<![CDATA[The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into judicial systems has transformed traditional conceptions of adjudication, legal authority, and judicial legitimacy. While existing scholarship has extensively examined algorithmic accountability, explainability, and the ethical implications of AI-assisted decision-making, limited attention has been devoted to understanding how judicial legitimacy is reconstructed when adjudicative authority is shared between human judges and algorithmic systems. This article addresses that gap by developing a socio-legal theory of hybrid judicial legitimacy across diverse legal traditions. Employing a comparative socio-legal and theory-building methodology, the study analyzes legal, sociological, and governance literature concerning AI-assisted adjudication, procedural justice, rule of law, and comparative legal traditions. The findings demonstrate that judicial legitimacy in the algorithmic era can no longer be grounded solely in judicial authority or procedural fairness. Instead, legitimacy increasingly depends on the interaction among human judicial discretion, procedural justice guarantees, and algorithmic accountability mechanisms. Based on this analysis, the article proposes the Hybrid Judicial Legitimacy Model (HJLM), a theoretical framework that explains how legitimacy can be sustained within AI-assisted courts while preserving legal authority and public trust. The article contributes to contemporary law studies by reconceptualizing legitimacy as a multidimensional socio-legal construct that integrates human judgment and algorithmic governance within emerging forms of digital justice.]]>
