Jorge Crego

Hace ya más de 40 años desde que se comenzase a explorar las posibilidades de emplear inteligencia artificial en el campo del derecho. Existen numerosos usos y propuestas en el marco de la IA y el derecho, desde la automatización de la búsqueda de la información jurídica hasta la personalización del derecho. Estas propuestas plantean diversas cuestiones relacionadas con la filosofía del derecho. La proliferación de propuestas, en ocasiones, dificulta identificar la relación existente entre cada una de ellas con debates específicos de la filosofía del derecho. Este trabajo ofrece una clasificación de usos de la IA jurídica que facilita la identificación de los temas de filosofía de derecho especialmente afectados por cada uso. Se propone distinguir tres grandes categorías: derecho formalizado, práctica jurídica algorítmica, y derecho personalizado. Esta propuesta incorpora los avances recientes en machine learning y propuestas novedosas como la personalización del derecho. Con esta clasificación resulta más sencillo identificar las premisas iusfilosóficas en que se asientan o sobre las que deben reflexionar los diversos proyectos de empleo de IA en el derecho.

Rawls’s remarks on self-respect have been described as cryptic or ambiguous. The discussion on the meaning of respect and, specifically, Rawlsian self-respect has been considerably influenced by Darwall’s distinction between recognition respect and appraisal respect. Since Rawls identifies self-respect as an essential element of his theory of justice, clarifying the meaning of this concept is essential. This paper defends that Darwall’s dichotomic understanding of respect does not clarify Rawlsian conception of self-respect. Rawls uses the term self-respect to refer both to recognition self-respect and appraisal self-respect. However, he presents a third kind of self-respect which could be termed “value-confidence”. This third kind of self-respect concerns one’s confidence in the value of the particular conception of the good one has chosen. This value-confidence cannot be identified with recognition self-respect, since the latter has the fact of moral personality as its object, not the particular conception one happens to choose.

Implementing machine learning in law would transform current legal orders, based on the rule of law. The result would be “legal singularity”: an order based on “precisely tailored laws, specifying the exact behaviour that is permitted in every situation”. According to its proponents, this would promote justice and legal certainty. Through a comparison with the Platonic proposal of the philosopher-king, this article defends that, even if the aforementioned values were to be promoted, the inherent opacity of machine learning systems would hamper the public scrutiny of the resulting normative order, affecting its legitimacy. Thus, current political communities must deliberate about the benefits and drawbacks of legal singularity and must reflect on the use of artificial intelligence in law.

The aim of the present paper is to offer an interpretation of the Rawlsian original position coherent with its own theory of justice. An evaluation of the aforementioned mechanism is presented. Afterwards, in light of it, a solution of the existing overlapping between its elements is offered. The solution is to consider the formal constraints as «partial conclusions», excluding them from the original position. The original position, as an «intermediate stage» aimed at representing the philosophical foundations of Rawls's theory in a way that could provide the deduction of the principles of justice, cannot include straightforwardly any characteristic of those principles, not even the formal ones. The remainder of the elements of the original position (the idea of a contract, the circumstances of justice, the veil of ignorance and the rationality of the parties), acting conjointly, allow for the deduction of the formal constraints themselves. In addition, they also engender the same effects on the exclusion of egoism as a proposal of principles of justice.

Rawls acknowledges the analogy between his conception of the moral personality and the thought of Kant. However, many philosophers have discussed that similarity. This article aims to evaluate the Kantian foundation of Rawlsian liberty. Specifically, it assesses the idea of personal autonomy. The conclusion is that certain interpretation of Kant, which incorporates both his thinkings on the moral law and on happiness as an intrinsic purpose of the human being, allows the acknowledgement of the aforementioned analogy, and thus enables a better understanding of the Rawlsian idea of freedom.

Plato’s idea of the second-best state is the first appearance of the rule of law. It is considered as a realistic alternative to the government of the Philosopher King, differ-ing formally from it on the employment of general rules. The aim of this paper is to elaborate an articulation of both proposals and to better understand that of the rule of law within Plato’s thought. The main differences between it and the modern theories of the rule of law will be assessed. Plato conceives the rule of law as a remedy directed to avoid tyranny, in which the idea of generality, characteristically associated with the rule of law. The law that rules the polis is a reasoned thought accepted by the citizenship, directed to avoid the ruling of the will of the tyrant.

This work studies the relation between the observance of the desiderata that constitute the formal conceptions of the rule of law and the promotion of the freedom of the legal subjects. La presente obra evalúa la idea según la cual el rule of law promueve de un modo u otro la libertad en los sujetos jurídicos. Empleando el pensamiento de John Rawls y apoyándose en la obra de Lon L. Fuller se pretende determinar con precisión cómo queda configurada la subjetividad jurídica en un ordenamiento que cumpla con las exigencias del rule of law. Para ello, se realiza un recorrido por la descripción canónica del rule of law, entendido en su concepción formal. Con posterioridad, se ofrece una interpretación de la concepción de la libertad defendida por Rawls, que resulta muy cercana a la expuesta por Fuller. A partir del estudio detallado de ambos elementos, se ofrece un análisis crítico de los diferentes argumentos dirigidos a apoyar la idea de que el rule of law promueve la libertad, para terminar con una crítica de dichos argumentos. En rigor, lo que aporta el rule of law es la garantía del respeto a la racionalidad deliberativa del individuo. Este es un requisito de la libertad, pero carece por sí mismo de un valor moral destacable. Por tanto, resulta obligado restringir el efecto del rule of law al ámbito de la seguridad jurídica, y señalar el carácter ideológico de toda asignación de un valor moral que trascienda dicha seguridad. En las sociedades pluralistas, la especificación autoritativa de los criterios de justicia es esencial para el desarrollo de una cooperación estable. Sin embargo, esto no asegura ninguna protección moralmente relevante de la libertad.

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the reflective equilibrium between the acknowledgment of the right to end one’s life and the Rawlsian idea of freedom. This article evaluates the possibility of a self-destructive exercise of freedom. It is asserted that this kind of exercise is inconsistent with the highest order interest in freedom. Allowing the self-destructive practice of freedom jeopardizes the Rawlsian foundation of the priority of liberty, a crucial aspect of the justice as fairness. || El presente artículo tiene como objetivo evaluar el equilibrio reflexivo entre el reconocimiento al derecho a disponer de la propia vida y la idea rawlsiana de libertad. Se considera la posibilidad de llevar a cabo un ejercicio autodestructivo de la libertad. Se defiende que este tipo de ejercicios son contrarios al interés de orden supremo en ejercer la libertad. Permitir la práctica autodestructiva de la libertad pone en riesgo la fundamentación rawlsiana de la prioridad de la libertad, un elemento central de la justice as fairness.