Public Administration Algorithm Decision- Making and the Rule of Law

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW
S. Matteucci
{"title":"Public Administration Algorithm Decision- Making and the Rule of Law","authors":"S. Matteucci","doi":"10.54648/euro2021005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article revolves around the search for statutory recognition of the use of algorithmics (including rule-based systems) to make decisions. Thus, the focus is on whether a powerconferring rule is necessary before an administrative authority may issue a valid automated decision. By claiming that such a power-conferring rule is not only desirable but also a legal requirement, one contends that the shifting to automated decision making in the public sector is simply a by-product of reengineering bureaucratic practice through Information and Communication Technology. The issue is essential because there are several cases throughout Europe and beyond in which the latter is precisely the case. Moreover, values such as efficiency and flexibility to adapt to fast technological change could be considered sound justificatory arguments to purport that automated decision-making in the public sector should not be governed through the traditional arsenal of the rule of law. The primary purpose of the article is to offer a first conceptual skeleton to sow the seeds for further research on a normative claim that automated public administration decision-making should, nonetheless, be implemented in light of the rule of law. Secondly, it offers some recommendations for a legal framework to govern such a practice. The background idea is that focusing on the legal power to make an automated decision constitutes a necessary step to guarantee that the ethical and political principles that should undergird the adoption, development and implementation of any form of algorithmic decisionmaking in the public sector are appropriately and adequately taken into account.\npublic sector, automated decisions, rule of law, algorithms","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Public Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2021005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article revolves around the search for statutory recognition of the use of algorithmics (including rule-based systems) to make decisions. Thus, the focus is on whether a powerconferring rule is necessary before an administrative authority may issue a valid automated decision. By claiming that such a power-conferring rule is not only desirable but also a legal requirement, one contends that the shifting to automated decision making in the public sector is simply a by-product of reengineering bureaucratic practice through Information and Communication Technology. The issue is essential because there are several cases throughout Europe and beyond in which the latter is precisely the case. Moreover, values such as efficiency and flexibility to adapt to fast technological change could be considered sound justificatory arguments to purport that automated decision-making in the public sector should not be governed through the traditional arsenal of the rule of law. The primary purpose of the article is to offer a first conceptual skeleton to sow the seeds for further research on a normative claim that automated public administration decision-making should, nonetheless, be implemented in light of the rule of law. Secondly, it offers some recommendations for a legal framework to govern such a practice. The background idea is that focusing on the legal power to make an automated decision constitutes a necessary step to guarantee that the ethical and political principles that should undergird the adoption, development and implementation of any form of algorithmic decisionmaking in the public sector are appropriately and adequately taken into account. public sector, automated decisions, rule of law, algorithms
公共行政算法、决策与法治
本文围绕寻求法律承认使用算法(包括基于规则的系统)进行决策展开。因此,重点是在管理机构发布有效的自动决策之前,是否需要授权规则。通过声称这种权力授予规则不仅是可取的,而且是法律要求,有人认为,公共部门向自动化决策的转变只是通过信息和通信技术重新设计官僚实践的副产品。这个问题至关重要,因为在整个欧洲和欧洲以外的地区,有几个案例恰恰是后者的情况。此外,适应快速技术变革的效率和灵活性等价值观可以被视为合理的理由,声称公共部门的自动化决策不应通过传统的法治武器库来管理。本文的主要目的是提供第一个概念框架,为进一步研究一种规范性主张播下种子,即自动公共行政决策应该在法治的基础上实施。其次,它就管理这种做法的法律框架提出了一些建议。其背景思想是,关注作出自动决策的法律权力是确保适当和充分考虑公共部门采用、发展和实施任何形式的算法决策所应遵循的道德和政治原则的必要步骤。公共部门,自动决策,法治,算法
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
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
9
×
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