scholarly journals Enslaving the Algorithm: From a “Right to an Explanation” to a “Right to Better Decisions”?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lilian Edwards ◽  
Michael Veale
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Black Box ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Average Data ◽  
Meaningful Information ◽  
Privacy Law ◽  
Data Protection Law ◽  
Data Subject

Cite as: Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale (2018) Enslaving the Algorithm: From a “Right to an Explanation” to a “Right to Better Decisions”? IEEE Security & Privacy 16(3), 46–54, doi:10.1109/MSP.2018.2701152As concerns about unfairness and discrimination in “black box” machine learning systems rise, a legal “right to an explanation” has emerged as a compellingly attractive approach for challenge and redress. We outline recent debates on the limited provisions in European data protection law, and introduce and analyze newer explanation rights in French administrative law and the draft modernized Council of Europe Convention 108. While individual rights can be useful, in privacy law they have historically unreasonably burdened the average data subject.“Meaningful information” about algorithmic logics is more technically possible than commonly thought, but this exacerbates a new “transparency fallacy”—an illusion of remedy rather than anything substantively helpful. While rights-based approaches deserve a firm place in the toolbox, other forms of governance, such as impact assessments, “soft law,” judicial review, and model repositories deserve more attention, alongside catalyzing agencies acting for users to control algorithmic system design.

Sources and Content of the Pan-European General Principles of Good Administration

2020 ◽  
pp. 19-54
Author(s):  
Ulrich Stelkens ◽  
Agnė Andrijauskaitė
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Relevant Case

This chapter examines the sources of the pan-European principles of good administration developed by the Council of Europe (CoE). It maps the degree of concretization these principles have reached, and how far they have spread concerning the classical and modern topics of administrative law. It scrutinizes the Statute of the CoE, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the (relevant) case law of the European Court of Human Rights, other CoE conventions (such as the CoE Convention on Data Protection, the Convention on Access to Official Documents, and the European Charter of Local Self Government), and the recommendations and other soft law on good administration of the Committee of Ministers and other institutions of the CoE. The chapter concludes that the principles deriving from these sources should not be considered as a loose bundle of various rules in administrative matters but instead form a ‘coherent whole’.

scholarly journals Influence of the Law of the Council of Europe on Substantive Administrative Law in Poland. Selected Issues

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 67
Author(s):  
Anna Dąbrowska
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Standard Setting ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
The Public ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Hard Law ◽  
The Eu

<p>Legislative powers of the Council of Europe have a crucial impact on the domestic legal systems of the EU Member States including substantive administrative law, i.e. such an area of administrative law which defines rights and responsibilities of the public administration bodies and citizens. The legislation created by the Council of Europe’s bodies has a great impact on the areas of law which were earlier regarded as the exclusive responsibility of a given country. The Council of Europe has always been a major source of standard setting. This paper analyses selected areas of substantive administrative law taking into account hard law and soft law documents developed under the auspices of the Council of Europe.</p>

The use and Enforcement of Soft Law by Australian Public Authorities

2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg Weeks
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Regulatory Aspects ◽  
Highly Effective ◽  
Judicial Remedies

Soft law is a pervasive phenomenon which is highly effective as a means of regulation in Australia, as it is in many other jurisdictions. This article will not focus on the regulatory aspects of soft law, but will examine the capacity of individuals to obtain remedies where public authorities fail to adhere to the terms of their published soft law. The available judicial remedies apply in very limited circumstances, both in private law actions (in tort or equity) and public law (judicial review) actions. Ultimately, the most effective ways to remedy breaches of soft law appear also to be ‘soft’, such as recommendations of the Ombudsman and discretionary schemes for ex gratia payments.

Judicial Review and Merits Review: Are the Boundaries Being Eroded?

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 627-652
Author(s):  
Robin Creyke
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Federal Level ◽  
Law System

Courts and tribunals have distinct roles within the Australian administrative law system at the federal level, and to a lesser extent, in the states and territories. Questions of law are for the courts, and questions of fact are for the executive and tribunals. From time to time this orthodoxy is questioned. Suggestions are made that the courts are increasingly tending to intrude into the province of tribunals. Using cases as illustrations, this article explores five relevant jurisdictional areas —from appeals on a question of law to deference under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 10(2)(b)(ii)—to test the accuracy of the suggestion.

Liberating Malawi's Administrative Justice Jurisprudence from Its Common Law Shackles

2011 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danwood Mzikenge Chirwa
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right ◽  
Administrative Justice

AbstractThe 1994 Malawian Constitution is unique in that it, among other things, recognizes administrative justice as a fundamental right and articulates the notion of constitutional supremacy. This right and the idea of constitutional supremacy have important implications for Malawi's administrative law, which was hitherto based on the common law inherited from Britain. This article highlights the difficulties that Malawian courts have faced in reconciling the right to administrative justice as protected under the new constitution with the common law. In doing so, it offers some insights into what the constitutionalization of administrative justice means for Malawian administrative law. It is argued that the constitution has altered the basis and grounds for judicial review so fundamentally that the Malawian legal system's marriage to the English common law can be regarded as having irretrievably broken down as far as administrative law is concerned.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document