Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica (AUCI) is the main journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University. It has been published since 1954 and is one of the traditional law journals with a theoretical focus.
As a general law journal, it publishes longer studies and shorter articles on any relevant issues in legal theory and international, European and national law. AUCI also publishes material relating to current legislative issues. AUCI is a peer-reviewed journal and accepts submissions from both Czech and international authors. Contributions by foreign authors are published in their original language – Slovak, English, German, French.
AUCI is a theoretical journal for questions of state and law. It is published by Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Law, through Karolinum Press. It is published four times a year, the dates of publication can be found here.
Articles published in AUCI undergo an independent peer review process, which is anonymous on both sides. Reviewers from the field give their opinion on the scientific quality of the paper and the suitability of publication in the journal. In the case of comments, the opinion is sent back to the author with the possibility of revising the text (see Guidelines for Authors – Per Review Process for more details).
The AUCI journal (ISSN 0323-0619) is registered in the Czech National Bibliography (kept by the National Library of the Czech Republic) and in the Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals (kept by the American Association of Law Libraries). AUCI has been assigned a periodical registration number MK E 18585.
In 2021 the journal AUCI was the first journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University to be included in the prestigious international database Scopus. This Elsevier database is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature in the world. The editors of the journal expect from the inclusion in the elite Scopus database not only an increase in the readership of the journal, but also an increase in interest in the publication of papers by both Czech and foreign authors.
AUCI is an open journal and all its content is published both on the faculty website and on the Karolinum Press website. Access to it is free of charge. The homepage of AUCI is on the Karolinum Press website.
The AUCI journal uses the Creative Commons license: CC BY 4.0.
Long-term archiving of the digital content of the journal is provided by Portico.
AUC IURIDICA, Vol 70 No 2 (2024), 69–83
Automated Administrative Decision-Making: What is the Black Box Hiding?
Jan Nešpor
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2024.23
published online: 23. 05. 2024
abstract
The exploration of the “black box” phenomenon underscores opacity challenges in automated administrative decision-making systems, prompting a discussion on the paradox of transparency. Advocating for the concept of “qualified transparency”, the article aims to navigate the delicate balance between understanding and safeguarding sensitive information. Ethical imperatives, including respect for human autonomy, harm prevention, fairness, and explicability, are considered, culminating in recommendations for human participation, ethicality or accountability by design considerations, and the implementation of regulatory sandboxes to test such models prior to broad integration. Ultimately, the article advocates for a comprehensive discourse on transitioning from a human-centric to an automated public administration model, acknowledging the complexity and potential risks involved.
keywords: automated administrative decision-making; artificial intelligence; transparency
references (27)
1. ALLEN, J. A. The color of algorithms. Fordham Urban Law Journal. 2019, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 219-270.
2. AOUICHAOUI, A. R. N. et al. Comparison of Group-Contribution and Machine Learning-based Property Prediction Models with Uncertainty Quantification. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering [online]. 2021, Vol. 50, pp. 755-760 [cit. 2024-02-26]. CrossRef
3. BURRELL, J. How the machine 'thinks': understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society [online]. 2016, Vol. 3, No. 1 [cit. 2024-02-26]. CrossRef
4. and LEPRI, B. et al. Fair, Transparent, and Accountable Algorithmic Decision-making Processes. Philos. Technol [online]. 2018, Vol. 31, pp. 611-627 [cit. 2024-02-26]. CrossRef
5. DASTIN, J. Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. In: Reuters [online]. 10.10.2018 [cit. 2024-02-26]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/amazoncom-jobs-automation/insight-amazon-scraps-secret-ai-recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women-idUSL2N1VB1FQ/?feedType=RSS%26feedName=companyNews.
6. DENG, L. - YU, D. Deep Learning: Methods and Applications. Foundations and Trends in Signal Processing [online]. 2014, Vol. 7, No. 3-4, pp. 197-387 [cit. 2024-02-26]. CrossRef
7. Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (European Commission). Ethics Guideline for Trustworthy AI. In: European Commission: Shaping Europe's digital future [online]. 8.4.2019 [cit. 2024-02-26]. Available at: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai.
8. DOSHI-VELEZ, F. et al. Accountability of AI Under the Law: the Role of Explanation. Berkman Klein Center Working Group on Explanation and the Law, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society working, 2019.
