Artificial Intelligence, Algorithmic Opacity, and Judicial Decision- Making The Need to Set a Moratorium
This study examines the feasibility of employing artificial intelligence systems in judicial decision-making in light of the structural challenges posed by algorithmic opacity. It contrasts approaches that regard certain levels of functional opacity as tolerable with those that contend that any form of inintelligibility undermines democratic legitimacy, epistemic justice, and fundamental rights. The analysis also incorporates insights from XAI and evidentiary theory to show that existing explanation methods do not enable the reconstruction of the reasoning, facts, or causal links essential for judicial processes. Through an exhaustive review of recent scholarship and an assessment of normative, philosophical, and procedural standards, the study demonstrates that the technical, epistemic, sociotechnical, and institutional limitations of current models preclude meeting the minimum requirements of explainability, auditability, and rational control. In view of these findings and the Inter-American standard affirming the right to understand the reasons underlying a judicial decision, the article proposes a precautionary moratorium on the use of AI in the judicial domain until robust explainability standards are validated through inter-institutional deliberative processes.
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2026 DIXI
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Every single author of the articles has to declare that is an original unpublished work exclusively created by them, that it has not been submitted for simultaneous evaluation by another publication and that there is no impediment of any kind for concession of the rights provided for in the contract.
In this sense, the authors committed to await the result of the evaluation by the journal DIXI before considering its submission to another medium; in case the response by that publication is positive, additionally, the authors committed to respond for any action involving claims, plagiarism or any other kind of claim that could be made by third parties.
At the same time, the authors have to declare that they are completely in agreement with the conditions presented in their work and that they cede all patrimonial rights. These rights involve reproduction, public communication, distribution, dissemination, transformation, making it available and all forms of exploitation of the work using any medium or procedure, during the term of the legal protection of the work and in every country in the world, to the Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia Press.
Ahern, D. (2025). The New Anticipatory Governance Culture for Innovation: Regulatory Foresight, Regulatory Experimentation and Regulatory Learning. European Business Organization Law Review, (26), 241–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-025-00348-7
Alvarado, R. (2023). AI as an Epistemic Technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(5), 32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00451-3
Bjerring, J. C., Mainz, J., & Munch, L. (2025). Deep learning models and the limits of explainable artificial intelligence. Asian Journal of Philosophy, 4(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44204-024-00238-8
Boge, F. J. (2022). Two Dimensions of Opacity and the Deep Learning Predicament. Minds and Machines, 32(1), 43–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09569-4
Cantarini, P. (2024). Algocracy, algorithmic institutionalism, digital rationality and risk to democracy. Revista Juridica Unicuritiba, 4(80), 590–626. https://doi.org/10.26668/revistajur.2316-753X.v4i80.7823
Carabantes, M. (2020). Black-box artificial intelligence: an epistemological and critical analysis. AI & Society, 35(2), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00888-w
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. (2016). Caso Maldonado Ordoñez vs. Guatemala. https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_311_esp.pdf
Drnas de Clément, Z. (2008). Elementos Esenciales del Principio de Precaución Ambiental. In Universidad de Córdoba. Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales. Centro de Investigaciones Jurídicas y Sociales, Anuario X 2007 (1st ed., pp. 329 - 340). Buenos Aires: Universidad de Córdoba. Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales. Centro de Investigaciones Jurídicas y Sociales.
Engstrom, D. F. (2024). The Automated State: A Realist View. George Washington Law Review, 92(6), 1437–1472.
Facchini, A., & Termine, A. (2022). Towards a Taxonomy for the Opacity of AI Systems. In Studies in Applied Philosophy Epistemology and Rational Ethics (Vol. 63, pp. 73–89). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09153-7_7
Fleisher, W. (2022). Understanding, Idealization, and Explainable AI. Episteme, 19(4), 534–560. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2022.39
Fraser, H., Simcock, R., & Snoswell, A. J. (2022). AI Opacity and Explainability in Tort Litigation. 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency, 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533084
Freiman, O., McAndrews, J., Mansell, J., & van der Linden, C. (2025). ‘Opacity’ and ‘Trust’: From Concepts and Measurements to Public Policy. Philosophy & Technology, 38(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-025-00862-z
Gerdes, A. (2021). Dialogical Guidelines Aided by Knowledge Acquisition: Enhancing the Design of Explainable Interfaces and Algorithmic Accuracy. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (Vol. 1288, pp. 243–257). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63128-4_19
Gorwa, R., Binns, R., & Katzenbach, C. (2020). Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data & Society, 7(1), 205395171989794. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719897945
Grant, D. G., Behrends, J., & Basl, J. (2025). What we owe to decision-subjects: beyond transparency and explanation in automated decision-making. Philosophical Studies, 182(1), 55–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-023-02013-6
Hatherley, J. (2025). A moving target in AI-assisted decision-making: dataset shift, model updating, and the problem of update opacity. Ethics and Information Technology, 27(2), 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-025-09829-2
Kaas, M. H. L. (2024). The perfect technological storm: artificial intelligence and moral complacency. Ethics and Information Technology, 26(3), 49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09788-0
Knoks, A., & Raleigh, T. (2022). XAI and philosophical work on explanation: A roadmap. Ceur Workshop Proceedings, 3319, 101–106. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3319/paper11.pdf
Kroll, J. A. (2018). The fallacy of inscrutability. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2133), 20180084. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0084
Kumar, M., Aijaz, A., Chattar, O., Shukla, J., & Mutharaju, R. (2024). Opacity, Transparency, and the Ethics of Affective Computing. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 15(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2023.3278230
Langer, M., & König, C. J. (2023). Introducing a multi-stakeholder perspective on opacity, transparency and strategies to reduce opacity in algorithm-based human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 33(1), 100881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100881
Lasbleiz N. & Milkes I., (2021) Los desafíos de la automatización de las decisiones individuales por la Administración Pública, en “Disrupción tecnológica, transformación digital y sociedad, Ed. Externado.
Lee, F. (2025). The practices and politics of machine learning: a field guide for analyzing artificial intelligence. AI & SOCIETY. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02430-7
Lo, F. T. H. (2024). The paradoxical transparency of opaque machine learning. AI and Society, 39(3), 1397–1409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01616-7
Lu, S. (2022). Data Privacy, Human Rights, and Algorithmic Opacity. California Law Review, 110(6), 2087–2147. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38804XM07
Mann, S., Crook, B., Kastner, L., Schomacker, A., & Speith, T. (2023). Sources of Opacity in Computer Systems: Towards a Comprehensive Taxonomy. Proceedings 31st IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops Rew 2023, 337–342. https://doi.org/10.1109/REW57809.2023.00063
Petrolo, M., Kubyshkina, E., & Primiero, G. (2023). A logical approach to algorithmic opacity. Ceur Workshop Proceedings, 3615, 89–95. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3615/short4.pdf
Riechmann, J & Tickner, J (2002). El principio de precaución. Barcelona: Icaria Editorial (pp. 47). Citado por González Villa, J (2006). Derecho Ambiental Colombiano: Parte General Tomo I. Bogotá D.C: Editorial Universidad Externado de Colombia.
Ruiz-Jarabo, D. (2005). El desarrollo comunitario del principio de precaución. En C. G. Judicial (Ed.). El principio de precaución y su proyección en el derecho administrativo español (pp. 41-74). Madrid: Centro de Documentación Judicial.
Unión Europea (2024). Reglamento de Inteligencia Artificial. Reglamento (Ue) 2024/1689 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
