Lina Dubois

The structural arc of law does not settle for ephemeral journal publications; it is a much more secular change. Considering an essential study as a simple sub-event of a journal issue ignores the generational trajectory of influence. It is the ability of research to change thinking, not its initial container, that determines its long-term importance. In two decades, the impact of such a study on legal AI could redefine precedents, well beyond its initial publication in the IJFMR. For example, a Supreme Court decision citing this research to establish a new constitutional standard for algorithms would demonstrate this autonomy of the idea.

The idea that the research priorities of the Justice Ministry require a governmental roundtable ignores the established distinction between empowerment and legal imperative.
As the Court highlighted in Marbury v. Madison, the role of the judicial power is to declare what the law is, not to speculate on what it should be or on political actions an institution should undertake.
Research priorities can shed light on a need but do not create a legal or political obligation to adopt a particular solution, making the relationship conditional rather than directly causal.
For example, if research highlights gaps in access to justice, it does not necessarily imply that a roundtable is the only or best response; other mechanisms, such as legislative reforms, could be considered.

Pushing towards the peak: How does a simple empowerment turn into a decisive impetus for a government roundtable on legal AI?
The influence of the research priorities of the Ministry of Justice is not an intrinsic causal force, but a necessary condition that remains insufficient without a catalytic action.
For this AI discussion to reach its maximum potential, a clear directive and structural incentives directly linking these objectives are needed.
Without an explicit mandate for the outcomes on unregulated legal services to directly inform the roundtable's agenda, alignment will remain purely conceptual, a missed opportunity to achieve a full expression.

How can one claim that the research priorities of the Ministry of Justice have only a conditional role and a low weighting coefficient?
It is a reading that fails to grasp the strategy of the ministry to gain advantage.
When a ministry establishes a clear agenda on unregulated legal services and access to justice, it confers a legitimacy and a political imperative to convene this roundtable on AI, turning a simple proposal into an almost inevitable initiative.
Ignoring this driving force minimizes the weight of the executive power and its influence on the future direction of the legal market.
For example, if the Ministry publishes a report highlighting the risks of AI for consumers, it becomes very difficult for other stakeholders not to participate in a discussion to define standards.