A Legal Comparative Analysis of Automated Decision-Making and Reasonableness in Administrative Law

Automation is transforming how government agencies make decisions. This article analyses three distinctive features of automated decision-making that are difficult to reconcile with key doctrines of administrative law developed for a human-centric decision-making context. First, the complex, multi-faceted decision-making requirements arising from statutory interpretation and administrative law principles raise questions about the feasibility of designing automated systems to cohere with these expectations. Secondly, whilst the courts have emphasised a human mental process as a criterion of a valid decision, many automated decisions are made with limited or no human input. Thirdly, the new types of bias associated with opaque automated decision-making are not easily accommodated by the bias rule, or other relevant grounds of judicial review. This article, therefore, argues that doctrinal and regulatory evolution are both needed to address these disconnections and maintain the accountability and contestability of administrative decisions in the digital age.

Download Full-text

Administrative law and the machines of government: judicial review of automated public-sector decision-making

Legal Studies ◽

10.1017/lst.2019.9 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 39 (4) ◽

pp. 636-655 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Jennifer Cobbe

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Public Sector ◽

Administrative Law ◽

Machine Learning Techniques ◽

Clear Understanding ◽

The Public ◽

Starting Point ◽

Sector Decision ◽

Public Sector Decision Making ◽

Automated Decision Making

AbstractThe future is likely to see an increase in the public-sector use of automated decision-making systems which employ machine learning techniques. However, there is no clear understanding of how English administrative law will apply to this kind of decision-making. This paper seeks to address the problem by bringing together administrative law, data protection law, and a technical understanding of automated decision-making systems in order to identify some of the questions to ask and factors to consider when reviewing the use of these systems. Due to the relative novelty of automated decision-making in the public sector, this kind of study has not yet been undertaken elsewhere. As a result, this paper provides a starting point for judges, lawyers, and legal academics who wish to understand how to legally assess or review automated decision-making systems and identifies areas where further research is required.

Download Full-text

Administrative Law and the Governance of Automated Decision-Making: A Critical Look at Canada’s Directive on Automated Decision-Making

SSRN Electronic Journal ◽

10.2139/ssrn.3722192 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Teresa Scassa

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Administrative Law ◽

Automated Decision Making

Download Full-text

Automated Decision-Making and Administrative Law

The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Administrative Law ◽

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198799986.013.39 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 655-676

Author(s):

Michèle Finck

Keyword(s):

Machine Learning ◽

Decision Making ◽

Deep Learning ◽

Data Analysis ◽

Computational Intelligence ◽

Sustainable Use ◽

Administrative Law ◽

Guiding Principles ◽

Automated Decision Making

This chapter examines the uses of automated decision-making (ADM) systems in administrative settings. First, it introduces the current enthusiasm surrounding computational intelligence before a cursory overview of machine learning and deep learning is provided. The chapter thereafter examines the potential of these forms of data analysis in administrative processes. In addition, this chapter underlines that, depending on how they are used; these tools risk impacting pejoratively on established concepts of administrative law. This is illustrated through the example of the principle of transparency. To conclude, a number of guiding principles designed to ensure the sustainable use of these tools are outlined and topics for further research are suggested.

Download Full-text

Bid rigging in public procurement market according to the decisions of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection

The Central and Eastern European Journal of Management and Economics ◽

10.29015/ceejme.624 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 5 (2) ◽

pp. 161

Author(s):

Konrad RÓŻOWICZ

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Comparative Analysis ◽

Consumer Protection ◽

Design Research ◽

Public Procurement ◽

Appeal Chamber ◽

Interesting Issue ◽

Market Control ◽

The Public ◽

Bid Rigging

Aim: In the practice of awarding public contracts, sometimes the behavior of market actors, instead of competing with other entities, are aimed at illegal cooperation, including bid rigging. The above shows that healthy competition is not possible without efficient market control. In public procurement market this control is, primarily, carried out by public procurement entities: the President of the Public Procurement Office (Prezes UZP) and the National Appeal Chamber (KIO), and furthermore by President od the Office of Competition (Prezes UOKiK) and Consumer Protection and the Court od Competition and Consumer Protection. and Consumer Protection (SOKiK). The interesting issue is how the activities of the President of Office of Competition and Consumer Protection targeted to contend with bid rigging affects on the activities of President of the Public Procurement Office (Prezes UZP) or the National Appeal Chamber (KIO). Design / Research methods: analysis and comparison decisions/ judgment issued by the President of the Public Procurement Office, National Appeal Chamber, the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection and the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection. Conclusions: The analysis has shown that the existence of specificities in the activities of the decision-making bodies and the judgments examined. However, in keeping with the specificity of the forms and objectives of control, these entities should cooperate, to a greater extent than before. Expanding the scope of cooperation would make it possible to better contend with bid rigging without changing the competition protection model. The introduction of institutionalized instruments for cooperation between the authorities seems to be valuable in terms of system solutions. Value of the article: The main value of the article is the comparison of selectively selected decisions and judgments representative of the problem under consideration and their comparative analysis in order to achieve the research objectives. The article deals with issues relevant to both public procurement practitioners and the state bodies dealing with procurement matters.

Download Full-text