Algorithms, Efficiency and the Two Faces of Courts – A Case Study of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ)

References

Andersen, Niels Åkerstrøm (2020): Potentialization: Loosening up Relations Between Public Organizations and Societal Function Systems. Management and Organizational History 15, 65–89.10.1080/17449359.2020.1815548Search in Google Scholar

Andersen, Niels Åkerstrøm/Pors, Justine Grønbæk (2017): On the History of the Form of Administrative Decisions: How Decisions Begin to Desire Uncertainty. Management and Organizational History 12, 119–141.10.1080/17449359.2017.1324800Search in Google Scholar

Araujo, Theo/Helberger, Natali et al. (2020): In AI We Trust? Perceptions About Automated Decision-making by Artificial Intelligence. AI and Society 35, 611–623.10.1007/s00146-019-00931-wSearch in Google Scholar

Baraldi, Claudio/Corsi, Giancarlo/Esposito, Elena (2021): Unlocking Luhmann: A Keyword Introduction to Systems Theory. Bielefeld: Bielefeld University Press.10.1515/9783839456743Search in Google Scholar

Bianchi de Oliveira, Diego (2019): Legal Mediation as an Alternative to Reduce the Lawsuit Numerical Crisis. Revista de Ciências Jurídicas Sociais UNIPAR 22, 317–331.Search in Google Scholar

Bragança, Fernanda/Coelho, José Leovigildo et al. (2021): Artificial Intelligence Technology Applied to Conflict Resolution in the Brazilian Judiciary. Brasília: Fundação Getúlio Vargas.Search in Google Scholar

Brasil (1988): Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil. Brasília: Documentation and Information Center of the Chamber of Deputies.Search in Google Scholar

Brasil (2004): Emenda Constitutional n.45, de 30 de Dezembro de 2004. Brasília: Diário Oficial da União.Search in Google Scholar

Büchner, Stefanie/Dosdall, Henrik (2021): Organisation und Algoritmus. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 73 (Suppl. 1: Soziale Praktiken des Beobachtens), 333–357.10.1007/s11577-021-00752-0Search in Google Scholar

Cobbe, Jennifer (2020): Legal Singularity and the Reflexivity of Law, in: Simon Deakin/Christopher Markou (eds.), Is Law Computable? Critical Perspectives on Law and Artificial Intelligence. London: Hart, 286–290.10.5040/9781509937097.ch-005Search in Google Scholar

Congresso Nacional (1992): Exposição de Motivos da EC 45 de 2004. Diário do Congresso Nacional 1, 7849.Search in Google Scholar

Conselho Nacional de Justiça (2021): Justiça em Números 2021 – Sumário Executivo. Brasília: CNJ.Search in Google Scholar

Council of Europe (2021): Background paper. Conference of Ministers of Justice: “Digital technology and artificial intelligence – New challenges for justice en Europe (https://rm.coe.int/background-paper-conference-of-ministers-of-justice-5-october-2021/1680a409f0).Search in Google Scholar

Escola de Magistrados do Tribunal Regional Federal da 3^ª Região (2020): Eficaz/Eficiente/Efetivo (https://www.trf3.jus.br/emag/emagconecta/conexaoemag-lingua-portuguesa/eficaz-eficiente-efetivo).Search in Google Scholar

Esposito, Elena (2013): Digital Prophecies and Web Intelligence, in: Mireille Hildebrandt/Katja De Vries (eds.), Privacy, Due Process and the Computational Turn, 117–138.Search in Google Scholar

Esposito, Elena (2017): Artificial Communication? The Production of Contingency by Algorithms. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 46, 249–265.10.1515/zfsoz-2017-1014Search in Google Scholar

European Comission for the Efficiency of Justice (2018): European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and Their Environment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Search in Google Scholar

Galilheti, Edgar José (2012): Study on the Reform of the Judiciary Examined from the EC 45/2014, and the Personalism of Emanuel Mounier. Revista Eletrônica Direito e Política 2, 1121–1147.Search in Google Scholar

Gowder, Paul (2018): Transformative Legal Technology and the Rule of Law. University of Toronto Law Journal 68, 82–105.10.3138/utlj.2017-0047Search in Google Scholar

Guimarães, Patrícia/Garcia, Thiago (2019): A Eficiência como Objeto de Desenvolvimento. Revista Jurídica da UFERSA 3, 21–44.10.21708/issn2526-9488.v3.n5.p21-44.2019Search in Google Scholar

Hamdar Ribeiro, Cristiana (2009): A Lei dos Recursos Repetitivos e os Princípios de Direito Processual Civil Brasileiro. Revista Eletrônica de Dirito Processual 5, 614–700.Search in Google Scholar

Hill, Robin (2016): What an Algorithm Is. Philosophy and Technology 29, 35–59.10.1007/s13347-014-0184-5Search in Google Scholar

Karpen, Ulrich (2016): Efficacy, Effectiveness, Efficiency: From Judicial to Managerial Rationality. Rational Lawmaking Under Review 3, 295–313.10.1007/978-3-319-33217-8_12Search in Google Scholar

Kemper, Jakko/Kolkman, Daan (2018): Transparent to Whom? No Algrithmic Accountability without a Critical Audience. Information, Communication & Society, 1–16.10.1080/1369118X.2018.1477967Search in Google Scholar

