The Oxford Handbook of Administrative Justice最新文献_第2页

Algorithmic Administrative Justice 算法行政司法

The Oxford Handbook of Administrative Justice Pub Date : 2021-06-09 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903084.013.24

Steven M. Appel, C. Coglianese

{"title":"Algorithmic Administrative Justice","authors":"Steven M. Appel, C. Coglianese","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903084.013.24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903084.013.24","url":null,"abstract":"At the same time that artificial intelligence and machine learning systems are deployed with increasing frequency and success in the private sector, governments around the world are increasingly looking to harness the power of these digital tools to improve a variety of governmental functions, including sorting mail, identifying hazardous chemicals, uncovering securities and tax fraud, and improving traffic flow in congested cities. With time, algorithms will play a much larger role in assisting—or even replacing—humans involved in governmental tasks. This article assesses the range of legal, ethical, and policy concerns implicated by governmental use of algorithmic tools. Although machine-learning algorithms and other automated tools present important challenges for government related to accountability, procedural justice, transparency, privacy, and equality, the issues presented are not qualitatively distinct from the government’s use of other complex analytic tools. Ultimately, existing legal principles should prove to be no intrinsic or insurmountable obstacle to the responsible deployment of artificial intelligence. Yet to help ensure that artificial intelligence is used responsibly, public administrators, elected officials, and concerned citizens must remain vigilant in their use of such digital tools and see that machine-learning systems are ultimately deployed by governments in a manner consistent with both sound ethical judgment and sufficient empathy for those affected by these systems.","PeriodicalId":164528,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Administrative Justice","volume":"250 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115868901","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Judicial Review and Administrative Justice 司法审查与行政司法

The Oxford Handbook of Administrative Justice Pub Date : 2021-06-09 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903084.013.6

T. Arvind, S. Halliday, Lindsay Stirton

引用次数: 0

The Ombud as a Chameleon 监察员是变色龙

The Oxford Handbook of Administrative Justice Pub Date : 2021-06-09 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903084.013.7

Richard L. Kirkham

引用次数: 0

Legal Consciousness and Administrative Justice 法律意识与行政公正

The Oxford Handbook of Administrative Justice Pub Date : 2021-06-09 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903084.013.21

David Cowan, Rosie Harding

引用次数: 0

Oversight of Administrative Justice Systems 行政司法制度监督

The Oxford Handbook of Administrative Justice Pub Date : 2021-03-31 DOI: 10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190903084.013.11

S. Nason

{"title":"Oversight of Administrative Justice Systems","authors":"S. Nason","doi":"10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190903084.013.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190903084.013.11","url":null,"abstract":"Administrative justice systems have developed in light of social, cultural, political, and legal changes. Given this background, how can the collection of laws, institutions, procedures, and principles constituting administrative justice be subject to effective oversight? This chapter evaluates some of the bodies that have developed, at various points in time in various contexts, purportedly as a means to oversee all, or the majority of, particular administrative justice systems. It categorizes administrative justice oversight bodies into five main (non-exhaustive) types: 1) statutory whole network oversight bodies; 2) non-statutory whole network oversight; 3) academic-led oversight; 4) membership organizations; and 5) top administrative court oversight. The first four types are, or have been, most prevalent in common law systems, while the fifth tends to be more associated with civil law jurisdictions having a distinct hierarchy of administrative courts. This chapter focuses on the first four types of oversight. It explains and evaluates them against particular characteristics; the breadth of administrative justice; the relationship between oversight and reform; the influence of politics on oversight; the tasks of oversight bodies, their independence and funding; and evidencing their impacts. It briefly examines oversight activity by international bodies such as the Council of Europe and concludes with suggested characteristics for effective future oversight.","PeriodicalId":164528,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Administrative Justice","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130775897","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0