This research critically examines the legal nature of artificial intelligence within judicial systems, addressing the fundamental question of whether AI should be classified as a mere legal instrument or as a quasi-agent capable of influencing legal outcomes. The study situates this debate within the broader transformation toward smart justice and algorithmic governance. It argues that traditional legal qualification frameworks are insufficient to capture the hybrid and evolving role of AI systems, particularly those involved in decision-support, predictive analytics, and automated reasoning. The paper identifies a conceptual gap between the doctrinal classification of legal tools and the functional reality of AI systems that exhibit autonomy, adaptability, and operational influence. Through a doctrinal and comparative approach, the research proposes a reconstructed model of legal qualification based on functional agency, distinguishing between instrumental AI, assistive AI, and influential AI. This classification allows for a more nuanced allocation of legal responsibility and supports the development of adaptive regulatory frameworks. The study further explores the implications of this model for judicial independence, due process, and accountability, emphasizing the need for transparency, explainability, and human oversight. It concludes by advocating for a hybrid legal framework that balances technological efficiency with fundamental legal safeguards.
Amal Fawzy Ahmed Awad (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: