Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Articles

Vol. 53 No. 6 (2024): Law and Social Bonds nr 6 (53) 2024

The Subject of Administrative Competence in Automated Law Application Processes against the Background of the Issue of Legal and Democratic Legitimacy of Delegating Competences to Artificial Intelligence Systems and Legal Liability for their Actions or Omissions

Submitted
20 November 2024
Published
21-03-2025

Abstract

The paper discusses the fundamental problems related to determining the subject of administrative competence and establishing the structure of the competence norm in cases where the legislator has fully or partially delegated the process of applying the law to artificial intelligence systems. The main objective of the analysis is to consider the possibility of changing the understanding of administrative competence and to assess the constitutional and administrative aspects of the legal and democratic legitimacy of delegating competences to apply the law to artificial intelligence systems. Separate considerations are devoted to the issue of the limits of the admissibility of modifying or dispersing the legal responsibility of the State for the use of specific algorithmic systems in the processes of applying administrative law. The concluding remarks conclude that ensuring that the operation of algorithmic decision-making systems in administrative processes of law application complies with the principles of democratic legitimacy, formal rule of law and legal accountability of public administration requires maintaining the competence of legislative authorities to decide on the principles and procedure for introducing artificial intelligence into the sphere of concretisation or implementation of administrative law norms and to establish very detailed rules for the design, construction, implementation, validation, control and modification of the essential elements of such systems.

