Skip to main content
Top

2022 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

4. AI & Demarcation of the Rule of Law

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Law is a formalized way of bringing political preferences into the society. The norms are transformed into law via the rule of law. The rule of law entails that the ruler be subject to, or at least not above, the law; and that the law be applied equally, or at least equitably, to all members of society. The rule of law serves not only to impose the results of the democratic legislative process, but also to safeguard individuals against arbitrary government action. Thus, rule of law embraces the capability of “end-users” to gain access to the law including how law is generated, for instance through existing mechanisms of representation and legislative deliberation, via the endowment of various types of support for access such as legal aid, etc. and channeling of information on rights and justice and holding rulers to account.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Footnotes
1
Randy Barnett, The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, (2001) Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 136–144; Ronald A. Cass. The Rule of Law in America, (2001) Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
 
2
Lawrence M. Friedman, American Law 257 (1984) “Law carries a powerful stick: the threat of force. This is the first inside its velvet glove”.
 
3
John Locke, Of Civil Government Second Treatise 67, 68, Introduction by Russell Kirk, (Henry Regnery 1955).
 
4
Rawls, John, Political Liberalism, (paperback ed., New York, Columbia University Press) 1996.
 
5
Mathieu Deflem, Habermas, Modernity and Law 1996 Sage Publications.
 
6
Luhmann, Niklas (1985) A Sociological Theory of Law. London: Routledge & Kegan, Luhmann, Niklas (1992) “Operational Closure and Structural Coupling: The Differentiation of the Legal System,” Cardozo Law Review 13: 1419–4.
 
7
Habermas, J (1987) The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures. Cambridge: Polity Press. Habermas, J. (1988) The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Volume 8; Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.
 
8
Jurgen Habermas, Postscript to Between Facts and Norms in Mathieu Deflem, Habermas, Modernity and Law, Sage Publications 1996.
 
9
Dicey, A. V, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, London: Macmillian and Co., Limited. 1920.
 
10
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) (treating the constitution as legally enforceable and as the highest law of the land)., Richard H. Fallon. Jr.. “The Rule of Law” as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse”, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 1. 7 (1997), at 1 (“The Rule of Law is a much celebrated, historical ideal, the precise meaning of which may be less clear today than ever before.”).
 
11
Thomas O. Sargentich, The Contemporary Debate About Legislative-Executive Separation of Powers, 72 Corn. L. Rev. 430, 450 (1987) (“A close relation between the rule of law and separation of powers is evident in both the liberal and democratic elements of liberal democratic theory.”).
 
12
Antonin Scalia, The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. CHI. L. REV. 1175 (1989). Richard H. Fallon, Jr., “The Rule of Law” as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 8–9 (1997).
 
13
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479–80 (1966); Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928).
 
14
Frank Upham, Mythmaking in the Rule of Law Orthodoxy (2002) (Paper No 30, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Working Papers, Rule of Law Series, Democracy and the Rule of Law Project, September 2002).
 
15
Ruth Teitel, Transitional Jurisprudence: The Role of Law in Political Transformation, 106 Yale L.J. (1997). Available at: http://​digitalcommons.​law.​yale.​edu/​ylj/​vol106/​iss7/​2
 
16
Friedrich A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, (1944) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 80.
 
17
jurgen Habermas, Faktiziuit und Geltung (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1992), p. 186.
 
18
505 U.S. 833, 865, 869 (1992).
 
19
Planned Parenthood v Casey. 505 U S 833, 854 (1992) (“[T]he very concept of the rule of law underlying our own Constitution requires such continuity over time that a respect for precedent is, by definition, indispensable.”); see also Antonin Scalia, The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. CHI. L. REv. 1175 (1989) (advocating “general rule of law” over “personal discretion to do justice”).
 
20
Lord Bingham, “The Rule of Law” (2007) 66 CLJ 67, 69. P. Gowder, The Rule of Law in the Real World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).
 
21
Randy Barnett, The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, (2001) Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 136–144; Ronald A. Cass. The Rule of Law in America, (2001) Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
 
22
North, Douglas C, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990. Richard H. Fallon, Jr., “The Rule of Law” as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse”, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 7 (1997), at 1 (“The Rule of Law is a much celebrated, historical ideal, the precise meaning of which may be less clear today than ever before.”).
 
23
Antonin Scalia, The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. CHI. L. REV. 1175 (1989). Richard H. Fallon, Jr., “The Rule of Law” as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 8–9 (1997).
 
