The Contentious Issues of Governance by Algorithms

Q3 Social Sciences
Gilles J. Guglielmi
{"title":"The Contentious Issues of Governance by Algorithms","authors":"Gilles J. Guglielmi","doi":"10.2979/gls.2023.a886164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: The development of computerized tools that lead to decision-making processes which apply locally defined parameters poses many questions about democracy. These questions stem from our very conception of the state and its role, going beyond the boundaries of typical administrative law. According to a popular notion that permeates the practices of most executive branches in liberal political regimes, democratic concerns are now competing with managerial concerns. In order to analyze this idea, we must study the implementation of algorithms in administrative decision-making, underscoring both the changes to the characterization of administrative decisions and the questions raised about an administrative judicial review of litigation. To summarize a French administrative law judge's review so far, the judge began by assessing the legality of using algorithms in administrative procedures. Secondly, the judge reviewed the legality of making administrative decisions on the basis of an algorithm. Three issues now appear to be guiding the future of algorithm-based administrative decisions: (1) the security of legal transactions; (2) the compensation for harm or damage caused by the algorithms, and (3) the degree of in-depth review by the administrative judge.","PeriodicalId":39188,"journal":{"name":"Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2979/gls.2023.a886164","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: The development of computerized tools that lead to decision-making processes which apply locally defined parameters poses many questions about democracy. These questions stem from our very conception of the state and its role, going beyond the boundaries of typical administrative law. According to a popular notion that permeates the practices of most executive branches in liberal political regimes, democratic concerns are now competing with managerial concerns. In order to analyze this idea, we must study the implementation of algorithms in administrative decision-making, underscoring both the changes to the characterization of administrative decisions and the questions raised about an administrative judicial review of litigation. To summarize a French administrative law judge's review so far, the judge began by assessing the legality of using algorithms in administrative procedures. Secondly, the judge reviewed the legality of making administrative decisions on the basis of an algorithm. Three issues now appear to be guiding the future of algorithm-based administrative decisions: (1) the security of legal transactions; (2) the compensation for harm or damage caused by the algorithms, and (3) the degree of in-depth review by the administrative judge.
算法治理的争议问题
摘要:计算机化工具的发展导致决策过程应用本地定义的参数提出了许多关于民主的问题。这些问题源于我们对国家及其角色的概念,超出了典型行政法的界限。根据一种流行的观念,这种观念渗透到自由政治体制中大多数行政部门的实践中,即民主问题现在正在与管理问题竞争。为了分析这一思想,我们必须研究算法在行政决策中的实施,既要强调行政决策特征的变化,也要强调行政司法审查对诉讼提出的问题。总结一位法国行政法法官迄今为止的审查,法官首先评估了在行政程序中使用算法的合法性。其次,法官基于算法对行政决策的合法性进行了审查。现在有三个问题似乎在指导基于算法的行政决策的未来:(1)合法交易的安全性;(2)对算法造成的损害或损害的赔偿;(3)行政法官深入审查的程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信