The role of Artificial Intelligence in Online Dispute Resolution: A brief and critical overview. Information & Communications Technology Law, 31(3), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2022.2088060 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2022.2088060
  2. Andrea Maria Garofalo. (2023). The Impact on Fundamental Rights: Rules and Principles Concerning the Use of AI Tools. In Justice, Fundamental Rights and Artificial Intelligence. European Commission.
  3. Anna Blackburne-Rigsby, Michael P. Boggs, Justin Forkner, Beth Walker, Matthew Fader, Michael P. Boggs, Joseph A. Zayas, Stacey Marz, & Sara Omundson. (2024). Artificial Intelligence: Guidance for Use of AI and Generative AI in Courts. Artificial Intelligence Rapid Response Team (AI RRT).
  4. Antonia Hösch, Megan Schrader, & Pierre G. Zickert. (2025). The Evolving Role of AI in German Dispute Resolution. Hengeler Mueller News. https://hengeler-news.com/en/articles/the-evolving-role-of-ai-in-german-dispute-resolution
  5. Antonio Lopo Martinez. (2025). Between Judge and Algorithm: Key Risks of Automated Decision-Making in the Digital Rule of Law. SSRN Electronic Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5749802
  6. Arbel, Y. A. (2025). Judicial Economy in the Age of AI. University of Colorado Law Review, 96(2), 549–593. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4873649
  7. Ashish Prasad, Rob Feigenbaum, & Giel Stein. (2024, February 4). AI in Judging: New Technology Platforms Improve Judicial Efficiency. Complex Discovery. https://complexdiscovery.com/ai-tools-for-judges/
  8. Balganesh, S. (2024). Interactional Ordering: Reconstructing Lon Fuller’s Theory of Private Law. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 69(3), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajj/auae020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajj/auae020
  9. Bamdad Shams. (2025). Comparative Legal Practices in Artificial Intelligence and Data Protection. Law Gazette. https://lawgazette.com.sg/feature/comparative-legal-practices-in-artificial-intelligence-and-data-protection/
  10. Bertolini, A. (2025). Artificial Intelligence and Civil Liability: A European Perspective. Department for Justice, Civil Liberties and Institutional Affairs, Committee on Legal Affairs.
  11. Bone, R. G. (2010). Procedure, participation, rights. Boston University Law Review, 90, 1011–1028. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1600246
  12. Brauneis, R., & Goodman, E. P. (2018). Algorithmic Transparency for the Smart City. Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 20, 103–176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/fjhw8_v1
  13. Cashman, P., & Ginnivan, E. (2019). Digital justice: Online resolution of minor Civil disputes and the use of Digital technology in complex litigation and class actions. Macquarie Law Journal, 19, 39–79.
  14. CEPEJ. (2018). European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and their environment. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice.
  15. CEPEJ. (2025). 1ST AIAB Report on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the judiciary based on the information contained in the resource center on cyberjustice and AI. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice.
  16. Cesta, W. (2024). The Regulation of Judicial Analytics: Towards a New Research Agenda. Law, Technology and Humans, 6(2), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.3400 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.3400
  17. Chen, B. M., & Li, Z. (2020). How Will Technology Change the Face of Chinese Justice? Columbia Journal of Asian Law, 34(1), 1–58.
  18. Corrêa, A. M., Garsia, S., & Elbi, A. (2025). Better together? Human oversight as means to achieve fairness in the European AI Act governance. Cambridge Forum on AI: Law and Governance, 1, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/cfl.2025.10010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cfl.2025.10010
  19. Danielle Keats Citron. (2008). Technological Due Process. Washington University Law Review, 85, 1249–1313.
  20. David Mhlanga. (2023). Ethical Challenges in AI Governance and Regulation in the EU: Lessons from the Fourth Industrial Revolution for Africa. In Artificial Intelligence for a Human-Centric Society: The Future Is Here. European Liberal Forum EUPF.
  21. Deputat, D. (2025). Civil Justice in the Age of AI: Human Involvement in Automated Decision-Making in the EU and the UK [Master’s thesis]. Department of Legal Studies, Central European University.