24
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479–80 (1966); Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928).
 
25
J. Waldron, “The Concept and the Rule of Law,” Georgia Law Review, 43 (2008), 1–61.
 
26
Friedrich A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, (1944) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 80.
 
27
Dicey, Albert Venn, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (8th ed). London: Macmillan and co. 1914.
 
28
J. Raz, The Authority of Law (Oxford, 1977), 211.
 
29
Dicey, A.V, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, London: Macmillan and Co., Limited. 1920.
 
30
Ellis Sandoz, Symposium, Religion and the American Founding, 20 Regent U. L. Rev. 17, 25 n.55 (2007–2008).
 
31
Paul F. Campos, Pierre Schlag and Steven D. Smith, Against The Law (1996); Pierre Schlag, The Enchantment of Reason 15 (1998) (noting that “the reason of law not only underwrites the rule of law but provides a sense of comfort and control to jurists and citizens alike,” but that there is a “moment when reason is unable to furnish answers in law”).
 
32
Joseph Raz, The Rule of Law and Its Virtue, in The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality 210, 211 (1979).
 
33
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479–80 (1966); Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928).
 
34
Richard H. Fallon, Jr., “The Rule of Law” as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 8–9 (1997).
 
35
Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, 402, bk. V, ch. 2. Plato. (1969). Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vols. 5 & 6 translated by Paul Shorey. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd.
 
36
Anastassios D. Karayiannis, Aristides N. Hatzis, Morality, social norms and the rule of law as transaction cost-saving devices: the case of ancient Athens, Eur J Law Econ (2012) 33:621–643.
 
37
Carugati F, Hadfield GK and Weingast BR. 2015. Building Legal Order in Ancient Athens Journal of Legal Analysis 7(2): 291–324.
 
38
Bitros, G. K., & Karayiannis, A. D. (2008). Values and institutions as determinants of entrepreneurship in ancient Athens. Journal of Institutional Economics, 4, 205–230.
 
39
Anastassios D. Karayiannis, Aristides N. Hatzis, Morality, social norms and the rule of law as transaction cost-saving devices: the case of ancient Athens, Eur J Law Econ (2012) 33:621–643 p 622.
 
40
Kristen Rundle, The Impossibility of Exterminatory Legality: Law and the Holocaust, 59 U. Toronto L.J. 65, 89 (2009).
 
41
A Lanni, Social norms in Ancient Athenian courts, 2009 Journal of Legal Analysis 691.
 
42
Fuller L. 1969. The Morality of Law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
 
43
Lon L. Fuller, The Morality of Law 47 (1964).
 
44
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, pt. I-II, Q. 95, Art. 2 (Fathers of the English Dominican Province trans., Benziger Bros. 1947), http://​www.​ccel.​org/​ccel/​aquinas/​summa.​toc.​html Aquinas quotes Isidore of Seville’s Etymologies (V, 21): “Law shall be virtuous, just, possible to nature, according to the custom of the country, suitable to place and time, necessary, useful; clearly expressed, lest by its obscurity it lead to misunderstanding; framed for no private benefit, but for the common good.” Art. 3.
 
45
Kenneth I. Winston, Introduction to The Principles Of Social Order: Selected Essays of Lon L. Fuller 25, 46 (Kenneth I. Winston ed., Hart Publ’g rev. ed. 2001) (1981).
 
46
Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order 3 (fourth ed. 2003) (stating a person “must know order” before living tolerably with himself or others).
 
47
The Centennial History of the Harvard Law School: 1817–1917, at 26 (1918) (quoting Christopher Langdell). James B. Conant, Two Modes of Thought at 44 (1964), quoting Langdell’s, A Selection of Cases on the Law of Contracts (1871). “If law be not a science, a university will best consult its own dignity in declining to teach it. If it be not a science, it is a species of handicraft, and may best be learned by serving an apprenticeship to one who practices.”
 
48
Carey, C. (1994), Legal space in classical Athens. Greece and Rome, 41(2), 172–186.
 
49
Dominic Grieve, United Kingdom Attorney General, “The Value of the Rule of Law to International Trade and Finance”, Speech at City of London Guildhall (13 October 2013).
 
50
Joseph Raz, “The Rule of Law and its Virtue” (1977) 93 LQR 195, Robert S Summers, “A Formal Theory of the Rule of Law” (1993) 6 Ratio Juris 127; Lon L Fuller, The Morality of Law (Yale University Press, rev edn 1969).
 
