ISSN: 2222-6990
Open access
The industrial practices have witnessed immense growth in the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the field of construction. More precisely, AI applications are becoming more mundane in democratizing dispute resolution processes in construction as AI becomes prominent in its functions. Regardless of its ground-breaking contributions – for example, making the decision-making process faster, cheaper, and more predictable – this technology has significant legal implications. This research is divided into two parts: Part 1 and Part 2. The objective of Part 1 is to outline the contribution of AI in automating the court processes and supporting the adjudicative role of human judge. Then the discussion proceeds to highlight the adoption of AI in the construction industry particularly its prospects for Online Construction Dispute Resolution (ODR). The automation brought about by AI systems challenges us to reconsider fundamental questions of adjudication. Judicial decision-making is a challenging area of complexity, requiring highly advanced legal knowledge as well as cognitive and emotional abilities. Therefore, Part 2 examines the technology of AI in relation to the rule of law. It investigates the extent to which the rule of law is being susceptible as AI is becoming entrenched within society. This part of the research explores the importance of legal metaphor and analogy in reasoning with new technologies, thereafter, describing the legitimate expectations. This depiction of jurisprudential development is evaluated by assessing the role of metaphor used in 42 Malaysian case law embodying the phrase ‘robot’ as the equal of AI in the real world. Finally, Part 2 ensues on discussing the legal authority of AI judge to deliberate on judicial decisions. This research indicates that the turn towards AI adjudication will certainly foster the development of digitalized dispute resolution by offering efficiency and at least a glance of impartiality. However, drawing the boundaries of acceptable Judge AI requires consideration of legal and jurisprudential questions, as well as issues concerning the development of algorithm and the extent to which discretion and oversight can be preserved within the adjudication process.
AIAC. (2018). Construction sector sees a higher number of dispute cases.
https://www.aiac.world
Atabekov, A., & Yastrebov, O. (2018). Legal Status of Artificial Intelligence Across Countries: Legislation on the Move. XXI (4), 773–782.
Balkin, J. M. (2015). The Path of Robotics Law. California Law Review. 6(45), 45-60.
Beatson, J. (2018). AI-Supported Adjudicators: Should Artificial Intelligence Have a Role in Tribunal Adjudication? Canadian Journal of Administrative Law & Practice. 7(54), 1-35.
Bryson, J. J., Diamantis, M. E., & Grant, T. D. (2017). Of, for, and By the People: The Legal Lacuna Of Synthetic Persons. Artificial Intelligence and Law. (25), 273–291.
Calo, R. (2016). Robots as Legal Metaphors. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. 30(1), 209-237.
Calo, R. (2017). Robots in American Law. In Robotics, Autonomics, and the Law. (4), 1-45.
Calo, R. (2018). Artificial intelligence policy: A primer and roadmap. In University of Bologna Law Review. 3(2), 180–218.
Calo, R., Froomkin, A., Kerr, I., Richards, N. M., & Smart, W. D. (2016). How should the law think about robots? In Robot Law. 3–22.
Carneiro, D., Novais, P., Andrade, F., Zeleznikow, J., & Neves, J. (2014). Online dispute resolution: An artificial intelligence perspective. Artificial Intelligence Review. (41) 211–240.
?erka, P., Grigien?, J., & Sirbikyt?, G. (2017). Is it possible to grant legal personality to artificial intelligence software systems? Computer Law and Security Review. 33(5), 685–699.
CIArb. (2018). Dispute Resolution by a Fourth Party - An Overview.
https://www.ciarb.org/resources/features/dispute-resolution-by-a-fourth-party-an-overview/
Coglianese, C. (2020). AI in Adjudication and Administration. Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 2188.
Coglianese, C., & Dor, L. Ben. (2019). Artificial Intelligence in Adjudication and Administration: A Status Report on Governmental Use of Technology in the United States Artificial intelligence has begun to permeate many aspects of U.S. society. 1 In settings as varied as medicine, trans. 1.
Council of Europe. (n.d.). Practical examples of AI implemented in other countries. Retrieved September 24, 2020, from https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/practical-examples-of-ai-implemented-in-other-countries
Dressel, J., & Farid, H. (2018). The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Science Advances. 4(1), 1-5.
EdgeProp.my. (2014). First two Construction Courts launched.
https://www.edgeprop.my/content/first-two-construction-courts-launched
Fong, L. C. (2016). Resolution Of Construction Industry Disputes : Arbitration, Statutory Adjudication Or Litigation In The Construction Court? - Real Estate and Construction - Malaysia. https://www.mondaq.com/construction-planning/467878/resolution-of-construction-industry-disputes-arbitration-statutory-adjudication-or-litigation-in-the-construction-court
Froomkin, A. M. (1995). The Metaphor Is the Key: Cryptography, the Clipper Chip, and the Constitution. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 6(3), 331–356.
