The questionable necessity of a new human right against being subject to automated decision-making

Author:

Abrusci Elena1,Mackenzie-Gray Scott Richard2

Affiliation:

1. Lecturer, Brunel University London

2. Postdoctoral Fellow, Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, and Fellow, St Antony’s College, University of Oxford

Abstract

Abstract The development and interest in decision-making that is or can be automated have opened the doors of debate regarding the form and substance of related means of regulating its application. Part of this discourse involves proposals advocating for the creation of a new human right not to be subject to an automated decision. This article questions whether such a right is necessary in light of existing substantive rules under legal frameworks already applicable to automated decision-making, specifically data protection, non-discrimination and human rights. There are also procedural challenges requiring treatment if automated decision-making is to be adequately addressed by application of the law. Exploring these challenges helps appreciate the significance of ensuring that existing substantive law is better implemented for the purpose of protecting human beings in settings where automated decision-making poses risks to individuals and groups.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Law,Library and Information Sciences

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3