References

  1. Albert E. Jason, Jessica E. Brown, „Beyond The Iudex Threshold: Human Oversight As The Conscience Of Machine Learning” Colorado Technology Law Journal 22, nr 2 (2024): 269–300.
    View in Google Scholar
  2. Bader Verena, Stephan Kaiser, „Algorithmic Decision-Making? The User Interface and Its Role for Human Involvement in Decisions Supported by Artificial Intelligence” Organization, 26 (2019): 655-672.
    View in Google Scholar
  3. Bathaee Yavar, „The Artificial Intelligence Black Box and the Failure of Intent and Causation” Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, nr 2 (2018): 890-938.
    View in Google Scholar
  4. Binns Reuben, „Human Judgment in algorithmic loops: Individual justice and automated decision-making” Regulation & Governance, nr 1 (2022): 197-211.
    View in Google Scholar
  5. Berman Emily, „A Government Of Laws And Not Machines” Boston University Law Review, 98 (2018): 1277-1355.
    View in Google Scholar
  6. Braun Binder Nadja, „Künstliche Intelligenz und automatisierte Entscheidungen in der öffentlichen Verwaltung” Schweizerische Juristen-Zeitung, 15 (2019): 467-476.
    View in Google Scholar
  7. Chesterman Simon, We, the Robots? Regulating Artificial Intelligence and the Limits of the Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.
    View in Google Scholar
  8. Ciafardoni Adriana, „The Responsibility in Automated Administrative Decisions” European Review of Digital Administration & Law - Erdal, nr 1 (2022): 151-158.
    View in Google Scholar
  9. Citron Danielle Keats, „Technological Due Process” Washington University Law Review, 85 (2008): 1249-1313.
    View in Google Scholar
  10. Coglianese Carry, David Lehr, „Regulating by Robot: Administrative Decision Making in the Machine-Learning Era” The Georgetown Law Journal, 105 (2017): 1147-1223.
    View in Google Scholar
  11. Coglianese Carry, Lavi M. Ben Dor, „AI in Adjudication and Administration” Brooklyn Law Review, nr 3 (2021): 791-838.
    View in Google Scholar
  12. Crootof Rebecca, Margot E. Kaminski, W. Nicholson Price II, „Humans in the Loop” Vanderbilt Law Review, nr 2 (2023): 429-510.
    View in Google Scholar
  13. Dawson April G., „Algorithmic Adjudication and Constitutional AI – The Promise of A Better AI Decision Making Future?” SMU Science and Technology Law Review, nr 1 (2024): 11-37.
    View in Google Scholar
  14. Elyounes Doa A., „Computer Says No!”: The Impact of Automation on the Discretionary Power of Public Officers” Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, nr 3 (2021): 451-515.
    View in Google Scholar
  15. Engstrom David Freeman, Daniel E. Ho, Catherine M. Sharkey, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, „Government by Algorithm: Artificial Intelligence in Federal Administrative Agencies. Report submitted to the Administrative Conference of The United States (February 1, 2020)”, New York University School of Law, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series, nr 20-54 (2020): 1-122.
    View in Google Scholar
  16. Engstrom David Freeman, Daniel E. Ho, „Algorithmic Accountability in the Administrative State” Yale Journal on Regulation, 37 (2020): 800-854.
    View in Google Scholar
  17. Etscheid Jan, „Artificial Intelligence in Public Administration. A possible framework for partial and full automation”, [w:] Electronic Government. 18th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2019, San Benedetto Del Tronto, Italy, September 2–4, 2019, Proceedings, red. Ida Lindgren, Marijn Janssen, Habin Lee, Andrea Polini i in. 248-261. Cham: Springer, 2019.
    View in Google Scholar
  18. Etscheid Jan, Jörn von Luke, Felix Stroh, Künstliche Intelligenz in der öffentlichen Verwaltung. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IAO, 2020.
    View in Google Scholar
  19. Floridi Luciano, The Fourth Revolution: How the Infosphere is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
    View in Google Scholar
  20. Forster Doris, Janika Rieder, „Roboter als Rechtssubjekte – Der Streit um die E-Person” Juridica International, 30 (2021): 32-39.
    View in Google Scholar
  21. Früh Alfred, Dario Haux, „Foundations of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning” Weizenbaum Series, 29 (2022): 4-25.
    View in Google Scholar
  22. Green Ben, „The Flaws of Policies Requiring Human Oversight of Government Algorithms” Computer Law & Security Review, 45 (2022): 1-22.
    View in Google Scholar
  23. Haugeland John, Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea. Cambridge, Massachusetts-London: The MIT Press, 1989.
    View in Google Scholar
  24. Herberger Maximilian, „Künstliche Intelligenz und Recht – Ein Orientierungsversuch” Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 37 (2018): 2825-2829.
    View in Google Scholar
  25. Hofmann Herwig C.H., „Assessing Cyber-Delegation in European Union Public Law” University of Luxembourg Law Research Paper, nr 7 (2023): 1-24.
    View in Google Scholar
  26. Huq Aziz Z., „A Right to a Human Decision” Virginia Law Review, 106 (2020): 611-688.
    View in Google Scholar
  27. Johnson Stephen M., „Rulemaking 3.0: Incorporating AI and ChatGPT Into Notice and Comment Rulemaking” Missouri Law Review, 88 (2023): 1021-1076.
    View in Google Scholar
  28. Kamiński Marcin, „Akt administracyjny zautomatyzowany. Zasadnicze problemy konstrukcyjne zastosowania systemów sztucznej inteligencji w procesach decyzyjnych postępowania administracyjnego na tle prawnoporównawczym” Prawo i Więź, nr 4 (2023): 281-304.
    View in Google Scholar
  29. Kamiński Marcin, Mechanizm i granice weryfikacji sądowoadministracyjnej a normy prawa administracyjnego i ich konkretyzacja. Warszawa: C. H. Beck, 2016.
    View in Google Scholar
  30. Kamiński Marcin, „Normy kompetencji administracyjnej i normy merytoryczne ich realizacji jako element paradygmatyczny teorii prawa administracyjnego”, [w:] Fenomen prawa administracyjnego. Księga jubileuszowa Profesora Jana Zimmermanna, red. Wojciech Jakimowicz, Mariusz Krawczyk, Iwona Niżnik-Dobosz. 442-458. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska, 2019.
    View in Google Scholar
  31. Księżak Paweł, „My, Naród? Konstytucjonalizacja sztucznej inteligencji, czyli o potrzebie przemodelowania założeń ustrojowych” Przegląd Sejmowy, 4 (2021): 65-87.
    View in Google Scholar
  32. Kamiński Marcin, „Teoretyczny i normatywny model odpowiedzialności państwa za sprzeczne z prawem władcze zachowania kompetencyjne funkcjonariuszy administracji publicznej w niemieckim prawie federalnym”, [w:] Odpowiedzialność administracji i w administracji, red. Zofia Duniewska, Małgorzata Stahl. 74-83. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer, 2013.
