There is no doubt that artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized many industries, the legal sector among them. Furthermore, it will continue to do so in the foreseeable future in ways that we haven’t even begun to comprehend. However, I fear that its promise of solving and revolutionizing every single legal challenge or area is often overstated, especially when it comes to Foreign, Comparative, and International Legal (FCIL) research. AI promises of easiness, rapidity, and exclusively results-oriented approaches fundamentally clash with FCIL work, which demands robust research steps, awareness of processes, and a sense of curiosity in a globalized world that is continuously (d)evolving. Comparative Law, in particular, requires a mindset rooted in cultural immersion that is not frozen in time, but responsive to historical and ongoing changes.
At a fundamental level, the volatile nature of legal information access in most countries in the world further complicates the picture. Many countries still do not have digitized legal datasets, despite the major strides accomplished in the1990s and early 2000s with the proliferation of Legal Information Institutes (LIIs) across the world and the Free the Law Movement. Furthermore, governments may restrict or remove previously available legal materials or actively censor access to legal information, making it imperative for legal professionals to stay informed about these, at times abrupt, changes. This landscape creates significant gaps that AI cannot bridge alone, leaving legal professionals to confront a sobering reality: much of the critical legal information remains offline and inaccessible.
Access to Legal Information is usually understood to be part of broader concepts such as Access to Justice and Freedom of Information (FOI) or Right to Information (RTI) Laws. Important civil society groups in these areas such as World Justice Project (WJP), Article19 and Transparency International have all reported on the rapid deterioration on access to legal information globally and in some individual countries, in particular. For example, the World Justice Project has issued a yearly report called the Rule of Law Index since 2015 tracking several factors in almost all countries around the world. One of these factors defined by WJP as crucial to the rule of law is open government which includes publicized laws and government data and right to information. Based on the data provided, open government is one of the factors which continues to decrease every year, even in countries with RTI laws. Unreliable access to legal and government data does not bode well for AI tools relying solely on these datasets.
Moreover, effective FCIL research often requires nuanced translations, which go beyond mere linguistic accuracy. Understanding the cultural, historical, and legal contexts is essential, as these elements shape the meaning of legal texts. Languages evolve with cultural shifts, and so does the interpretation of legal terminologies. AI-powered translation tools, while improving, lack the depth and sensitivity required to grasp these subtleties fully. Legal professionals need human expertise to navigate these intricacies and avoid critical misinterpretations that could jeopardize their work and that of their clients.
These dynamics underscore the importance of skilled law librarians and legal researchers who possess deep knowledge of research strategies and methods. We must emphasize the value of tapping into networks of reciprocity, such as active legal researchers and law librarians, whose collective knowledge and experience are vital in addressing the complexities of FCIL work. These experts play a crucial role in adapting to shifting circumstances and ensuring accurate and thorough legal research, even when resources are scarce. Their ability to stay attuned to cultural and legal evolutions enables them to approach research with the required depth and flexibility. Law librarians with expertise on this subject area know exactly what to do when you get the dreaded “zero results” or where to go when confronted with governments restricting access to vital legal information.
AI tools can still be valuable when used judiciously. They excel at automating repetitive tasks, synthesizing available data, and identifying patterns. However, they are not a substitute for critical thinking and informed decision-making, which are essential steps in FCIL research. Legal professionals must evaluate sources rigorously, develop effective research strategies, and remain skeptical of AI-generated insights without thorough validation. The promise of AI is not in replacing human expertise but in complementing it, streamlining workflows, and providing preliminary analyses that can be refined by skilled practitioners.
In this challenging environment, the importance of “doing the work” cannot be overstated. Legal professionals must embrace a proactive approach: engaging in critical thinking, carefully evaluating sources, and crafting meticulous research strategies. While AI offers tools to assist in these efforts, the responsibility of delivering accurate and reliable FCIL insights ultimately rests with human experts. By balancing technology with expertise, the legal field can navigate the pitfalls of AI and harness its potential responsibly.
The post The Limits of AI for Your Foreign and Comparative Legal Research Needs appeared first on Slaw.