本書是我國(guó)人工智能與法學(xué)跨學(xué)科研究領(lǐng)域一次新的嘗試，通過(guò)大量實(shí)證分析，包括問卷調(diào)查、數(shù)據(jù)分析以及專家訪談等形式，分析了影響司法審判質(zhì)量和效率的主要因素，論證現(xiàn)階段人工智在輔助法官進(jìn)行案件處理，包括法律推理、規(guī)則論證、相似案例檢索、類案分析等方面的可行性，為審判質(zhì)量和效率的提升提供了解決的新思路，可作為我國(guó)高校學(xué)者以及法院相關(guān)從業(yè)人員研究人工智能和法律結(jié)合提供參考。
介紹我國(guó)人工智能與司法審判結(jié)合實(shí)踐探索的英文專著
張娟娟，法學(xué)博士，西南科技大學(xué)法學(xué)院講師，在墨西哥科利馬大學(xué)做過(guò)訪問學(xué)者，本科、碩士、博士分別畢業(yè)于天津大學(xué)、西南政法大學(xué)和澳門大學(xué)。從事國(guó)際法和人工智能法學(xué)方向研究，主持和參與省部級(jí)、地廳級(jí)項(xiàng)目若干項(xiàng)，公開發(fā)表期刊論文20余篇。
Introduction / 1
Chapter 1 Status Quo of Trial Efficiency and Quality in China’s Civil Litigation / 13
1.1 Status Quo of Trial Efficiency and Quality in China / 14
1.1.1 Evaluation of Trial Efficiency / 15
1.1.2 Evaluation Index of Trial Quality of Courts in China / 18
1.2 Weights Setting of Judges’ Performance Assessment Indicators / 25
1.3 Insufficient Trial Resources in Local Courts / 29
1.3.1 Dramatically Increased Cases but Limited Quota Judges / 30
1.3.2 Great Pressure on Judges / 33
1.3.3 AI Making Up for the Shortage of Judicial Assistants / 36
1.4 Loopholes of Internal Trial Supervision Brought by Judicial Accountability System / 38
1.4.1 Court Leading Cadres Being Hesitant or Unwilling to Supervise / 41
1.4.2 Defects of the New Case Assignment System / 43
1.4.3 Other Dilemmas / 46
1.5 Trialquality Ignorance of the Smart Court Construction in the Early Stage / 49
1.5.1 Construction and Development History of Smart Courts / 52
1.5.2 Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Smart Courts / 56
1.5.3 The Goal Pursuit in the Early Stage of Smart Courts: Efficiency Orientation / 81
1.6 Distrust on AI Participating in Trial: Based on a Questionnaire / 85
1.6.1 Overview Information of Respondents and Investigation Methodology of the Questionnaire / 86
1.6.2 Survey Results and Data Analysis / 88
1.7 Conclusion / 96
Chapter 2 Legal Reasoning and the Development of Court Intelligent Auxiliary Case Handling System / 98
2.1 Development Goal: Promoting Trial Quality and Further Improving Trial Efficiency / 102
2.1.1 General Goal of Trial Quality: Treating Similar Cases Alike / 102
2.1.2 Subgoal 1: to Solve the Law Application Justification Problems / 105
2.1.3 Subgoal 2: to Solve the Problem of Unifying“ Similar Cases” Standard / 109
2.1.4 Subgoal 3: to Solve the Problem in the Legal Reasoning Process / 115
2.1.5 Other Subgoals / 118
2.2 Selection of Research and Development Domain / 119
2.3 Jurisprudence Basis and Model of Legal Reasoning / 126
2.3.1 Deduction: RuleBased Reasoning / 127
2.3.2 Nonmonotonic Logic and Defeasible Reasoning Model / 129
2.3.3 Analogy: CaseBased Reasoning and KnowledgeBased Reasoning / 137
2.3.4 Cooperative Paradigm Reasoning Model— Chinese Choice / 144
2.4 Building the Intelligent Auxiliary Case Handling System for Road Traffic Accident Compensation Disputes / 147
2.4.1 Building RuleBased Reasoning System / 148
2.4.2 Building KnowledgeBased Reasoning Model / 155
2.4.3 Establishment of Defeasible Reasoning Model / 164
2.4.4 Construction of CaseBased Reasoning Model / 167
2.4.5 Establishment of Intelligent Auxiliary Case Handling System / 178
2.5 Conclusion / 183
Chapter 3 Law Expectation and Due Process: From Perspective of Civil Litigation / 188
3.1 Absence of Law Causing Legal Expectation of Intelligent Trial Failed / 189
3.2 Embedding the Intelligent Auxiliary Case Handling System in Civil Procedure / 194
3.2.1 ElementOriented Trial Mode Applied in Road Traffic Cases / 194
3.2.2 Scope of the ElementOriented Court Trial Expanded to Complicated Cases / 208
3.2.3 Different Judgment Reasoning Requirements in Summary and
Formal Procedures / 213
3.2.4 Embedding the Intelligent Auxiliary Case Handling System in Civil Procedures / 217
3.3 Institutional Design of Intelligent Adjudication in the Civil Procedure Law / 220
3.3.1 Substituting the Judge to Make Adjudication in Summary Procedure / 221
3.3.2 Assisting the Judge to Make Adjudication in Formal Procedure / 223
3.3.3 Compulsory Application of the IACHS in the First Instance Trial in the
Selected Domain / 227
3.3.4 Trial Responsibility Allocation / 235
3.3.5 Application of IACHS in Appeal and Retrial Procedure / 240
3.4 Dual Shaping of Due Process on the IACHS: Procedural Legitimacy and
Substantive Legitimacy / 243
3.4.1 Procedure Subjects: Role Separation / 246
3.4.2 Subject’s Behavior: Time Requirements and Communication Rules / 250
3.4.3 Procedure Result: Judgment Acceptability / 260
3.5 Conclusion / 263
Findings and Forward: the Judicial World of HumanMachine Collaboration / 267
Appendix 1 / 285
Appendix 2 / 288
Appendix 3 / 292
書單推薦
