Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Law & Social Bounds

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

DOI
https://doi.org/10.36128/PRIW.VI53.1102
Submitted
November 20, 2024
Published
2025-03-21

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.
  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.
  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.
  4. Binns Reuben, „Human Judgment in algorithmic loops: Individual justice and automated decision-making” Regulation & Governance, nr 1 (2022): 197-211.
  5. Berman Emily, „A Government Of Laws And Not Machines” Boston University Law Review, 98 (2018): 1277-1355.
  6. Braun Binder Nadja, „Künstliche Intelligenz und automatisierte Entscheidungen in der öffentlichen Verwaltung” Schweizerische Juristen-Zeitung, 15 (2019): 467-476.
  7. Chesterman Simon, We, the Robots? Regulating Artificial Intelligence and the Limits of the Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.
  8. Ciafardoni Adriana, „The Responsibility in Automated Administrative Decisions” European Review of Digital Administration & Law - Erdal, nr 1 (2022): 151-158.
  9. Citron Danielle Keats, „Technological Due Process” Washington University Law Review, 85 (2008): 1249-1313.
  10. Coglianese Carry, David Lehr, „Regulating by Robot: Administrative Decision Making in the Machine-Learning Era” The Georgetown Law Journal, 105 (2017): 1147-1223.
  11. Coglianese Carry, Lavi M. Ben Dor, „AI in Adjudication and Administration” Brooklyn Law Review, nr 3 (2021): 791-838.
  12. Crootof Rebecca, Margot E. Kaminski, W. Nicholson Price II, „Humans in the Loop” Vanderbilt Law Review, nr 2 (2023): 429-510.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  16. Engstrom David Freeman, Daniel E. Ho, „Algorithmic Accountability in the Administrative State” Yale Journal on Regulation, 37 (2020): 800-854.
  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.
  18. Etscheid Jan, Jörn von Luke, Felix Stroh, Künstliche Intelligenz in der öffentlichen Verwaltung. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IAO, 2020.
  19. Floridi Luciano, The Fourth Revolution: How the Infosphere is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
  20. Forster Doris, Janika Rieder, „Roboter als Rechtssubjekte – Der Streit um die E-Person” Juridica International, 30 (2021): 32-39.
  21. Früh Alfred, Dario Haux, „Foundations of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning” Weizenbaum Series, 29 (2022): 4-25.
  22. Green Ben, „The Flaws of Policies Requiring Human Oversight of Government Algorithms” Computer Law & Security Review, 45 (2022): 1-22.
  23. Haugeland John, Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea. Cambridge, Massachusetts-London: The MIT Press, 1989.
  24. Herberger Maximilian, „Künstliche Intelligenz und Recht – Ein Orientierungsversuch” Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 37 (2018): 2825-2829.
  25. Hofmann Herwig C.H., „Assessing Cyber-Delegation in European Union Public Law” University of Luxembourg Law Research Paper, nr 7 (2023): 1-24.
  26. Huq Aziz Z., „A Right to a Human Decision” Virginia Law Review, 106 (2020): 611-688.
  27. Johnson Stephen M., „Rulemaking 3.0: Incorporating AI and ChatGPT Into Notice and Comment Rulemaking” Missouri Law Review, 88 (2023): 1021-1076.
  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.
  29. Kamiński Marcin, Mechanizm i granice weryfikacji sądowoadministracyjnej a normy prawa administracyjnego i ich konkretyzacja. Warszawa: C. H. Beck, 2016.
  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.
  31. Księżak Paweł, „My, Naród? Konstytucjonalizacja sztucznej inteligencji, czyli o potrzebie przemodelowania założeń ustrojowych” Przegląd Sejmowy, 4 (2021): 65-87.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  36. Luger George F., William A. Stubblefield, Artificial Intelligence: Structures and Stra¬tegies for Complex Problem Solving. Boston: Addison-Wesley Pearson Education, 2009.
  37. Mainzer Klaus, Künstliche Intelligenz – Wann übernehmen die Maschinen?. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer, 2016.
  38. Matczak Marcin, Kompetencja organu administracji publicznej. Kraków: Kantor Wydawniczy Zakamycze, 2004.
  39. McCarl Ryan, „The Limits of Law and AI” University of Cincinnati Law Review, nr 3 (2022): 923-950.
  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.
  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.
  42. Orofino Angelo Giuseppe, Raffaello Giuseppe Orofino, „L’automazione amministrativa: imputazione e responsabilità” Giornale di diritto amministrativo, 12 (2005): 1300-1312.
  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.
  44. Pasquale Frank, „A Rule of Persons, Not Machines: The Limits of Legal Automation” George Washington Law Review, nr 1 (2019): 1-55.
  45. Plattner Roger, Digitales Verwaltungshandeln. Rechtliche Aspekte der Digitalisierung in der öffentlichen Verwaltung. Zürich: sui generis, 2021.
  46. Polomski Ralf-Michael, Der automatisierte Verwaltungsakt. Die Verwaltung an der Schwelle von der Automation zur Informations- und Kommunikationstechnik. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 1993.
  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.
  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.
  49. Rich Elaine, Kevin Knight, Shivasankar B. Nair, Artificial Intelligence. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Education Pvt. Ltd., 2009.
  50. Russell Stuart J., Peter Norvig, Artificial Intelligence. A Modern Approach. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey-Boston: Prentice Hall, 2010.
  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.
  52. Schmidhuber Jürgen, „Deep learning in neural networks: An overview” Neural Networks, 61 (2015): 85-117.
  53. Searle John R., „Minds, Brains, and Programs” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (1980): 417-457.
  54. Solum Lawrence B., „Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences” North Carolina Law Review, 70 (1992): 1231-1287.
  55. Solum Lawrence B., „Artificially Intelligent Law” BioLaw Journal – Rivista di BioDiritto, 1 (2019): 53-62.
  56. Sorkin David E., „Technical and Legal Approaches to Unsolicited Electronic Mail” University of San Francisco Law Review, nr 2 (2001): 325-384.
  57. Surden Harry, „Machine Learning and Law” Washington Law Review, nr 1 (2014): 87-115.
  58. Surden Harry, „Artificial Intelligence and Law: An Overview” Georgia State University Law Review, nr 4 (2019): 1305-1337.
  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.
  60. Waldman Ari Ezra, „Power, Process, and Automated Decision-Making” Fordham Law Review, 88 (2019): 613-632.
  61. Williams Rebecca, „Rethinking Administrative Law for Algorithmic Decision Making” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, nr 2 (2022): 468-494.
  62. Yeung Karen, „Responsibility and AI” Council of Europe Study DGI(2019)05. https://rm.coe.int/responsability-and-ai-en/168097d9c5.
  63. Yu Peter K., „Artificial Intelligence, the Law-Machine Interface, and Fair Use Automation” Alabama Law Review, nr 1 (2020): 187-238.
  64. Zech Herbert, „Künstliche Intelligenz und Haftungsfragen” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Privatrechtswissenschaft, nr 2 (2019): 198-219.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.