Study Guide: China’s Grand Design of People’s Smart Courts

Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) and online courts have emerged as a global phenomenon.
China’s approach is unique, constructing a system of "smart courts" embedded in the nation’s strategy for leveraging Information and Communications Technology (ICT).
Adoption of advanced ICT in courts is a directive from the party-state, not merely a judicial initiative.
Main observations:
- Chinese smart courts enhance hierarchical control and improve the formality of law using ICT and AI.
- Internet courts specialize in resolving disputes from online transactions, serving as testing grounds for future court structures.
Highlights the interaction between law and technology and suggests that technology's impact is influenced by human design and intent.

Reference to a 1955 science fiction story, "The Cyber and Justice Holmes."
Judge Wahlfred Anderson initially resists machine-based decision-making but changes views after witnessing a defendant defeat a computer in a courtroom.
- Professor Neustadt’s lecture emphasizes the loss of humanity in pure computational solving.
The rise of AI mirrors early machines that replaced human labor but now also replaced cognitive tasks in legal practices.
Key Case: Lola v. Skadden: Highlights the shift of task definitions in legal practice from human to machine capacities, posing a challenge to traditional legal boundaries.
China's smart court initiative must be viewed against a backdrop of limited rule of law tradition and minimal resistance to technology.

China operates as an active socialist state with constitutional mandates to modernize across several sectors, including technology.
In 1980s, technocrats began advocating for computer usage in courts, starting the process of judicial informatization.
Milestones in Informatization:
- 1983: Prime Minister Li Keqiang advocates for computerization in legal processes.
- 1986: Supreme People’s Court reports prioritization of judicial modernization.
- 1990s: Real-world implementation begins with two pilot programs in Nanjing, followed by systematic expansions.
Recent policies like “Made in China 2025” and “Next Generation AI Development Plan” outline steps toward becoming an AI superpower by 2030.
China aims for a modern governance apparatus where the government is the leading consumer and promoter of ICT products.

Original steps included building e-governance infrastructure and digitalizing judicial information.
Advances include:
- Large databases for judicial processes and court management, including public access platforms.
- Transformation of judicial processes through technology to enhance transparency and efficiency.

The role of companies like iFlytek in developing judicial technological solutions exemplifies the Chinese model of public-private partnership in smart courts.
Judges collaborate directly with technicians to address judicial needs and develop solutions.
Companies like Alibaba, Tencent, and Baidu are pivotal in providing tech solutions across China’s judicial landscape.

The government mobilizes various sectors to build a smart governance structure, including deep cooperation with universities for R&D in judicial technology.
Example funding included over 100 million RMB for projects aimed at enhancing access and fairness in the judicial system.

Judicial organizations are characterized by hierarchical structures which enhance systemic coherence and bureaucratic control.
The implementation of hierarchical control leads to:
- Precise Case Allocation: AI systems manage case distributions based on complexity, workload, and judge capacity. A typical model includes:
- Case, judge, comparison, and output modules for smart case distribution.

Judges are evaluated based on case outputs weighted against set performance metrics despite prior calls to cease numerical ranking systems.
- Actuarial models replace unsatisfactory indicators, assessing judicial work saturation rates while considering individual judge capabilities.

Moving towards internal accountability mechanisms rather than societal or external pressures. Judges must utilize online platforms to reference similar cases in judicial decision-making as mandated by guidelines from the Supreme People’s Court.

The Like-Cases Recommendation System (LCRS) uses algorithms to identify case regularities, promoting formalism enabled by machine learning.
AI’s contribution leads to:
- Expected treatment of similar cases and predictability in legal applications.
- Judicial Knowledge Engineering initiates a transformation in legal decision processes, emphasizing normativity and systematic treatment of judicial factors.

Conceptual underpinnings include consistency in treatment of similar cases, fostering equality and predictability, enhancing legal integrity.
Key Factors Trial (KFT) method adopted for judicial decisions breaks down complex cases into manageable elements following strict procedural steps.

Various AI judicial assistance systems for traffic accidents and generalized cases implement algorithms for enhanced decision-making, integrating legal reasoning and automation.

Internet courts defined by their practical limitations and specific jurisdictions, focusing primarily on disputes from online transactions.

Jurisdictions include contract disputes, copyright claims, tort cases, and others pertinent to online issues.

Cases like Liu Yan v. Qin Qiao illustrate new legal doctrines emerging from e-commerce phenomena, underscoring judicial adaptability to current societal trends.

China’s SCP indicates a focused push to harness AI and ICT within legal frameworks.
While AI enhances consistency, hierarchical oversight has increased, challenging the notion of judicial independence.
Final judgements remain with human judges, emphasizing the balance between technological assistance and human intuition in the legal field.
The close public-private partnerships in China’s smart courts signal a complex relationship warranting careful ethical considerations regarding bias, accountability, and social justice.