Leal, Fernando (2008): Propostas para uma Abordagem Teórico-Metodológica do Dever Constitucional de Eficiência. Revista Eletrônica de Direito Administrativo Econômico 15, 1–24.Search in Google Scholar

Leonel, Ricardo de Barros (2007): Reformas Recentes do Processo Civil: Comentário Sistemático. São Paulo: Método.Search in Google Scholar

Liscow, Zachary (2018): Is Efficiency Biased? The University of Chicago Law Review 85, 1649–1718.10.2139/ssrn.3018796Search in Google Scholar

Lopes Saldanha, Jânia Maria (2010): A Paradoxal Face ‘Hipermoderna’ do Processo Constitucional: um Olhar sobre o Direito Processual Brasileiro. Estudios Constitucionales 8, 675–706.10.4067/S0718-52002010000200020Search in Google Scholar

Luhmann, Niklas (1991): Soziologie des Risikos. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Luhmann, Niklas (1993): Das Recht der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Search in Google Scholar

Luhmann, Niklas (2018): Organization and Decision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108560672Search in Google Scholar

Mancuso, Rodolfo de Camargo (2019): Acesso à Justiça: Condicionantes Legítimas e Ilegítimas. Salvador: JusPODIVM.Search in Google Scholar

Marinoni, Luiz Guilherme (2019): O STJ enquanto Corte de Precedentes. São Paulo: RT.Search in Google Scholar

Mittelstadt, Brent Daniel/Allo, Patrick et al. (2016): The Ethics of Algorithms: Mapping the Debate. Big Data and Society 3, 1–21.10.1177/2053951716679679Search in Google Scholar

Mittelstadt, Brent Daniel/Russel, Chris/Wachter, Sandra (2019): Explaining Explanations in AI, in: FAT* ’19: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 279–288 (doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287574).10.1145/3287560.3287574Search in Google Scholar

Noronha, João Otávio de (2019): Inteligência Artificial no Judiciário. O Globo, April 6.Search in Google Scholar

Orbruch, Terry (1997): People’s Accounts Count: The Sociology of Accounts. Annual Review of Sociology 23, 455–478.10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.455Search in Google Scholar

Pasquale, Frank (2018): A Rule of Persons, Not Machines: the Limits of Legal Automation. George Washington Law Review 1, 1–56.Search in Google Scholar

Roller, Margaret (2019): A Quality Approach to Qualitiative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences Compared to Other Qualitative Methods. Forum qualitative Sozialforschung 20, 1–40.Search in Google Scholar

Roque, André Vasconcelos (2011): A Luta Contra o Tempo nos Processos Judiciais: um Problema Ainda à Busca de uma Solução. Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual 7, 237–263.Search in Google Scholar

Rutgers, Mark/van der Meer, Hendriekje (2010): The Origins and Restriction of Efficiency in Public Administration: Regaining Efficiency as the Core Value of Public Administration. Administration and Society 42, 755–779.10.1177/0095399710378990Search in Google Scholar

Sadek, Maria Tereza Ainda (2004): Poder Judiciário: Perspectivas de Reforma. Opinião Pública 1, 1–62.10.1590/S0104-62762004000100002Search in Google Scholar

Schreier, Margrit (2012): Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. London: Sage.10.4135/9781529682571Search in Google Scholar

Scott, Marvin/Lyman, Stanford (1968): Accounts. American Sociological Review 33, 46–62.10.2307/2092239Search in Google Scholar

Seaver, Nick (2017): Algorithms as Culture: Some Tactics for the Ethnography of Algorithmic Systems. Big Data and Society 4, 1–12.10.1177/2053951717738104Search in Google Scholar

STJ (2018): Instrução Normativa STG GDG N.6 de 12 de Junho de 2018. Brasília: Diário da Justiça Eletrônico.10.32399/rtla.12.44.585Search in Google Scholar

Superior Tribunal de Justiça (2013): STJ 25 Anos: Tribunal da Cidadania é Pioneiro no Processo Eletrônico. Brasília: Jusbrasil.Search in Google Scholar

Superior Tribunal de Justiça (2015): Relatório de Gestão do Exercício do ano de 2015. Brasília: STJ.Search in Google Scholar

Superior Tribunal de Justiça (2019): Jurisdiction. Brasília: STJ.Search in Google Scholar

Superior Tribunal de Justiça (2020): Relatório de Gestão do Exercício de 2019. Brasília: STJ.Search in Google Scholar

Superior Tribunal de Justiça (2021): Boletim Estatístico Setembro 2021. Brasília: STJ.Search in Google Scholar

Superior Tribunal de Justiça (2022): Plano Diretor de Tecnologia da Informação e Comunicação, PDTIC. Brasília: STJ.Search in Google Scholar

Supiot, Alain (2017): Governance by Numbers: The Making of a Legal Model of Allegiance. Oxford: Hart.Search in Google Scholar

Susser, Daniel (2019): Invisible Influence: Artificial Intelligenc and the Ethics of Adaptive Choice Architectures, in: AIES ’19: Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics and Society, 403–408 (doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314286).10.1145/3306618.3314286Search in Google Scholar

Veiga Chaves, Guilherme/Veiga, Elizabeth (2021): A Inteligência Artificial na Formação dos Precedntes do STJ: Sistema Sócrates 2.0. Brasília: Migalhas.Search in Google Scholar