{"title":"Algorithmic Decision-Making, Delegation and the Modern Machinery of Government.","authors":"Oliver Butler","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqaf018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The development of the principle of non-delegation in administrative law was a response to the perceived needs of a 'modern machinery of government', which emerged in post-war 1940s Britain. While it ostensibly sought to ensure that decision-makers appropriately retain their decision-making discretion, and through that political accountability, it has developed into a permissive doctrine that facilitates significant delegation of decision-making within public administration. As algorithmic decision-making (ADM) is increasingly used in public decision-making, it is necessary to question whether it remains fit for the modern machinery of government of the 2020s and beyond. This article considers the limitations of the doctrine in the context of public ADM, considers the shift in doctrinal approach that would be needed to accommodate this emerging machinery and concludes that the doctrine faces serious challenges in accommodating ADM in public decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"45 3","pages":"727-752"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12395227/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqaf018","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The development of the principle of non-delegation in administrative law was a response to the perceived needs of a 'modern machinery of government', which emerged in post-war 1940s Britain. While it ostensibly sought to ensure that decision-makers appropriately retain their decision-making discretion, and through that political accountability, it has developed into a permissive doctrine that facilitates significant delegation of decision-making within public administration. As algorithmic decision-making (ADM) is increasingly used in public decision-making, it is necessary to question whether it remains fit for the modern machinery of government of the 2020s and beyond. This article considers the limitations of the doctrine in the context of public ADM, considers the shift in doctrinal approach that would be needed to accommodate this emerging machinery and concludes that the doctrine faces serious challenges in accommodating ADM in public decision-making.
期刊介绍:
The Oxford Journal of Legal Studies is published on behalf of the Faculty of Law in the University of Oxford. It is designed to encourage interest in all matters relating to law, with an emphasis on matters of theory and on broad issues arising from the relationship of law to other disciplines. No topic of legal interest is excluded from consideration. In addition to traditional questions of legal interest, the following are all within the purview of the journal: comparative and international law, the law of the European Community, legal history and philosophy, and interdisciplinary material in areas of relevance.