Automated Administrative Decision-Making and the Principle of Legality: A Study in Light of the Legal Regulation of Artificial Intelligence
Keywords:
Automated Administrative Decision, Principle of Legality, AIAbstract
This research analyzes the impact of artificial intelligence on the principle of legality within administrative practice, examining how automated decisions align with legal elements such as competence, motive, and proportionality. Using a comparative analytical approach (GDPR and EU AI Act), the study concludes that automation necessitates reinterpreting legality and developing specialized judicial oversight for algorithmic decisions. Its primary contribution is proposing an analytical framework that balances digital administrative efficiency with the safeguards of the rule of law.
Downloads
References
Al-Tamawi, Sulayman Muhammad. Al-Nazariyyah al-'Ammah lil-Qararat al-Idariyyah (The General Theory of Administrative Decisions). Dar Al-Fikr Al-Arabi, Cairo, 1990.
Barocas, S. & Selbst, A. D. Big data’s disparate impact. Calif. L. Rev. 104, 671 (2016).
Burrell, J. How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data Soc. 3, 2053951715622512 (2016).
Carney, T. Robo-debt illegality: The seven veils of failed guarantees of the rule of law? Altern. Law J. 44, 4–10 (2019).
Citron, D. K. Technological due process. Wash. UL Rev. 85, 1249 (2007).
Citron, D. K. University of Maryland School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2007-26.
Cobbe, J. Administrative law and the machines of government: judicial review of automated public-sector decision-making. Leg. Stud. 39, 636–655 (2019).
Cobbe, J. & Singh, J. Artificial intelligence as a service: Legal responsibilities, liabilities, and policy challenges. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 42, 105573 (2021).
Covilla, J. C. Artificial intelligence and administrative discretion: exploring adaptations and boundaries. Eur. J. Risk Regul. 16, 36–50 (2025).
Crawford, K. & Schultz, J. Big data and due process: Toward a framework to redress predictive privacy harms. BCL Rev. 55, 93 (2014).
Dressel, J. & Farid, H. The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Sci. Adv. 4, eaao5580 (2018).
Geburczyk, F. Automated administrative decision-making under the influence of the GDPR–Early reflections and upcoming challenges. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 41, 105538 (2021).
Green, B. & Chen, Y. The principles and limits of algorithm-in-the-loop decision making. Proc. ACM Human-Computer Interact. 3, 1–24 (2019).
Kleinberg, J., Lakkaraju, H., Leskovec, J., Ludwig, J. & Mullainathan, S. Human decisions and machine predictions. Q. J. Econ. 133, 237–293 (2018).
Longworth, J. Benjamin Ruha (2019) Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Medford: Polity Press. 172 pages. eISBN: 9781509526437. Sci. Technol. Stud. 34, 92–94 (2021).
Matthias, A. The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics Inf. Technol. 6, 175–183 (2004).
Oswald, M. Algorithm-assisted decision-making in the public sector: framing the issues using administrative law rules governing discretionary power. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 376, 20170359 (2018).
Oswald, M., Grace, J., Urwin, S. & Barnes, G. C. Algorithmic risk assessment policing models: lessons from the Durham HART model and ‘Experimental’ proportionality. Inf. Commun. Technol. Law 27, 223–250 (2018).
Selbst, A. & Powles, J. “Meaningful information” and the right to explanation. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency 48 (PMLR, 2018).
Siraj Al-Din, Sami Jamal. Al-Qada' Al-Idari wa Al-Raqabah 'Ala A'mal Al-Idarah (Administrative Judiciary and Control over Administrative Actions). Mansha'at Al-Ma'arif, Alexandria, 2002.
Skitka, L. J., Mosier, K. L. & Burdick, M. Does automation bias decision-making? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 51, 991–1006 (1999).
Veale, M. & Binns, R. Fairer machine learning in the real world: Mitigating discrimination without collecting sensitive data. Big Data Soc. 4, 2053951717743530 (2017).
Voigt, P. & Von dem Bussche, A. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). A Practical Guide. 1st ed., Cham: Springer International Publishing (2017).
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B. & Floridi, L. Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the general data protection regulation. Int. Data Priv. Law 7, 76–99 (2017).
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B. & Russell, C. Why fairness cannot be automated: Bridging the gap between EU non-discrimination law and AI. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 41, 105567 (2021).
Williams, R. Rethinking administrative law for algorithmic decision making. Oxf. J. Leg. Stud. 42, 468–494 (2022).
Wolswinkel, J. Artificial intelligence and administrative law. Strasbg. Counc. Eur. Publ. (2022).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Legal Studies and Researches
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