Grove, R. (2018). AI, machine learning and the administration of justice in England and Wales: prospects, opportunities, challenges. HM Courts and Tribunals Service.
Kate Beioley. (2019). Robots and AI threaten to mediate disputes better than lawyers. https://www.ft.com/content/187525d2-9e6e-11e9-9c06-a4640c9feebb
Kirby, M. (n.d.). The Future of Courts -Do They Have one? 2020. Retrieved September 22, 2020, from https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/kirbyj/kirbyj_future.htm
Kolb, R. W. (2018). Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381503.n34
Lehman-Wilzig, S. N. (1981). Frankenstein unbound. Towards a legal definition of artificial intelligence. Futures. 203-209.
Lessig, L. (1999). The Law of the Horse: What Cyberlaw Might Teach. Harvard Law Review. 113(2), 501-549.
Liu, H. W., Lin, C. F., & Chen, Y. J. (2019). Beyond state v loomis: Artificial intelligence, government algorithmization and accountability. International Journal of Law and Information Technology. 27(2), 122-141.
Mania, K. (2015). Online dispute resolution: The future of justice. International Comparative Jurisprudence. 1(1), 76-86.
Miller, S. (2019). Machine Learning, Ethics and Law. Australasian Journal of Information Systems. 23, 1-13.
Ojiako, U., Chipulu, M., Marshall, A., & Williams, T. (2018). An examination of the ‘rule of law’ and ‘justice’ implications in Online Dispute Resolution in construction projects. International Journal of Project Management. 36(2), 1-38.
Re, R. M., & Solow-Niederman, A. (2019). Developing Artificially Intelligent Justice. Stanford Technical Law Review. 22, 242-289.
Rigano, C. (National I. of J. (2019). Using artificial intelligence to address criminal justice needs. NIJ Journal. 280, 1-10.
Roselli, D., Matthews, J., & Talagala, N. (2019). Managing bias in AI. The Web Conference 2019 - Companion of the World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2019. 539–544.
Scherer, M. U. (2015). Regulating Artificial Intelligence Systems: Risks, Challenges, Competencies, and Strategies. SSRN Electronic Journal. 29(2), 354-400.
Schirmer, J. E. (2019). Artificial intelligence and legal personality: Introducing “Teilrechtsfähigkeit”: A partial legal status made in Germany. In Regulating Artificial Intelligence. 123-142.
Siboe, N. (2020). Use of Artificial Intelligence by the Judiciary in the Face of COVID-19. https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/use-of-artificial-intelligence-by-the-judiciary-in-the-face-of-covid-19/
Soars, J. (2016). Use of Online Dispute Resolution Technologies - ACICA. https://acica.org.au/use-online-dispute-resolution-technologies/
Soni, S., Pandey, M., & Agrawal, S. (2017). Conflicts and Disputes in Construction Projects: An Overview. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications. 7(6), 40-42.
Sourdin, T. (2015). Justice and technological innovation. JOURNAL OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION. 25(2), 96 – 105.
Sourdin, T. (2018). Judge v Robot ? Artificial Intelligence And Judicial Decision Making. UNSW Law Journal, 41(4), 1114–1133.
Sourdin, T., & Cornes, R. (2018). Do Judges Need to Be Human? The Implications of Technology for Responsive Judging. 67, 87-121.
Stawa, M. G. (2020). How is Austria approaching AI integration into judicial policies. Federal Ministry of Constitutional Affairs. https://rm.coe.int/how-is-austria-approaching-ai-integration-into-judicial-policies-/16808e4d81
Reforms, Deregulation and Justice
Stobbs, N., Hunter, D., & Bagaric, M. (2017). Can Sentencing Be Enhanced by the Use of Artificial Intelligence? In Criminal Law Journal. 41(5), 261-277.
Sukhodolov, A. P., & Bychkova, A. M. (2018). Artificial intelligence in crime counteraction, prediction, prevention and evolution. Russian Journal of Criminology. 12(6).753-766
Volokh, E. (2019). Chief Justice Robots. Duke Law Journal. 68, 1135-1192.
Zou, J., & Schiebinger, L. (2018). AI can be sexist and racist — it’s time to make it fair. Nature. 559(7714), 324-326.
In-Text Citation: (Putera et al., 2021)
To Cite this Article: Putera, N. S. F. M. S., Saripan, H., Hassan, R. A., & Abdullah, S. M. (2021). Artificial Intelligence for Construction Dispute Resolution: Justice of the Future. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(11), 139–151.
Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode