The Rule of Law and Technology in the Public Sector
Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. Why the Rule of Law? – 3. Technologies in the Public Sector. – 3.1. Automated administrative orders. – 3.2. Risk-assessment tool COMPAS. – 3.3. Robot-judges. – 4. Why the Rule of Law Might be in Danger – 5. Conclusions.
Abstract
Background: Technology promises the provision of public services to be more efficient, transparent, cheaper, and faster, but current issues associated with various technologies, such as, inter alia, discrimination, the ‘black-box’ problem, or cybersecurity issues raise concerns about potential legal risks. Accordingly, the question of whether democracies survive potential threats to legal norms arises. Various EU institutions express the position that we must promote technological applications but, at the same time, ensure adequate protection of human rights. However, sometimes this line is very thin – thus, it is necessary to examine how, and which technological applications should be applied in the public sector in order not to violate human rights requirements. The analysis of the proper assurance of the principle of the rule of law where certain technologies are implemented in the public sector will help to answer the questions of whether the chosen legal regulation in the implementation of these functions of the state is appropriate and whether the chosen method of technology integration complies with the principle of the rule of law.
Methods: The following methods were used in the article to research potential modern technology risks to the rule of law principle. The systematic method was useful when interpreting the mutual interaction of legal norms. With the help of this method, systemic connections with other legal norms and other sources of law were assessed. With the help of the teleological method of legal interpretation, the goals and objectives of the rule of law principle were determined. The comparative method was used to study the experience of foreign countries regarding various aspects of technology in the public sector.
Results and conclusions: The paper concludes that the supremacy of the rule of law must be ensured when applying any kind of technology in the public sector. The paper also concludes that different rule of law elements might be at risk in certain areas of the public sector where technologies are incorporated, such as automated administrative orders, the risk-assessment tool COMPAS, and robot-judges.
About Authors
Goda Strikaitė-Latušinskaja
PhD candidate in Law, lecturer and researcher affiliated with Vilnius University Faculty of Law Department of Public Law, Lithuania
g.strikaite@tf.vu.lt
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1284-5783
Author, solely responsible for writing and research.
Competing interests: Any competing interests were included here. Disclaimer: The author declares that her opinion and views expressed in this manuscript are free of any impact of any organizations, in particular the Arqus Alliance. Translation: The content of this article was written by the author in English.
Funding: This research was conducted using data obtained during the Twinning visit to Law faculty of University of Graz (REWI), Austria, funded by the Arqus Alliance, the topic of which was “Sustainability and technology challenges of public administration and court proceedings”.
Managing editor – Dr. Yuliia Baklaghenko. English Editor – Dr. Sarah White.
Copyright: © 2023 Goda Strikaitė-Latušinskaja. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
References
1. Becuwe N, Baneth O, ‘Special Eurobarometer 508 on Values and Identities of EU citizens’ Publications Office of the European Union, 2021.
2. Calo R, Citron DK, ‘The Automated Administrative State: A Crisis of Legitimacy’ (2021) 70(4) Emory Law Journal 797-846.
3. Campbell RW, ‘Artificial Intelligence in the Courtroom: The Delivery of Justice in the Age of Machine Learning’ (2020) Colorado Technology Law Journal 323-350.
4. Coiante A, ‘The automation of the decision-making process of the public administration in the light of the recent opinion by the Italian Council of State regarding the draft of regulations concerning the modalities of digitalization in the public tender procedures’ (2021) 2(1) European Review of Digital Administration & Law 239-248.
5. Coglianese C, Lehr D, ‘Regulating by Robot: Administrative Decision Making in the Machine-Learning Era’ (2017) 105 Georgetown Law Journal 1147, U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper No. 17-8.
6. Deng J, ‘Should the Common Law System Be Intelligentized?: A Case Study of China’s Same Type Case Reference System’ (2018) Georgetown Law Technology Review 223.
