Dilemmas and Pathways for AI Application in International
Criminal Judicial Assistance

Han Han

doi:10.70711/frim.v4i3.8741

Dilemmas and Pathways for AI Application in International Criminal Judicial Assistance

Han Han

Abstract

Artificial intelligence technology provides efficient tools for combating transnational crime, yet its application in international criminal judicial assistance faces unique dilemmas: existing international conventions fail to cover rules for determining the legality of algorithmgenerated evidence; disparities in national data protection laws impede cross-border data flows; and algorithmic bias and the "black box"
problem exacerbate difficulties in review and liability determination. This article argues that overcoming these dilemmas requires constructing
multi-tiered international rules, promoting mutual recognition of technical standards, clarifying AI's auxiliary role, and strengthening rights
remedies to balance technological empowerment with human rights protection.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence; International Criminal Judicial Assistance; Data Sovereignty; Algorithmic Transparency; Judicial Mutual Trust

Full Text:

PDF

Included Database

References

[1] United Nations. United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. 2000, arts. 18-20.

[2] European Union. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). art. 45.

[3] Li, M., & Xu, S. J. (2024). Content analysis of AI regulations in Asian regions from the perspective of policy tools. [Journal Name],

2024(4).

[4] International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI). 2024.

[5] Li, R. J. (2023). On the application of artificial intelligence in criminal justice decision-making. Network Security and Data Governance,

42(8), 21-27.

[6] Wei, B. (2021). Challenges and pathways for integrating judicial artificial intelligence into judicial reform. Modern Law Science, 43(3),

3-23.

[7] Wang, W. Y. (2022). The possible space, inherent limits, and prospects of judicial artificial intelligence. Journal of Northeastern University (Social Science Edition), 24(3), 111-119.

[8] Zhu, M. T., & Xu, C. L. (2023). International soft law governance of AI ethics: Current status, challenges and countermeasures. Bulletin

of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 38(7), 1037-1049.

[9] Xu, F. (2019). Legal regulation of the black box of AI algorithms: Taking intelligent investment advisors as an example. Oriental Law, (6),

78-86.

[10] European Union. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). art. 45.

[11] Wang, J. (2016). Feasibility and path selection for constructing a unified criminal justice database. Legal Forum, 31(1), 125-132.

[12] LegalXML. About LegalXML. Retrieved January 13, 2026, from https://legalxml.wpengine.com/about/

[13] Hao, J. J. (2023). Regulatory concepts and mechanisms for international AI cooperation under the explainability framework. Science

and Technology Entrepreneurship Monthly, 36(7), 121-125.

[14] Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016, May 23). Machine bias. [Source Name/URL if available]

[15] European Union. Second Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime on Enhanced Co-operation and Disclosure of Electronic

Evidence. May 12, 2022.

[16] Zeng, X. X. (2024). Dilemmas and improvement paths of the judicial application of artificial intelligence. Dispute Settlement, 10, 8.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.70711/frim.v4i3.8741

Refbacks

There are currently no refbacks.