The Adjudicative Logic and Functional Role of Chinese Courts in AI Governance

Abstract

A structural divide exists between the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence and the relative stability of law. In the absence of dedicated AI legislation, response of Chinese courts to novel AI-related disputes through adjudication and their role in AI governance has become an important research topic demanding urgent attention in contemporary law. Adopting a comparative law perspective and drawing on a systematic analysis of typical AI-related cases decided by Chinese courts, this article distills three adjudicative logics employed by Chinese courts in handling AI cases. Firstly, “anthropocentrism”, in copyright and personality rights, courts have consistently maintained that AI is a tool and that humans are the sole bearers of legal responsibility.AI can’t be an author or a rights-holder. Secondly, a “two-stage liability assessment” by distinguishing between “technology development and provision” and “specific use,” courts have achieved a dynamic balance between technology neutrality and accountability for unlawful acts. Thirdly, “judicial development of the law” where existing law provides no explicit answer, courts have filled legal gaps and created adjudicative standards through methods such as application by reference, analogy, and using general clauses. Through comparative analysis with U.S. and EU courts, current research reveals the different models of institutional division of responsibilities underlying the three adjudicative logics: judicial restraint in the United States, legislation-led governance in the European Union, and judicial pioneering in China. Accordingly, this study demonstrates four core functions of Chinese courts in AI governance. These include upholding human legal subjecthood to anchor the foundations of the rule of law, employing the two-stage assessment to achieve dynamic equilibrium, engaging in judicial development of the law to supply rules, and imposing strict accountability to control risks. The Chinese courts’ pathway of “judiciary first, legislation to follow” is neither the “passive judicial waiting” of the United States nor the “legislation-led pioneering” of the European Union, but a realist path rooted in China’s rule-of-law practice, offering a Chinese approach that may inform global AI governance.