51
Jan Zielonka, The Quality of Democracy after Joining the European Union, East European Politics and Societies, Vol. 21, No. 1, pages 162–180.
 
52
G Zekos, The United States of Europe The Global Players, 2019 Nova Science Publications New York USA. www.​novapublishers.​com
 
53
N. Jansen Calamita, The Rule of Law, Investment Treaties, and Economic Growth: Mapping Normative and Empirical Questions, www.​ssrn.​com
 
54
Ronald Dworkin, A Matter of Principle (Harvard University Press, 1985) at pp. 11–12. Simon Chesterman, “An International Rule of Law?” (2008) 56 American Journal of Comparative Law 331.
 
55
UN General Assembly, Declaration of the High-Level Meeting of the General Assembly on the Rule of Law at the National and International Levels, UN Doc A/RES/67/1 (30 Nov 2012): “The advancement of the rule of law at the national and international levels is essential for sustained and inclusive economic growth, sustainable development, the eradication of poverty and hunger and the full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development, all of which in turn reinforce the rule of law.”
 
56
“Declaration of the High-level Meeting of the General Assembly on the Rule of Law at the National and International Levels on 24 September 2012,” Agenda item 83, A/Res/67/1, 30 November 2012.
 
57
Rawls, J. 1971, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
 
58
Anne-Marie Slaughter, The Real New World Order, 76 Foreign Aff. 183, 196 (Sept.-Oct. 1997).
 
59
Roscoe Pound, The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice, 40 Am. L. Rev. 729, 731 (1906).
 
60
G Zekos, International Commercial and Marine Arbitration, 2008 Routledge-Cavendish Publishers London www.​routledge.​com. G Zekos, Constitution, Arbitration and Courts, 2013 Nova Science Publications New York USA. www.​novapublishers.​com G Zekos, Arbitration’s status under EU law, The Journal of World Investment and Trade 13 (2012) 390–419, brill.nl/jwit, G Zekos, Developments on Courts’ Involvement in Arbitration. Volume 1: The Rule of Law, Volume 2: Courts and Law, 2019 Nova Science Publications New York USA. www.​novapublishers.​com
 
61
Anthony D’Amato and Kristen Engel, State Responsibility for the Exportation of Nuclear Power Technology, 74 Va. L. Rev. 1011, 1042 (1988) (stating that “a national boundary is an artificial, as well as a morally irrelevant, boundary with respect to moral obligations”); Fernando R. Tesón, The Kantian Theory of International Law, 92 Colum. L. Rev. 53, 82–83 (1992) (stating that “[t]he contingent division of the world into discrete nation-states does not transform political freedom from an ethical imperative into a mere accident of history”).
 
62
J. Bentham, “Draught of a New Plan for the organisation of the Judicial Establishment in France: proposed as a Succedaneum to the Draught presented, for the same purpose, by the Committee of Constitution, to the National Assembly, December 21st, 1789,” printed in London, 1790, 25–6 (Bowring, iv. 285–406, at 316–17).
 
63
Tricker, B. (2009). Corporate governance: Principles, policies and practices. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc.
 
64
Marshall, S. & Ramsay, I. (2012). Stakeholders and Directors’ Duties: Law, Theory and Evidence, University of New South Wales Law Journal, 35, 291–316.
 
65
Hareendra Dissabandara, Handling Key Issues in Corporate Governance and Business Ethics: To be True to Self & Beyond Rules and Regulations, http://​ssrn.​com/​abstract=​2606160
 
66
G Zekos, Ethics and Law in Globalization and Cyberspace, IJOE (2012), Volume 8, Number ½, 2012 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
 
67
Von Benda-Beckmann F, von Benda-Beckmann K, Griffiths A. 2009. Space and legal pluralism: an introduction. In Spatializing Law: An Anthropological Geography of Law in Society, ed. F von Benda-Beckmann, K von Benda-Beckmann, A Griffiths, pp. 1–29. Aldershot: Ashgate.
 
68
Sir Anthony Mason, “The tale of law and international economic transactions” in Spencer Zifcak (ed) Globalisation and the Rule of Law (Routledge, UK, 2005.
 
69
Philippe Sands, Lawless World (Penguin, Australia, 2005).
 
70
Daniel D. Bradlow, Development Decision-Making and the Content of International Development Law, 27 B.C. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 195, 210–11 (2004) (explaining that under the modern view of development, development actors are concerned with economic, social, environmental, and human rights issues as well as traditional economic law issues).
 
