法律人工智慧的法哲學反省：判斷權限、執法機制與法治理念

Rule by Algorithms? A Preliminary Study on the Tension Between the Rule of Law and AI

10.7015/JEAS.202206_52(2).0002

陳弘儒(Hung-Ju Chen)

法律人工智慧 ； 法治 ； 實踐差異命題 ； 判斷權限移轉 ； 電腦功能主義 ； artificial legal intelligent system ； the rule of law ； the practical difference thesis ； the shift of decision-making authority ； computer functionalism

歐美研究

52卷2期（2022 / 06 / 01）

175 - 245

繁體中文

法律人工智慧系統（ALI）對於法治價值的影響與關係尚無深入探討。本文主張ALI與法治具有內在的緊張關係。第一，法治理念中的「主體」是一種主動且負責任的主體概念觀，而日趨完善的ALI將凸顯出權限分配移轉的難題。第二，高效率執法機制的建置是ALI的核心特色，旨在以執法效率提升法律之應然與實然面向的擬合，然其卻可能損害個人自主的道德判斷空間與干擾行動者行動理據的排序。據此，本文從法哲學角度說明ALI與不同法治觀的可能緊張關係、透過因果圖呈現ALI對於守法行動的可能介入方式，進而提出兩個基本規範性原則：第一，替代型智慧系統之禁止原則。第二，高效率執法機制禁止原則。

Artificial legal intelligent systems have been extensively developed to perform various legal tasks. However, rare discussions focus on the question of whether such development might conflict with the idea of the rule of law. In this article I argue that there is an internal tension between ALIs and the rule of law based on two reasons. First, the idea of a legal subject in the rule of law is conceived as an active, responsible, and answerable agent who has the authority for making a decision. The fact that ALIs become more capable of performing legal tasks eventually leads to the possibility of shifting the decision-making authority away from human. The rule of law draws a baseline for developing ALIs, that is, ALIs should be supplementary, not substitute for human. Secondly, the highly efficient mechanism of law enforcement, one of the core features in ALIs, severely decreases an individual's autonomous sphere of moral reasoning for ALIs seek for an assurance that an agent would comply with law through the certainty of legal sanctions. As a result of adopting this mechanism, ALIs aim at influencing an individual's autonomy of ranking reasons. Based on the two arguments, I demonstrate there are two principle on the regulation of ALIs. The first principle prohibits the development of substitute ALI. The second principle prohibits the widely adoption of highly efficient mechanism of law enforcement. This article examines the fundamental issue of the rule of law in the age of AI from the perspective of legal philosophy.

