IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/bjeust/v9y2019i4p3-18n1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Automated Decision-Making and the Precautionary Principle in EU Law

Author

Listed:
  • Mazur Joanna

    (Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Warsaw, ul. Wybrzeże Kościuszkowskie 47, Warsaw00-347, Poland)

Abstract

The article is predicated upon the allegation that there is a similarity between the scientific uncertainty linked to the hazard which human interventions pose to the natural environment and the hazard which the development of automated decision-making techniques poses to certain aspects of human lives in the digital environment. On the basis of this allegation, the analysis examines the similarities between the European environmental law, which is crucial for the natural environment, and the European data protection law, which is fundamental for the digital environment. As there are measures already adopted by the data protection law from the environmental law, such as impact assessments and the right to access information, the main hypothesis of this analysis is to consider whether there are further inspirations for the development of European data protection law which could be drawn from environmental law, regarding the scientific uncertainty which is common to these two areas of regulation. The article examines a legal measure, namely, the precautionary principle, as the conjectural response to the challenges linked to the development of the new technologies. The experiences collected in the area of environmental law concerning the precautionary principle are analysed as a source of lessons to be learned concerning the regulatory measures adopted in order to deal with scientific uncertainty, not only in the natural environment, but also in the digital one.

Suggested Citation

  • Mazur Joanna, 2019. "Automated Decision-Making and the Precautionary Principle in EU Law," TalTech Journal of European Studies, Sciendo, vol. 9(4), pages 3-18, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:bjeust:v:9:y:2019:i:4:p:3-18:n:1
    DOI: 10.1515/bjes-2019-0035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/bjes-2019-0035
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/bjes-2019-0035?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edwards, Lilian & Veale, Michael, 2017. "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'right to an explanation' is probably not the remedy you are looking for," LawArXiv 97upg, Center for Open Science.
    2. Marjolein B.. A. van Asselt & Ellen Vos, 2006. "The Precautionary Principle and the Uncertainty Paradox," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 313-336, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. König, Pascal D. & Wenzelburger, Georg, 2021. "The legitimacy gap of algorithmic decision-making in the public sector: Why it arises and how to address it," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    2. Hazel Si Min Lim & Araz Taeihagh, 2019. "Algorithmic Decision-Making in AVs: Understanding Ethical and Technical Concerns for Smart Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-28, October.
    3. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    4. Buhmann, Alexander & Fieseler, Christian, 2021. "Towards a deliberative framework for responsible innovation in artificial intelligence," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    5. Cobbe, Jennifer & Veale, Michael & Singh, Jatinder, 2023. "Understanding Accountability in Algorithmic Supply Chains," SocArXiv p4sey, Center for Open Science.
    6. Kirsten Martin & Ari Waldman, 2023. "Are Algorithmic Decisions Legitimate? The Effect of Process and Outcomes on Perceptions of Legitimacy of AI Decisions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(3), pages 653-670, March.
    7. Behnam Taebi & Jan H. Kwakkel & Céline Kermisch, 2020. "Governing climate risks in the face of normative uncertainties," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(5), September.
    8. Vesnic-Alujevic, Lucia & Nascimento, Susana & Pólvora, Alexandre, 2020. "Societal and ethical impacts of artificial intelligence: Critical notes on European policy frameworks," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6).
    9. Veale, Michael, 2017. "Logics and practices of transparency and opacity in real-world applications of public sector machine learning," SocArXiv 6cdhe, Center for Open Science.
    10. Söderlund, Kasia & Engström, Emma & Haresamudram, Kashyap & Larsson, Stefan & Strimling, Pontus, 2024. "Regulating high-reach AI: On transparency directions in the Digital Services Act," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 13(1), pages 1-31.
    11. Daniela Sele & Marina Chugunova, 2023. "Putting a Human in the Loop: Increasing Uptake, but Decreasing Accuracy of Automated Decision-Making," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 438, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    12. Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius & Joost Poort, 2017. "Online Price Discrimination and EU Data Privacy Law," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 347-366, September.
    13. Veale, Michael & Van Kleek, Max & Binns, Reuben, 2018. "Fairness and Accountability Design Needs for Algorithmic Support in High-Stakes Public Sector Decision-Making," SocArXiv 8kvf4, Center for Open Science.
    14. Engel, Nora, 2008. "Flexibility and innovation in response to emerging infectious diseases: Reactions to multi-drug resistant Tuberculosis in India," MERIT Working Papers 2008-076, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    15. Florence Metz & Karin Ingold, 2017. "Politics of the precautionary principle: assessing actors’ preferences in water protection policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 721-743, December.
    16. Kira J.M. Matus & Michael Veale, 2022. "Certification systems for machine learning: Lessons from sustainability," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 177-196, January.
    17. Larisa Găbudeanu & Iulia Brici & Codruța Mare & Ioan Cosmin Mihai & Mircea Constantin Șcheau, 2021. "Privacy Intrusiveness in Financial-Banking Fraud Detection," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-22, June.
    18. Rolf H. Weber, 2021. "Artificial Intelligence ante portas: Reactions of Law," J, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-14, September.
    19. I. Ooijen & Helena U. Vrabec, 2019. "Does the GDPR Enhance Consumers’ Control over Personal Data? An Analysis from a Behavioural Perspective," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 91-107, March.
    20. Janssen, Patrick & Sadowski, Bert M., 2021. "Bias in Algorithms: On the trade-off between accuracy and fairness," 23rd ITS Biennial Conference, Online Conference / Gothenburg 2021. Digital societies and industrial transformations: Policies, markets, and technologies in a post-Covid world 238032, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vrs:bjeust:v:9:y:2019:i:4:p:3-18:n:1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.