71
Sungjoon Cho & Claire R. Kelly, Promises and Perils of New Global Governance: A Case of the G20, 12 Chi. J. Int’l L. 491, 493--94 (2012).
 
72
Ngaire Woods, The Challenges to International Institutions, in The Political Economy of Globalization 202, 208 (Ngaire Woods ed., 2000), José Antonio Ocampo, Rethinking Global Economic and Social Governance, 1 J. Globalization & Dev. 1, 4--5 (2010) (providing a general overview of the history of post-World War II global economic governance).
 
73
G20: Invitees and International Organizations, Russ. G20, http://​www.​g20.​org/​docs/​about/​international_​guests.​html (noting that international organizations are invited to the G20 Summit).
 
74
Eric Helleiner, The Financial Stability Board and International Standards (Ctr. for Int’l Governance Innovation, Paper No. 1, 2010) (providing a detailed description of the FSB).
 
75
Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 250, 294–98 (seventh ed. 2008) (explaining that international actors should refrain from infringing on the principles of state sovereignty).
 
76
Stephanie Farrior, International Reporting Procedures, in Guide to International Human Rights Practice 189, 197–201 (Hurst Hannum ed., fourth ed. 2004) (describing reporting procedures of international human rights treaties). Alex J. Bellamy, Responsibility to Protect 51–59 (2009).
 
77
James Crawford, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries (2002) (discussing state responsibility in the International Law Commission). M. Sornarajah, The International Law on Foreign Investment 201–04, 208, 337, 409–10 (3d ed. 2010).
 
78
David Hunter et al., International Environmental Law and Policy 495–97 (3d ed. 2007) (explaining that the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” reflects principles of equity by placing more responsibility on wealthier countries and those that are more responsible for causing specific environmental problems); Remonda B. Kleinberg, The Politics of International Trade Regulation in the Developing World: Law and Policy of “Preferential” Treatment in the Governance of World Trade 4–5, 7 (2011) (noting that special and differential treatment principles have been incorporated into the architecture of the WTO rules).
 
79
Hurst Hannum, The Status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in National and International Law, 25 Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 287, 289, 323 (1995) (noting that several commentators have taken the position that the entire Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”) now represents customary international law).
 
80
Stephan Hobe, The Era of Globalisation as a Challenge to International Law, 40 Duq. L. Rev. 655, 656 (2001).
 
81
Jürgen Habermas, Beyond the Nation State? 10 Peace Rev. 235, 237 (1998).(discussing the Western trend transitioning from welfare-oriented states to a focus on market-friendly conditions in the 1980s).
 
82
Upendra D. Acharya, Globalization And Hegemony Shift: Are States Merely Agents Of Corporate Capitalism? 2013 Boston College International & Comparative Law Review 968.
 
83
Dicken, Peter. 2003. Global Shift: Reshaping the Global Economic Map in the twenty-first Century. fourth ed. London: Sage.
 
84
G Zekos, Corporate Governance and MNEs in Globalization & Cyberspace, 2013 Nova Science Publications, New York, USA. www.​novapublishers.​com
 
85
Jost Delbrück, The Changing Role of the State in the Globalising World Economy, in Making Transnational Law Work in the Global Economy 56, 57 (Pieter H.F. Bekker et al. eds., 2010) (describing the earlier transition from paternalistic monarchies of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to mercantilism or state-sponsored economic policies in order to effectuate states’ obligations of security and general welfare rather than profit).
 
86
Detlev F. Vagts, Editorial Comment, Hegemonic International Law, 95 Am. J. Int’l L. 843, 847 (2001) (“In terms of the formation of customary law, such a power can by its abstention prevent the emerging rule from becoming part of custom.”). (Vagts’s review of earlier “hegemons” that dominated certain regions reminds us that each hegemon “led the way in formulating the international law rules of the time,” and that Rome, at least, “define[d] … rights and duties of the relationship[s] in its own interest.”).
 
87
Benedict Kingsbury, Sovereignty and Inequality, 9 Eur. J. Int’l L. 599, 601, 612 (1998) (Kingsbury asserts that the international system’s traditional emphasis on state sovereignty is often ignorant of and unconcerned with the material inequalities among nations).
 