7. Dressel J, Farid H, ‘The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism’ (2018) 4(1) Science Advances.
8. Green B, ‘The Flaws of Policies Requiring Human Oversight of Government Algorithms’ (2022) 45 Computer Law & Security Review.
9. Greenstein S, ‘Preserving the rule of law in the era of artificial intelligence (AI)’ (2022) 30 Artificial Intelligence and Law 291–323.
10. Kadam T, ‘China’s AI-Enabled ‘Smart Courts’ To Recommend Laws & Draft Legal Docs; Judges To Take Consult AI Before Verdict’ (The EurAsian Times, 16 July 2022) <https://eurasiantimes.com/chinas-ai-enabled-smart-court-to-recommend-laws-judges/> accessed 5 September 2022.
11. Niiler E, ‘Can Al Be a Fair Judge in Court? Estonia Thinks So’ (WIRED, 24 March 2019) <https://www.wired.com/story/can-ai-be-fair-judge-court-estonia-thinks-so/> accessed 1 September 2022.
12. Noble MS, et al, ‘The Fifth Industrial Revolution: How Harmonious Human–Machine Collaboration is Triggering a Retail and Service [R]evolution’ (2022) 98(2) Journal of Retailing 199-208.
13. Paužaitė-Kulvinskienė J, Strikaitė-Latušinskaja G, ‘Automated Administrative Order in the Context of the Code of Administrative Offences’ in M Doucy, M Dreyfus, N Noupadia (eds), Changements démocratiques et électroniques dans l’action publique locale en Europe: REvolution ou E-volution? Democratic and Electronic Changes in Local Public Action in Europe: REvolution or E-volution?(Kultura: Institut Francophone pour la Justice et la Démocratie 2022) 387-405.
14. Reiling ADD, ‘Courts and Artificial Intelligence’ (2020) 11(2) International Journal for Court Administration.
15. Schwab K, The Fourth Industrial Revolution (Crown Publishing Group 2017).
16. Stein R, ‘Rule of Law: What Does It Mean’ (2009) Minnesota Journal of International Law 250.
17. Richard M, Solow-Niederman A, ‘Developing Artificially Intelligent Justice’ (2019) Stanford Technology Law Review 242-289.
18. Susskind R, Tomorrow's Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future (Oxford University Press 2017).
19. Susskind R, Susskind D, The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts, Updated Edition (Oxford University Press 2022).
20. Vesnic Alujevic L, Scapolo F, The Future of Government 2030+: Policy implications and recommendations (Publications Office of the European Union 2019).
21. Zalnieriute M, Bell F, ‘Technology and the Judicial Role’ in G Appleby, A Lynch (eds), The Judge, the Judiciary and the Court: Individual, Collegial and Institutional Judicial Dynamics in Australia (Cambridge University Press, 2021).
22. Zuboff S, In the age of the smart machine. The future of work and power (Basic Books, Inc 1988).
Reviews for article
Add a Review
Анотація
У статті було використано такі методи дослідження потенційних ризиків сучасних технологій для принципу верховенства права. Системний метод став корисним при тлумаченні взаємної взаємодії правових норм. За допомогою цього методу оцінювалися системні зв'язки з іншими правовими нормами та іншими джерелами права. За допомогою телеологічного методу правотлумачення визначено цілі та завдання принципу верховенства права. Порівняльний метод використовувався для вивчення досвіду зарубіжних країн щодо різних аспектів технології в державному секторі.
У статті робиться висновок про те, що при застосуванні будь-яких технологій у державному секторі має бути забезпечено верховенство права. Також робиться висновок, що різні елементи верховенства права можуть бути під загрозою в певних сферах державного сектора, де використовуються технології, такі як автоматизовані адміністративні інструменти оцінки ризиків як COMPAS і роботи-судді.
How to cite it?
-
Goda Strikaitė-Latušinskaja ‘The Rule of Law and Technology in the Public Sector’ 2023 1(18) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 28–41. https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-6.1-a000104