  22. Dinesh Deckker & Subhashini Sumanasekara. (2025). Safeguarding human dignity: A narrative review of prohibited AI practices under the EU AI Act. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 26(3), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2025.26.3.2193 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2025.26.3.2193
  23. Enarsson, T., Enqvist, L., & Naarttijärvi, M. (2022). Approaching the human in the loop—Legal perspectives on hybrid human/algorithmic decision-making in three contexts. Information & Communications Technology Law, 31(1), 123–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2021.1958860 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2021.1958860
  24. Fabri, M. (2024). From Court Automation to Justice and Beyond in Europe. International Journal for Court Administration, 15(3), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.640 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.640
  25. Fine, A., Berthelot, E. R., & Marsh, S. (2025). Public Perceptions of Judges’ Use of AI Tools in Courtroom Decision-Making: An Examination of Legitimacy, Fairness, Trust, and Procedural Justice. Behavioral Sciences, 15(4), 476–497. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15040476 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15040476
  26. Garrett, B. L. (2025). Artificial intelligence and procedural due process. Journal of Constitutional Law, 27(5), 933–976. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5093989
  27. Hakeemat Ijaiya. (2024). Harnessing AI for Data Privacy: Examining Risks, Opportunities, and Strategic Future Directions. International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 13(2), 2878–2892. https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2024.13.2.2510 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2024.13.2.2510
  28. Hanna, M. G., Pantanowitz, L., Jackson, B., Palmer, O., Visweswaran, S., Pantanowitz, J., Deebajah, M., & Rashidi, H. H. (2025). Ethical and Bias Considerations in Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning. Modern Pathology, 38(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.modpat.2024.100686 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.modpat.2024.100686
  29. Hendrickx, V. (2025). Rethinking the judicial duty to state reasons in the age of automation? Cambridge Forum on AI: Law and Governance, 1(26), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/cfl.2025.11 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cfl.2025.11
  30. Hylton, K. N. (2023). Information Costs and the Civil Justice System. American Law And Economics Review, 24(2), 407–448. https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahac009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahac009
  31. Jason Grant Allen, & Jane Loo. (2025). Singapore’s Evolving AI Governance Framework. In The Cambridge Handbook of Generative AI and the Law (pp. 151–168). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009492553.014
  32. Ji, W. (2020). The Change of Judicial Power in China in the Era of Artificial Intelligence. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 7(3), 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2020.37 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2020.37
  33. John Zeleznikow & Fernando Esteban de la Rosa. (2021). Artificial Intelligence as a New Component of the Justice System: How it creates New Possibilities, but has Limitations, especially with regard to Governance. In Justice, trade, security, and individual freedoms in the digital society. Thomson Reuters.
  34. JURI. (2025). Artificial Intelligence for Monitoring the Application of EU Law. European Parliament’s Policy Department for Justice, Civil Liberties and Institutional Affairs.
  35. Kim, P., & Durrie, R. (2025). AI ethics, law, and policy. Washington University in St. Louis Scholarship Repository. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5294172 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5294172
  36. Krištofík, A. (2025). Bias in AI (supported) decision making: Old problems, new technologies. International Journal for Court Administration, 16(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.598 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.598
  37. Lim Chong Kin, Anastasia Su-Anne Chen, & Cheryl Seah. (2025). AI, Machine Learning, and Big Data Laws 2025: Singapore. Global Legal Insights. https://www.globallegalinsights.com/practice-areas/ai-machine-learning-and-big-data-laws-and-regulations/singapore/
  38. Ling, C. W. (2013). Developing a People-Centered Justice in Singapore: In Support of Pro Bono and Innocence Work Pro Bono and Innocence Wo. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 80(4), 1429–1464.
