Administrative due process when using automated decision-making in public administration: some notes from a Finnish perspective

Artificial Intelligence and Law 29 (1):87-110 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Various due process provisions designed for use by civil servants in administrative decision-making may become redundant when automated decision-making is taken into use in public administration. Problems with mechanisms of good government, responsibility and liability for automated decisions and the rule of law require attention of the law-maker in adapting legal provisions to this new form of decision-making. Although the general data protection regulation of the European Union is important in acknowledging automated decision-making, most of the legal safeguards within administrative due process have to be provided for by the national law-maker. It is suggested that all countries have a need to review their rules of administrative due process with a view to bringing them up to date regarding the requirements of automated decision-making. In whichever way the legislation is framed, the key issues are that persons who develop the algorithm and the code as well as persons who run or deal with the software within public authorities are aware of the preventive safeguards of legality in the context of automated decision-making, not only of the reactive safeguards constituted by the complaint procedures, and that legal mechanisms exist under which these persons can be held accountable and liable for decisions produced by automated decision-making. It is also argued that only rule-based systems of automatized decision-making are compatible with the rule of law and that there is a general interest in preventing a development into a rule of algorithm.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,435

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Argument of Rightness as an Element of the Discretionary Power of the Administrative Judge.Bartosz Wojciechowski & Marek Zirk-Sadowski - 2020 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 33 (1):215-229.
The Argument of Rightness as an Element of the Discretionary Power of the Administrative Judge.Bartosz Wojciechowski & Marek Zirk-Sadowski - 2020 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 33 (1):215-229.
Shared decision-making, gender and new technologies.Kristin Zeiler - 2007 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 10 (3):279-287.
Amidst the Temper across the Equality, Equity,.Kiyoung Kim - 2014 - Management and Administrative Sciences Review 3 (6):909-921.
On the ethical analysis of value issues in public decision-making.Johan Hattingh - 2004 - South African Journal of Philosophy 23 (3):213-225.
Ethical Decision Making: Special or No Different? [REVIEW]Dawn R. Elm & Tara J. Radin - 2012 - Journal of Business Ethics 107 (3):313-329.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-05-22

Downloads
30 (#525,754)

6 months
10 (#257,636)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?