9. DYSON, G. The Third Law. In: BROCKMAN, J. (ed.). Possible minds: 25 Ways of looking at AI. New York: Penguin Press, 2019.
10. ETTORRE, F. P. The Right to Contest Automated Decision. In: The Digital Constitutionalist [online]. 2022 [cit. 2024-02-20]. Available at: https://digi-con.org/the-right-to-contest-automated-decisions/.
11. GOODMAN, B. - FLAXMAN, S. EU Regulations on Algorithmic Decision Making and a "Right to Explanation". AI Magazine [online]. 2016, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 3-112 [cit. 2024-02-26]. CrossRef
12. HAMON, R. et al. Robustness and Explainability of Artificial Intelligence [online]. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020, p. 11 [cit. 2024-02-26]. CrossRef
13. HAENLEIN, M. - KAPLAN, A. A Brief History of Artificial Intelligence: on the Past, Present, and Future of Artificial Intelligence. California Management Review [online]. 2019, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 5-14 [cit. 2024-02-26]. CrossRef
14. HANDRLICA, J. et al. Forum shopping in regulatory sandboxes and the perils of experimental law-making. Juridical Tribune [online]. 2023, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 408-426 [cit. 2024-02-26]. Available at: https://www.tribunajuridica.eu/arhiva/An13v3/5.%20Handrlica,%20Sharp,%20Nespor.pdf.
15. HENMAN, P. Improving public services using artificial intelligence: possibilities, pitfalls, governance. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration [online]. 2020, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 209-221 [cit. 2024-02-24]. CrossRef
16. HILDEBRANDT, M. Algorithmic regulation and the rule of law. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A [online]. 2018, Vol. 376, No. 2128 [cit. 2024-02-26]. CrossRef
17. HOFMANN, H. C. H. Comparative Law of Public Automated Decision-Making. An Outline. Rivista Interdisciplinare sul Diritto delle Amministrazioni Pubbliche [online]. 2023, No. 1, pp. 1-12 [cit. 2024-02-26]. CrossRef
18. INNERARITY, D. Making the black box society transparent. AI & Society [online]. 2021, Vol. 36, pp. 975-981 [cit. 2024-02-26]. CrossRef
19. KASNECI, E. et al. ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences [online]. 2023, Vol. 103, p. 102274 [cit. 2024-02-26]. CrossRef
20. KISCHEL, U. Die Begründung: Zur Erläuterung Staatlicher Entscheidungen Gegenüber Dem Bürger. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003, pp. 223-224.
21. OLSEN, H. P. et al. What's in the Box? The Legal Requirement of Explainability in Computationally Aided Decision-Making in Public Administration. iCourts Working Paper Series, No. 162. University of Copenhagen Faculty of Law, 2019, p. 9. CrossRef
22. PASQUALE, F. The Black Box Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2015. CrossRef
23. PATIL, T. et al. A Review on Basic Deep Learning Technologies and Applications. In: KOTECHA, K. et al. (eds.). Data Science and Intelligent Applications [online]. Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies, Vol. 52. Singapore: Springer, 2021 [cit. 2024-02-26]. CrossRef
24. VASSILAKOPOULOU, P. et al. Sociotechnical Approach for Accountability by Design in AI Systems. In: Twenty-Eighth European Conference on Information Systems: Research-in-Progress Papers [online]. 2020, pp. 1-8 [cit. 2024-02-20]. Available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2020_rip/12/?utm_source=aisel.aisnet.org%2Fecis2020_rip%2F12&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages.
25. WIHLBLORG, E. et al. "The Computer Says No!": a Case Study on Automated Decision-Making in Public Authorities. In: 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2016, pp. 2903-2912. CrossRef
26. YAN, C. et al. When the Automated fire Backfires: the Adoption of Algorithm-based HR Decision-making Could Induce Consumer's Unfavourable Ethicality Inferences of the Company. Journal of Business Ethics [online]. 2023 [cit. 2024-02-24]. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-023-05351-x.
27. ZHANG, J. et al. Fairness in Design: a Framework for Facilitating Ethical Artificial Intelligence Designs. International Journal of Crowd Sciences [online]. 2023, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 32-39 [cit. 2024-02-20]. CrossRef
Automated Administrative Decision-Making: What is the Black Box Hiding? is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
230 x 157 mm
periodicity: 4 x per year
print price: 65 czk
ISSN: 0323-0619
E-ISSN: 2336-6478