88
Oona Hathaway & Scott J. Shapiro, Outcasting: Enforcement in Domestic and International Law, 121 Yale L.J., 252, 255–56 (2011) (“The principal objection made by critics of international law is that international law cannot be real law because it cannot matter in the way that real law must matter. In particular, they argue that international law cannot matter in the way it must to be law because it lacks mechanisms of coercive enforcement.”).
 
89
Thomas S. Szayna et al., The Emergence of Peer Competitors: A Framework for Analysis 45–47, 49–50 (2001) (discussing a theory of hegemonic power and stating that a hegemon’s threat of imposing conflict onto another state will greatly influence that state’s behavior).
 
90
Andreas Paulus, The War Against Iraq and the Future of International Law: Hegemony or Pluralism?, 25 Mich. J. Int’l L. 691, 724–25 (2003) (“Indeed, the United States practices a strategic and, at times, tactical use of international law—trying to impose obligations on others while remaining unrestricted itself.”).
 
91
Turan Kayaoglu, Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory, 12 Int’l Stud. Rev. 193, 199 (2010).
 
92
Renê Guilherme S. Medrado, Renegotiating Remedies in the WTO: A Multilateral Approach, 22 Wis. Int’l L.J. 323, 327 n.13 (2004) (“[T]he Treaty of Westphalia is seen as the event marking the advent of the traditional international law … .”).
 
93
Nico Krisch, International Law in Times of Hegemony: Unequal Power and the Shaping of the International Legal Order, 16 Eur. J. Int’l L. 369, 381–84 (2005) (discussing the weakening of international law through an emphasis on soft law and a return to bilateral state relations that are more easily shaped and controlled by hegemonic states).
 
94
Noman Goheer, The Unilateral Creation of International Law During the “War on Terror”: Murder by an Unprivileged Belligerent Is Not a War Crime, 10 N.Y. City L. Rev. 533, 560 (2007); at 543 (noting that the U.S. government defined who would be classified as a terrorist after September 11, 2001).
 
95
Ryan Hagemann et al., Soft Law for Hard Problems: The Governance of Emerging Technologies in an Uncertain Future, 17 Colo. Tech. L.J. 37, 37 (2018). Steven L. Schwarcz, Soft Law as Governing Law, 2020 Minnesota Law Review 2471.
 
96
Robin Creyke, “Soft Law” and Administrative Law: A New Challenge, 61 AIAL F. 15, 18 (2010) (arguing that including unenforceable softlaw rules together with enforceable mandatory requirements in “one document with little distinction made between compliance obligations” can “lead to confusion and higher costs, and ultimately to litigation to resolve these uncertainties”); Joost Pauwelyn, Rule-Based Trade 2.0? The Rise of Informal Rules and International Standards and How They May Outcompete WTO Treaties, 17 J. INT’L ECON. L. 739, 740–44 (2014) (discussing correlation between the rise in soft law and stagnation in the formation of traditional treaty rules).
 
97
W. Michael Reisman, Introduction to Jurisdiction In International Law, at xi, xii (W. Michael Reisman ed., 1999) at xiii (noting that transnational decision processes, like all law-making, have “an inevitable political dimension” in the sense that participants “use their effective power … to secure the legal confirmation of arrangements which they believe will discriminate in their favor,” but that, “as in all law-making, the plurilateral or multilateral character of the process often reduces or contains the power of the strongest actors and forces compromises”).
 
98
Neomi Rao, Public Choice and International Law Compliance: The Executive Branch Is a “They,” Not an “It,” 96 Minn. L. Rev. 194, 212 (2011) (“In recent years, scholars have challenged the model of unitary states acting within the international system and proposed instead a liberal account of international relations that disaggregates the state … . State preferences represent subsets of domestic society and powerful interest groups, and the configuration of state preferences determines state behavior in international relations.”); Jeswald W. Salacuse & Nicholas P. Sullivan, Do BITs Really Work?: An Evaluation of Bilateral In-vestment Treaties and Their Grand Bargain, 46 Harv. Int’l L.J. 67, 76 (2005) (stating that the United States has actively encouraged investment and market liberalization with host countries to facilitate the entry and operation of investments, and has actively protected private investments by U.S. nationals through aggressive negotiation of bilateral investment treaties).
 
99
David P. Fidler, Eastphalia Emerging?: Asia, International Law, and Global Governance, 17 Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 1, 7 (2010) (considering China and India as possible new contenders as the most influential states in global policy). Joel Slawotsky, The Global Corporation as International Law Actor, 52 Va. J. Int’l L. Dig. 79, 80 (2012) (arguing that large multinational corporations should be treated similarly to states in the application of international law because of their comparable reach, power, and asset control).
 