1. 王鵬翔, P.-H.,張永健, Y.-C.(2019)。論經濟分析在法學方法之運用。臺大法學論叢，48(3)，791-871。
   連結：
2. 莊世同, S.-T.(2017)。論海耶克的自由主義法治觀：一個批判性的探索。臺大法學論叢，46(3)，665-702。
   連結：
3. 顏厥安, C.-A.(2001)。道德、政治與法律：由對現代性法學之觀察反思緊急命令體制。臺大法學論叢，30(6)，1-28。
   連結：
4. 顏厥安, C.-A.(2018)。人之苦難，機器恩典必看顧安慰：人工智慧、心靈與演算法社會。人工智慧相關法律議題芻議
   連結：
5. SAE International J3016 (2014). Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to on-road motor vehicle automated driving systems J3016_201401. https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_201401/
6. Anderson, S.(2011).Coercion.The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy
7. Bix, B.(2004).A dictionary of legal theory.Oxford University Press.
8. Campanella, T. (2017, July 10). Robert Moses and his racist parkway, explained. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-09/robert-moses-and-his-racist-parkway-explained
9. Caro, R. A.(1975).The power broker: Robert Moses and the fall of New York.Vintage.
10. Christman, J.(2020).Autonomy in moral and political philosophy.The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy
11. Coleman, J.(Ed.),Himma, K. E.(Ed.),Shapiro, S.(Ed.)(2002).The Oxford handbook of jurisprudence and philosophy of law.Oxford University Press.
12. Executive Office of the President. (2016). Preparing for the future of artificial intelligence. National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/whitehouse_files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/preparing_for_the_future_of_ai.pdf
13. Fallon, R.(1994).Reflections on the Hart and Wechsler paradigm.Vanderbilt Law Review,47(4),953-991.
14. Fallon, R.(1997)."The rule of law" as a concept in constitutional discourse.Columbia Law Review,97(1),1-56.
15. Farnsworth, W.(2007).The legal analyst: A toolkit for thinking about the law.University of Chicago Press.
16. Foot, P.(1967).The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect.Oxford Review,5,5-15.
17. Fuller, L.(1969).The morality of law.Yale University Press.
18. Gateshead Council. (2013). Mobile CCTV enforcement-Frequently asked questions. https://www.gateshead.gov.uk/media/3701/Mobile-CCTV-Enforcement-Frequently-Asked-Questions/pdf/CCTV-FAQ.pdf?m=636438393766370000
19. Gilpin, L. H.,Bau, D.,Yuan, B. Z.,Bajwa, A.,Specter, M.,Kagal, L.(2019).,Cornell University.
20. Hart, H. L. A.(1994).The concept of law.Oxford University Press.
21. Hauer, T.(2018).Society and the second age of machines: Algorithms versus ethics.Society,55,100-106.
22. Hildebrandt, M.(2018).Algorithmic regulation and the rule of law.The Royal Society,A376,20170355.
23. Hildebrandt, M.(2016).Law as information in the era of data-driven agency.The Modern Law Review,79(1),1-30.
24. Kelsen, H.,Hartney, M.(Trans.)(1991).General theory of norms.Oxford University Press.
25. Kurzweil, R.(2012).How to create a mind: The secret of human thought revealed.Viking.
26. LawGeex. (2018, February 26). AI vs. lawyers: The ultimate showdown. The LawGeex Blog. https://blog.lawgeex.com/ai-more-accurate-than-lawyers
27. Lipton, Z.(2017).,Cornell University.
28. Liu, H.-W.,Lin, C.-F.,Chen, Y.-J.(2019).Beyond State v. Loomis: Artificial intelligence, government algorithmization and accounttability.International Journal of Law and Information Technology,27(2),122-141.
29. Palombella, G.(2010).The rule of law as an institutional ideal.Rule of law and democracy: Inquiries into internal and external issues
30. Pasquale, F.(2020).Battle of the experts: Artificial intelligence, meta-expertise, and professional performance.conference of the Institutum Iurisprudentiae, Academia Sinica on the 8th Law, Science and Technology AI and Professionalism,Taipei:
31. Pasquale, F.(2019).A rule of persons, not machines: The limits of legal automation.The George Washington Law Review,87(1),1-55.
32. Pasquale, F.(2020).New laws of robotics: Defending human expertise in the age of AI.Harvard University Press.
33. Pearl, J. M.,Glymour, M.,Jewell, N.(2016).Causal inference in statistics: A primer.Wiley.
34. Rawls, J.(1971).A theory of justice.Harvard University Press.
35. Robeyns, I.,Byskov, M. F.(2020).The capability approach.The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy
36. Russell, S.(2019).Human compatible: Artificial intelligence and the problem of control.Viking.
