A United Nations expert has urged governments around the world to resist the temptation of “techno-solutionism” in their justice systems, warning that artificial intelligence (AI) must never replace the human judgment and independence that are central to the rule of law.
Presenting her latest report to the UN General Assembly, Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, said States should approach AI adoption in the judiciary with caution, ensuring that all technological innovations remain subordinate to human oversight. “AI is valuable only when it enhances human rights protections and improves justice in concrete ways. It should never be pursued as an end in itself,” she stated.
Satterthwaite noted that many courts, prosecutors, and lawyers around the world have already begun using AI tools—ranging from data analytics and predictive models to generative systems that produce written drafts—often without consistent policies or safeguards. While such technologies hold potential to improve efficiency and access to justice, she warned that they can also entrench bias, undermine accountability, and erode public trust in the judiciary if used irresponsibly.
“States and justice professionals should not allow ‘techno-solutionism’ to propel the adoption of systems carrying serious human rights risks and significant negative climate impacts,” Satterthwaite said. “Human rights can only be protected if human beings – and particularly human judges – make decisions about the design and deployment of AI tools in justice systems.”
Risks and inequalities
The report highlights the uneven global landscape of AI development and deployment, noting that much of the technology is concentrated within a handful of powerful States and private corporations. This concentration of data, computing power, and expertise could, according to the Special Rapporteur, exacerbate existing inequalities and create new dependencies within justice systems that rely on external technology providers.
“AI use entails a concentration – and often a transfer – of power,” Satterthwaite observed. “Another kind of power is also concentrated as AI use advances, namely epistemological power, or the capacity to define what counts as knowledge in a given field.” As courts become increasingly reliant on AI-driven tools for research, prediction, or case management, she cautioned, the ability to interpret or challenge those systems could become more limited, particularly in countries with fewer technical resources.
Human judges at the centre
Reaffirming that judicial independence is a cornerstone of democratic governance, the report stresses that access to an impartial tribunal requires access to a human judge, while the right to legal counsel requires access to a human lawyer. “The judicial branch must be responsible for the adoption of any innovation that might impact judges’ decision-making,” Satterthwaite said.
To safeguard judicial autonomy, she recommended that judges receive training in digital and AI literacy, enabling them to understand both the potential and the pitfalls of these tools. Courts, she added, should have the authority and opportunity to consult with technologists, lawyers, and members of the public before introducing AI systems that could influence judicial outcomes.
People-centred design and transparency
While acknowledging that AI can be a powerful tool for improving access to justice—especially in overburdened or under-resourced courts—Satterthwaite urged States to ensure that design and deployment are driven by the real needs of users. “Given the costs of developing and maintaining AI, design should be driven by users, reflecting their diverse needs,” she said. “In view of the vast populations who remain excluded from digital solutions, States should always consider whether AI or traditional tools are best for ensuring access to justice.”
She also emphasized the importance of transparency. Key information about any AI system used in the judicial process, including its purpose, data sources, and decision-making mechanisms, should be made publicly available to ensure accountability and build trust among court users.
Balancing innovation and human rights
Satterthwaite’s report, which draws on submissions from international legal organizations and consultations with judges, lawyers, and civil society groups, outlines a roadmap for States to balance innovation with human rights protection. The document encourages governments to carefully assess not only the benefits but also the environmental, social, and ethical costs of AI adoption.
“AI should not be adopted without careful assessment of its potential harms, how to mitigate those harms, and whether other solutions would be less risky,” she wrote in the report. This includes examining the carbon footprint of large-scale AI systems and their long-term sustainability, particularly in regions already facing climate-related challenges.
A call for global responsibility
The Special Rapporteur’s appeal comes amid growing interest in AI across public institutions, including the judiciary. From automated translation tools to machine-assisted sentencing recommendations, the use of AI in courts is expanding rapidly. However, Satterthwaite’s message is clear: technology should serve justice, not replace it.
“Human rights can only be protected if human beings – and particularly human judges – make decisions about the design and deployment of AI tools in justice systems,” she reiterated. “AI may have great potential to improve access to justice, but people-centred approaches are required.”
Her report highlights that the legitimacy of judicial systems depends on their transparency, fairness, and humanity. As governments and courts embrace digital transformation, the UN expert’s warning serves as a reminder that the ultimate responsibility for justice must always rest in human hands.
