Black box justice is not inevitable — Marina Danielyan on AI, fairness and the future of legal practice

Ahsan Mustafa in conversation with international and European law specialist Marina Danielyan.

Scottish lawyers increasingly find themselves advising on disputes, contracts and regulatory issues shaped as much by European and international developments as by domestic law. Questions of data protection, online dispute resolution, and AI regulation now arise routinely in practice, even where the underlying dispute is local.

Against this background, Ahsan Mustafa spoke with Marina Danielyan, an international and European law specialist based at Université Catholique de Lille, whose work sits at the intersection of cross-border regulation, technology and dispute resolution.

You grew up in Armenia and moved to France three years ago. What took you there?

I moved to France because I wanted to immerse myself in international and European law in a setting where EU law is part of daily legal life. I completed a master’s degree in international and European Law at Université Catholique de Lille. I’ve also genuinely enjoyed the culture and the intellectual pace of studying in France.

Where has your interest within that broad field settled most strongly?

Data protection and digital regulation have become the centre of gravity for me. I wrote my master’s dissertation on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in commercial and civil dispute resolution, and I’ve had hands-on experience through an internship at a law firm in Paris in areas like data protection and digital regulation.

What have you been doing alongside the degree?

I’ve taught seminars in European law and international public law, and I co-developed a clinic focused on Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). Teaching has forced me to clarify what I think I know and explain it in a way that’s useful to others.

What first drew you to law, and how did those early experiences shape your direction?

It wasn’t one moment. I gradually realised that law is one of the main ways power organises itself: who gets heard, who gets ignored and who carries consequences when disputes arise. I became interested in what law means once it leaves the textbooks and reaches the messier edges of real life, conflict, institutions, technology, unequal resources. My path wasn’t linear; it has been driven by curiosity.

How did you end up focusing on international and European law in particular?

Because I saw how interconnected legal systems are. Armenia isn’t an EU country, but EU developments still influence national law, business practice and standards, especially in areas like data flows and digital services. The internet makes it obvious that borders are not as ‘strong’ as we sometimes imagine. EU law also taught me something else: legal systems can operate with different logics at the same time. It’s less about perfect coherence, more about how different legal cultures coexist and negotiate shared rules. Once you notice that, it’s hard to think only domestically.

What have you found most distinctive about working across jurisdictions?

It dismantles the idea that law is neutral or uniform. Rules can look identical on paper, but once they’re applied, in courts, by regulators or in professional practice, they can produce very different outcomes. Ultimately, the law lands on people, and people bring culture, habits and power dynamics with them. I used to think being a good lawyer was mainly about knowing the texts. Now I think it also depends on listening carefully, understanding context and still keeping fairness and justice as the point of the exercise.

How does multilingualism affect the way you think about legal problems?

Language isn’t just a tool for communication, it reveals how someone thinks. When you speak to a French client, for example, you’re not just translating words; you’re moving between legal and cultural instincts. It makes you more attentive to meaning, not just vocabulary. You can’t rely on familiar formulas or clichés. You have to understand how a concept functions in that system and in that culture. That makes you more pragmatic and more careful.

What do lawyers most often underestimate in cross-border work?

Procedure, timing, evidence and enforcement. People often assume that if the substantive law looks familiar, the work will be straightforward. It rarely is. Even when contracts are similar, the way disputes unfold, how you gather evidence, how you meet procedural requirements, how you enforce outcomes, can be completely different. And translation itself can mislead: a direct translation of a term may not match the concept in the system you’re working with.

What sparked your interest in law and emerging technologies?

It didn’t start with fascination for technology. It started with concern that technology is developing faster than the regulatory frameworks that should protect people. Without proper regulation, powerful actors can exploit gaps, sometimes intentionally, sometimes simply because the incentives allow it. I became interested in how to prevent unequal outcomes: who has access to better tools, who gets transparency, who gets procedural fairness. With AI in dispute resolution, there’s a risk of ‘black box justice’, where decisions are made or shaped by systems that aren’t explainable or accountable. That risk felt theoretical when I began my dissertation. It became much more immediate very quickly.

Where do you see genuine opportunity for AI in legal practice, and where do you see risk?

AI can be valuable as a tool: helping lawyers work faster, organise information and spend time on the parts of the job that require judgement. I don’t believe that it could replace lawyers or decision-makers. The risks are real: automation bias, hallucinations, over-confidence in outputs and reduced attention to reasoning. A major danger is when people stop checking and start outsourcing thinking. AI should work for us; we shouldn’t start working for AI.

What are the strongest advantages, and clearest limitations, of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)?

Accessibility and speed are the biggest advantages, especially for lower-value disputes where traditional processes can be slow and expensive. ODR can make justice feel reachable, including in cross-border contexts. But it isn’t magic. It still needs human oversight, especially where credibility, fairness and proportionality matter. Efficiency isn’t a substitute for due process.

How relevant are EU and European legal developments for lawyers practising outside the EU, including in the UK?

Very relevant. Even after Brexit, EU law still shapes contracts, compliance and business strategy. Companies don’t operate in isolation, and regulatory standards travel. The GDPR regimes are closely aligned, and EU law is often a global trendsetter – for example, with the EU AI Act. Ignoring EU developments is a strategic risk for any business or lawyer with cross-border touchpoints.

How can practitioners engage meaningfully with European regulatory developments without drowning in policy detail?

Understanding how EU law is made helps – where rules come from, how they evolve and how they interact with domestic law. Beyond that, I’d focus on strategic impact: what does this change mean for contracts, evidence, disputes, compliance and risk? Many of the challenges are shared across jurisdictions: AI, platform regulation, labour issues, consumer protection, media law. The same themes reappear. EU law is a useful early-warning system.

What skills will future lawyers need beyond traditional training?

Critical thinking. The ability to digest information, ask good questions and test assumptions. Technical literacy matters too: understanding how technology works well enough to assess risk and reliability. Cross-cultural communication is another: not just speaking languages, but understanding the context and mentality behind them. The lawyers who thrive will be comfortable working across disciplines, handling uncertainty and staying curious.

Is legal education adapting quickly enough to technological and cross-border change?

Yes and no. Law schools are cautious, and sometimes they assume students will ‘pick up’ technology on their own because they grew up with it. But familiarity with apps isn’t the same as understanding risk, governance and responsible use. Students need foundations: how to use tools, how to challenge outputs and how to stay anchored in professional judgement.

What has surprised you most about your career so far?

How unpredictable law is. I expected a straighter path. Instead, I’ve found myself dealing with technology, regulatory puzzles and fast-moving developments that don’t have clean answers. It’s non-linear, but that’s what keeps it interesting.

What advice would you give to lawyers who want an international or technology-focused practice?

Build strong fundamentals first. Don’t rush into a niche too early because of external pressure. Master one legal system deeply, substance and procedure, before you try to operate globally. International and tech practice reward lawyers who can adapt without losing critical thinking. And remember: technology isn’t smarter than you. It can support your work, but it can’t replace judgement.

Written by Ahsan Mustafa, senior associate in the banking litigation team at Aberdein Considine LLP