37. Russell, S.,Norvig, P.(2010).Artificial intelligence: A modern approach.Pearson Education.
38. Schneider, S.(2019).Artificial you: AI and the future of your mind.Princeton University Press.
39. Shapiro, S.(1998).The difference that rules make.Analyzing law: New essays in legal theory
40. Shapiro, S.(2011).Legality.Harvard University Press.
41. Solum, L.(2019).Artificially intelligent law.BioLaw Journal-Rivista di BioDirtto,1,53-62.
42. Sorrel, C. (2010, December 6). Swedish speed-camera pays drivers to slow down. WIRED. https://www.wired.com/2010/12/swedish-speed-camera-pays-drivers-to-slow-down/
43. Tamanaha, B.(2004).On the rule of law: History, politics, theory.Cambridge University Press.
44. Tamanaha, B.(2007).,未出版
45. Tegmark, M.(2017).Life 3.0: Being human in the age of artificial intelligence.Knopf.
46. Thomson, J. J.(1985).The trolley problem.The Yale Law Journal,94(6),1395-1415.
47. Tsai, C.-H.(2020).Artificial wisdom: A philosophical framework.AI & Society,35,937-944.
48. Verheij, B.(2020).Artificial intelligence as law.Artificial Intelligence and Law,28,181-206.
49. Waldron, J.(2020).The rule of law.The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy
50. Whittaker, M.,Crawford, K.,Dobbe, R.,Fried, G.,Kaziunas, E.,Mathur, V.,West, S. M.,Richardson, R.,Schultz, J.,Schwartz, O.(2018).,未出版
51. Yen, A.(2015).On democratic resistance and the rule of law.Asian Legal Philosophy,2(1),53-80.
52. Zuboff, S.(2019).The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power.Public Affairs
53. 王鵬翔, P.-H.(2012)。獨立於內容的理由與法律的規範性。中研院法學期刊，11，203-247。
54. 交通部鐵道局 (2019)。〈臺鐵豐原站智慧型影像監控系統試辦案〉。https://www.rb.gov.tw/news.php?lmenuid=11&smenuid=0&tmenuid=0&infoid=2060 (Railway Bureau, MOTC. [2019]. Digital monitoring system in TRA Fengyuan Station.)
55. 艾莎．威克福斯, A.,葉品岑（譯）, P.-C.(Trans.)(2017).另類事實：關於知識和它的敵人.春山=Spring Hill.
56. 吳從周, C.-J.(2019)。初探 AI 的民事責任。人工智慧相關法律議題芻議
57. 李開復, K.-F.,王詠剛, Y.-G.(2017).人工智慧來了.天下文化=Commonwealth.
58. 李榮耕, Y.-G.(2019)。初探刑事程序法的人工智慧應用。人工智慧相關法律議題芻議
59. 東吳大學 (2018)。〈東吳 AI 中心攜手法扶會、SAS 以「人工智慧」提升「法律扶助」效益〉。https://www-ch.scu.edu.tw/october/news/9267 (Soochow University. [2018]. Center for applied artificial intelligence research works with legal aid foundation of Taiwan and SAS to promote legal aid utilities via artificial intelligence.)
60. 林昀嫻、王道維 (2020)。〈AI 親權判決預測系統：法律、社會、技術與應用面向〉，《台灣人工智慧行動網》。https://ai.iias.sinica.edu.tw/ai-child-custody-decision-prediction (Lin, Y.-H., & Wang, D.-W. [2020]. Child custody via AI prediction system: Application in terms of law, society and technology. Taiwan Artificial Intelligence Wise Agent Network.)
61. 林勤富, C.-F.,李怡俐, Y.-L.(2020)。人工智慧時代下的國際人權法：規範與制度的韌性探索與再建構。法律思維與制度的智慧轉型
62. 法務部行政執行署桃園分署 (2020)。〈桃園分署與桃園市府機關合作以車追人〉。 https://www.tpk.moj.gov.tw/media/20253243/05-%E6%A1%83%E5%9C%92%E5%88%86%E7%BD%B2%E4%BB%A5%E8%BB%8A%E8%BF%BD%E4%BA%BA-%E5%85%A9%E5%B9%B4%E8%BF%BD134%E5%8F%B0-%E6%94%B6%E5%9B%9E484%E8%90%AC.pdf (Taoyuan Branch, Administrative Enforcement Agency, Ministry of Justice. [2020]. Taoyuan Branch, Administrative Enforcement Agency, Ministry of Justice works with local municipal offices to track owners via vehicles.Ministry of Justice News.)
63. 哈特, H. L. A.,許家馨（譯）, C.-H.(Trans.),李冠宜（譯）, K.-I.(Trans.)(2010).法律的概念.商周=Business Weekly Publications.
64. 國立清華大學 (n.d.) 。 〈 AI 輔助親權判決預測網頁〉。https://custodyprediction.herokuapp.com (National Tsing Hua University. [n.d.]. AI’s prediction of legal judgments for child custody.)
65. 國家教育研究院 (2012)。〈國家教育研究院雙語詞彙、學術名詞暨辭書資訊網 “congruence”〉。https://terms.naer.edu.tw/search/?q= Congruence&field=ti&op=AND&group=&num=10 (National Academy for Education and Research [2012]. Congruence.)
66. 張永健, Y.-C.(2020).社科民法釋義學.新學林=New Sharing.
67. 陳弘儒, H.-J.(2021)。論原意主義的憲法解釋方法論：對於中立化與語意規範性的初步反省。中研院法學期刊，29，135-224。
68. 陳起行, C.-H(2002)。美國法理學發展概述，1870-1970。政大法學評論，69，1-27。
69. 新北市政府警察局交通大隊 (2021)。〈區間平均速率科技執法設置地點〉， https://www.traffic.police.ntpc.gov.tw/cp-918-44982-27.html (Traffic Police Corp, New Taipei City Police Department. [2021]. Spots for average speed technological enforcement.)
70. 漢娜．弗萊, H.,林志懋（譯）, Z.-M.(Trans.)(2019).打開演算法黑箱：反噬的 AI、走鐘的運算,當演算法出了錯,人類還能控制它嗎？.臉譜=Faces.
71. 顏厥安, C.-A.(2006)。規範縫隙初探。法律的分析與解釋：楊日然教授紀念論文集

1. (2024)。AI開發過程的倫理權衡：自駕車決策案例研究。歐美研究，54(1)，1-67。