    View in Google Scholar
  33. Langer Charlotte, „Decision-making power and responsibility in an automated administration” Discover Artificial Intelligence, nr 59 (2024): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-024-00152-1.
    View in Google Scholar
  34. Liu Hin-Yan, „Refining responsibility: Differentiating two types of responsibility issues raised by autonomous weapons systems”, [w:] Autonomous Weapons Systems: Law, Ethics, Policy, red. Nehal Bhuta, Susanne Beck, Robin Geiβ, Hin-Yan Liu, Claus Kreβ. 325-344. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
    View in Google Scholar
  35. Liu Hin-Yan, Karolina Zawieska, „From responsible robotics towards a human rights regime oriented to the challenges of robotics and artificial intelligence” Ethics and Information Technology, nr 4 (2020): 321-333.
    View in Google Scholar
  36. Luger George F., William A. Stubblefield, Artificial Intelligence: Structures and Stra¬tegies for Complex Problem Solving. Boston: Addison-Wesley Pearson Education, 2009.
    View in Google Scholar
  37. Mainzer Klaus, Künstliche Intelligenz – Wann übernehmen die Maschinen?. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer, 2016.
    View in Google Scholar
  38. Matczak Marcin, Kompetencja organu administracji publicznej. Kraków: Kantor Wydawniczy Zakamycze, 2004.
    View in Google Scholar
  39. McCarl Ryan, „The Limits of Law and AI” University of Cincinnati Law Review, nr 3 (2022): 923-950.
    View in Google Scholar
  40. Mitrou Lilian, Marijn Janssen, and Euripidis Loukis, „Human Control and Discretion in AI-driven Decision-making in Government”, [w:] 14th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV 2021), October 06–08, 2021, Athens, Greece, red. Euripidis Loukis, Marie Anne Macadar, Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen. 10-16. The Association for Computing Machinery: New York, 2021.
    View in Google Scholar
  41. Ng Yee-Fui, Eric Windholz, James Moutsias, „Legal Considerations in Machine-Assisted Decision-Making: Planning and Building as a Case Study” Bond Law Review, nr 1 (2023): 143-168.
    View in Google Scholar
  42. Orofino Angelo Giuseppe, Raffaello Giuseppe Orofino, „L’automazione amministrativa: imputazione e responsabilità” Giornale di diritto amministrativo, 12 (2005): 1300-1312.
    View in Google Scholar
  43. Oswald Marion, „Algorithm-assisted decision-making in the public sector: framing the issues using administrative law rules governing discretionary power” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering, 376 (2018): 1-20.
    View in Google Scholar
  44. Pasquale Frank, „A Rule of Persons, Not Machines: The Limits of Legal Automation” George Washington Law Review, nr 1 (2019): 1-55.
    View in Google Scholar
  45. Plattner Roger, Digitales Verwaltungshandeln. Rechtliche Aspekte der Digitalisierung in der öffentlichen Verwaltung. Zürich: sui generis, 2021.
    View in Google Scholar
  46. Polomski Ralf-Michael, Der automatisierte Verwaltungsakt. Die Verwaltung an der Schwelle von der Automation zur Informations- und Kommunikationstechnik. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 1993.
    View in Google Scholar
  47. Rangone Nicoletta, „Artificial Intelligence Challenging Core State Functions. A Focus On Law-Making and Rule-Making” Revista de Derecho Público: Teoría y Método, 8 (2023): 95-121.
    View in Google Scholar
  48. Reichman Amnon, Giovanni Sartor, „Algorithms and Regulation”, [w:] Constitutional Challenges in the Algorithmic Society, red. Hans-W. Micklitz, Oreste Pollicino, Amnon Reichman, Andrea Simoncini, Giovanni Sartor, Giovanni De Gregorio. 131-181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022.
    View in Google Scholar
  49. Rich Elaine, Kevin Knight, Shivasankar B. Nair, Artificial Intelligence. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Education Pvt. Ltd., 2009.
    View in Google Scholar
  50. Russell Stuart J., Peter Norvig, Artificial Intelligence. A Modern Approach. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey-Boston: Prentice Hall, 2010.
    View in Google Scholar
  51. Sannerholm Richard, „Responsibility and Accountability: AI, Governance, and the Rule of Law”, [w:] Law in the Era of Artificial Intelligence, red. Liane Colonna, Stanley Greenstein. 223-246. Stockholm: Stiftelsen Juridisk Fakultetslitteratur and The Swedish Law and Informatics Research Institute, 2022.
    View in Google Scholar
  52. Schmidhuber Jürgen, „Deep learning in neural networks: An overview” Neural Networks, 61 (2015): 85-117.
    View in Google Scholar
  53. Searle John R., „Minds, Brains, and Programs” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (1980): 417-457.
    View in Google Scholar
  54. Solum Lawrence B., „Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences” North Carolina Law Review, 70 (1992): 1231-1287.
    View in Google Scholar
  55. Solum Lawrence B., „Artificially Intelligent Law” BioLaw Journal – Rivista di BioDiritto, 1 (2019): 53-62.
    View in Google Scholar
  56. Sorkin David E., „Technical and Legal Approaches to Unsolicited Electronic Mail” University of San Francisco Law Review, nr 2 (2001): 325-384.
    View in Google Scholar
  57. Surden Harry, „Machine Learning and Law” Washington Law Review, nr 1 (2014): 87-115.
    View in Google Scholar
  58. Surden Harry, „Artificial Intelligence and Law: An Overview” Georgia State University Law Review, nr 4 (2019): 1305-1337.
    View in Google Scholar
  59. Tischbirek Andreas, „Maßstabs- und Verantwortungsdiffusion in Zeiten digitaler Verwaltung und Künstlicher Intelligenz”, [w:] Handbuch des Verwaltungsrechts, t. V, Maßstäbe und Handlungsformen im deutschen Verwaltun¬gsrecht, red. Wolfgang Kahl Markus Ludwigs. 143-176. Heidelberg: C.F. Müller, 2023.
    View in Google Scholar
  60. Waldman Ari Ezra, „Power, Process, and Automated Decision-Making” Fordham Law Review, 88 (2019): 613-632.
    View in Google Scholar
  61. Williams Rebecca, „Rethinking Administrative Law for Algorithmic Decision Making” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, nr 2 (2022): 468-494.
    View in Google Scholar
  62. Yeung Karen, „Responsibility and AI” Council of Europe Study DGI(2019)05. https://rm.coe.int/responsability-and-ai-en/168097d9c5.
    View in Google Scholar
  63. Yu Peter K., „Artificial Intelligence, the Law-Machine Interface, and Fair Use Automation” Alabama Law Review, nr 1 (2020): 187-238.
    View in Google Scholar
  64. Zech Herbert, „Künstliche Intelligenz und Haftungsfragen” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Privatrechtswissenschaft, nr 2 (2019): 198-219.
    View in Google Scholar

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.