算法决策、授权与现代政府机制。

IF 1 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Pub Date : 2025-06-10 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/ojls/gqaf018
Oliver Butler
{"title":"算法决策、授权与现代政府机制。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

行政法中非授权原则的发展是对“现代政府机制”的感知需求的回应,这种需求出现在20世纪40年代战后的英国。虽然它表面上力求确保决策者适当地保留其决策的自由裁量权,并通过这种政治责任,但它已发展成为一种允许的学说,促进公共行政内的重大决策授权。随着算法决策(ADM)越来越多地用于公共决策,有必要质疑它是否仍然适合21世纪20年代及以后的现代政府机制。本文考虑了该理论在公共ADM背景下的局限性,考虑了适应这种新兴机制所需的理论方法的转变,并得出结论,该理论在适应ADM在公共决策方面面临严峻挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Algorithmic Decision-Making, Delegation and the Modern Machinery of Government.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
31
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.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信