The integration of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI, into judicial and dispute-resolution processes is increasingly viewed as inevitable. While much of the existing scholarship focuses on AI use in national legal systems, far less attention has been paid to its implications for international judicial institutions (IJIs), which already face longstanding structural challenges. Given their lack of centralized enforcement mechanisms and heavy dependence on state consent and public confidence, questions of legitimacy are especially acute in IJIs. This article examines how different ways of deploying AI in IJIs may affect both their normative and sociological legitimacy. The analysis emphasizes that “AI in courts” is not a uniform phenomenon: applications range from technical functions such as case management, translation, and evidence organization to more substantive decision-support tools, and, potentially, even automated decision drafting. The article, therefore, adopts a function-specific approach to legitimacy. Regarding normative legitimacy, it evaluates AI through commonly cited criteria in international law scholarship, including state consent, procedural fairness, and democratic legitimacy. It argues that technical and administrative uses of AI may enhance legitimacy by improving access to justice and institutional efficiency, while more substantive uses raise concerns regarding consent, transparency, accountability, and the dynamic changes in international law. Turning to sociological legitimacy, the article reviews emerging empirical literature on public and professional perceptions of algorithmic decision-making in legal contexts and considers how these findings may apply to international adjudication. Existing studies suggest greater acceptance of AI in supportive and early-stage functions, particularly when human oversight is preserved, and lower acceptance in high-stakes adjudicative contexts. The article concludes that AI can both strengthen and undermine the legitimacy of IJIs, depending on how, where, and for what purposes it is deployed, and calls for function-specific governance frameworks and targeted empirical research on public perceptions in the international legal context.
Shikhelman Vera (Wed,) studied this question.