  39. MacKenzie (Ret.), H. B. (2025, October 21). AI in the courts: Judicial decision-making – transparency, accountability, and the judicial role. Justice Speakers Institute. https://justicespeakersinstitute.com/ai-in-judicial-decision-making-transparency-ethics/
  40. Masoudi, R., & Yarahmadi, H. (2024). The role of artificial intelligence in the judicial process. Legal Studies in Digital Age, 3(4), 195–206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.lsda.3.4.18
  41. Mentzingen, H., António, N., Bacao, F., & Cunha, M. (2024). Textual similarity for legal precedents discovery: Assessing the performance of machine learning techniques in an administrative court. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 4(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2024.100247 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2024.100247
  42. MinLaw. (2020). The Road to 2030: Legal Industry Technology & Innovation Roadmap Report. Singapore Ministry of Law.
  43. Mizaras, V., Jurcys, P., Fenwick, M., Earp, B. D., Mann, S. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2025). AI Judges in Courts of the Future and the Right to a Fair Trial in the ECHR. Forthcoming in the Cambridge Handbook of AI and Technologies in Courts (Cambridge University Press, 2026), 0–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009744225.033
  44. Nikola L. Datzov. (2025). AI Jurisprudence: Toward Automated Justice. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 23(1), 1–120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5178780
  45. Nydia Remolina. (2025). AI in the judiciary: The Singapore Case. Singapore Management University School of Law Research Paper Forthcoming.
  46. Oxford. (2025). Singapore. Oxford Institute of Technology and Justice, the University of Oxford.
  47. PANG Cheng Kit, Kit. (2025). A Comparative Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Regulation: Implications for Singapore. Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 37, 189–232.
  48. Papagianneas, S., & Junius, N. (2023). Fairness and justice through automation in China’s smart courts. Computer Law & Security Review, 51, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105897 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105897
  49. Peng, J., & Xiang, W. (2019). The Rise of Smart Courts in China: Opportunities and Challenges to the Judiciary in a Digital Age. Naveiñ Reet: Nordic Journal of Law and Social Research, 9, 345–372. https://doi.org/10.7146/nnjlsr.v1i9.122167 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7146/nnjlsr.v1i9.122167
  50. Quintanilla, V. D. (2018). Human-centered civil justice design: Procedural justice and process value pluralism. Tulsa Law Review, 54, 113–148.
  51. Remolina, N. (2025). AI in the judiciary: The Singapore Case. Singapore Management University Yong Pung How School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5367843
  52. Schmauder, C., Karpus, J., Moll, M., Bahrami, B., & Deroy, O. (2023). Algorithmic Nudging: The Need for an Interdisciplinary Oversight. Topoi, 42(3), 799–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-023-09907-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-023-09907-4
  53. Selçuk, S., Kurt Konca, N., & Kaya, S. (2025). AI-driven civil litigation: Navigating the right to a fair trial. Computer Law & Security Review, 57, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106136 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106136
  54. Shams, B. (2025, March 15). Comparative Legal Practices in Artificial Intelligence and Data Protection. The Singapore Law Gazette. https://lawgazette.com.sg/feature/comparative-legal-practices-in-artificial-intelligence-and-data-protection/
  55. Shaun Lim. (2021). Judicial Decision-making and Explainable Artificial Intelligence: A Reckoning from First Principles. Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 33, 280–314.
  56. Shi, C., Sourdin, T., & Li, B. (2021). The Smart Court – A New Pathway to Justice in China? International Journal for Court Administration, 12(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.367 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.367
  57. Simona Úlehlová. (2025). Artificial intelligence in Civil judicial proceedings: Legal boundaries and practical challenges. The Lawyer Quarterly, 15(4).
  58. Singapore Ministry of Law. (2025). Guide for Using Generative AI in the Legal Sector. Singapore Ministry of Law.
  59. Socol De La Osa, D. U., & Remolina, N. (2024). Artificial intelligence at the bench: Legal and ethical challenges of informing—or misinforming—judicial decision-making through generative AI. Data & Policy, 6, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap. 2024.53 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2024.53
  60. Solum, L. B. (2004). Procedural justice. Southern California Law Review, 78, 188–322. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.508282
  61. SPC. (2017). Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Accelerating the Construction of Smart Courts. Chinese Supreme People’s Court. https://lawinfochina.com/display.aspx?id=23919&lib=law#
  62. SPC. (2019). White Paper on the Application of Internet Technology in Judicial Practice. Beijing Internet Court Anniversary Series - Chinese Supreme People’s Court.
  63. SPC. (2021). SPC releases rules on online litigation of courts. Beijing Internet Court. https://english.bjinternetcourt.gov.cn/2021-06/22/c_377.htm
  64. SPC. (2022). Chinese courts must implement AI system by 2025. Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China - China Daily. https://english.court.gov.cn/2022-12/12/c_1053712.htm
  65. SPC. (2024). China Launches Artificial Intelligence Platform to Boost Judicial Efficiency. China Daily - Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China. https://english.court.gov.cn/2024-12/05/c_1053706.htm
  66. Supreme Court of Singapore. (2024). Guide on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools by Court Users. Supreme Court of Singapore.
  67. Tahura, U. S., & Selvadurai, N. (2023). The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Decision-Making: The Example of China International Journal of Law, Ethics, and Technology, 3, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.55574/PYEB5374 DOI: https://doi.org/10.55574/PYEB5374
  68. Tang, S. (2021, November 10). How emerging technologies shape the face of Chinese courts? Conflict of Laws. https://conflictoflaws.net/2021/how-emerging-technologies-shape-the-face-of-chinese-courts%ef%bc%9f/
  69. Tara Vasdani. (2019). From Estonian AI judges to robot mediators in Canada, U.K. LexisNexis. https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-ca/ihc/from-estonian-ai-judges-to-robot-mediators-in-canada-uk
  70. Tatiana Dancy & Monika Zalnieriute. (2025). AI and Transparency in Judicial Decision-Making. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, forthcoming. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5331491
  71. Tihomir Katuli?. (2023). CISO, DPO, AIHO? Navigating the EU’s AI regulatory efforts in pursuit of data protection and information security compliance. In Artificial Intelligence for a Human-Centric Society: The Future Is Here. European Liberal Forum EUPF.
  72. Tommaso De Mari Casareto dal Verme. (2023). The Italian Proposal for a Law on Artificial Intelligence. In Justice, Fundamental Rights and Artificial Intelligence. European Commission.
  73. Tristan Toh. (2025). Regulation of AI in Singapore amidst a world of AI proliferation. Singapore Policy Journal. https://www.sgppolicyjournal.com/articles/regulation-of-ai-in-singapore-amidst-anbspworld-of-ai-proliferation
  74. Tumanov, D. A. (2025). Can artificial intelligence replace human judges? Digital Law Journal, 5(4), 10–27. https://doi.org/10.38044/2686-9136-2024-5-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.38044/2686-9136-2024-5-1
  75. Úlehlová, S. (2025). Artificial Intelligence in Civil judicial proceedings: Legal boundaries and practical challenges. The Lawyer Quarterly, 15(4), 539–556.
  76. Victoria Hendrickx. (2025, November 26). The efficiency paradox of judicial AI. MediaLaws. https://www.medialaws.eu/the-efficiency-paradox-of-judicial-ai/
  77. Wang, N., & Tian, M. Y. (2023). “Intelligent justice”: Human-centered considerations in China’s legal AI transformation. AI and Ethics, 3(2), 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00202-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00202-3
  78. Wang, Z. (2021, April 8). China’s E-Justice Revolution. JudicatureJudicature. https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/chinas-e-justice-revolution/
  79. Wong, J. (2025). Digital justice: Unleashing the promises and containing the perils of AI in China’s courts. SSRN. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5199005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5199005
  80. Zeng Chenyi, Wu Wenjie, Yao Jiajing, Xia Jiongfei, Li Xiaoqian, Wang Jing, & Chen Shuxin. (2025). AI Judge Assistant: A New Upgrade of the Enabling Judicial System. Journal of Intelligence Technology and Innovation, 3(2), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.30212/JITI.202503.010

Update cookies preferences