100
Allison D. Garrett, The Corporation as Sovereign, 60 Me. L. Rev. 129, 148 (2008) (“For example, corporations engage in diplomacy, establish outposts in other nations, engage in trade negotiations, and often serve as proxies for their home country’s government.”).
 
101
Frank J. Garcia, Three Takes on Global Justice, 31 U. La Verne L. Rev. 323, 357–59 (2010). Osvaldo Sunkel, Transnational Capitalism and National Disintegration in Latin America, in The Political Economy of Law 282, 285–86 (Yash Ghai et al. eds., 1987).
 
102
G Zekos, Economics, Finance and Law on MNEs, 2007 Nova Publishers, New York www.​novapublishers.​com
 
103
Sol Picciotto, Regulating Global Corporate Capitalism 108–10 (2011) (“[T]he corporation is … a central institutional form mediating social relations of power … . [The corporate form may be used] with virtually any combination of personal, family, institutional and governmental involvement.”); Kevin T. Jackson, Global Corporate Governance: Soft Law and Reputational Accountability, 35 Brook. J. Int’l L. 41 (2010) (discussing corporations’ voluntary development of soft law as constraints on their own behavior).
 
104
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 145 (2d Cir. 2010), aff’d, No. 10–1491 (Apr. 17, 2013) (holding that corporations are not responsible under customary international law after allegedly facilitating governmental human rights violations).
 
105
Paul Bignell, Secret Memos Expose Link Between Oil Firms and Invasion of Iraq, Indep. (London), Apr. 19, 2011, at 4. Chad C. Carter, Halliburton Hears a Who? Political Question Doctrine Developments in the Global War on Terror and Their Impact on Government Contingency Contracting, 201 Mil. L. Rev. 86, 127 (2009).
 
106
Jonte van Essen, De Facto Regimes in International Law, 28 Utrecht J. Int’l & Eur. L., no. 74, 2012 at 31, 31, 42, 46 (discussing the relation of international state-recognition doctrines to the Libyan interim government’s diplomacy). Ronald Bruce St John, The Changing Libyan Economy: Causes and Consequences, 62 Middle E. J. 75, 80 (2008). Ismael Hossein-Zadeh, Why Regime Change in Libya?, Global Research (June 20, 2011), http://​www.​globalresearch.​ca/​why-regime-change-in-libya/​. Richard Spencer et al., Blair Went to Tripoli “To Lobby Gaddafi for Deals with US Bank,” Daily Telegraph (London), Sept. 19, 2011, at 20.
 
107
Martti Koskenniemi, From Apology To Utopia: The Structure Of International Legal Argument (2005).
 
108
Mohamed Bedjaoui, Towards A New International Economic Order 50 (1979).
 
109
Anthony McGrew, Globalization and Global Politics, in The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations 14, 16 (John Baylis et al. eds., fifth ed. 2011) (“Some—the hyperglobalists—argue that [globalization] is bringing about the demise of the sovereign nation-state as global forces undermine the ability of governments to control their own economies and societies.”).
 
110
Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity 63–64 (1990) (de-scribing globalization as interdependence without differentiation of time and space); Daniel Kanstroom, Aftermath: Deportation Law and the New American Diaspora, at x (2012) (“Reports of the death of the nation-state, in short, have been exaggerated, as have reports of the irrelevance of national borders. The importance of geo-graphic space may have diminished somewhat … [b]ut the poor and the oppressed of the world encounter a tighter regime of state regulation—with fewer migration possibilities—than many would have found in the past.”).
 
111
Thierry Soret, Governance Arrangements for Global Economic Challenges: Where Do we Stand? A Political Science Perspective A UNDP/ODS Working Paper Office of Development Studies United Nations Development Programme, New York —November 2009.
 
112
Noora Arajärvi, The Rule of Law in the 2030 Agenda, Hague Journal on the Rule of Law April 2018, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp. 187–217.
 
113
James N. Rosenau, “Governance, Order, and Change in World Politics,” in Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, ed. James N. Rosenau and Ernst Otto-Czempiel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 1–29.
 
114
Koremenos, Barbara, Charles Lipson, and Duncan Snidal. 2001. The Rational Design of International Institutions. International Organization, 55, 4 (Autumn): 761–800.
 
115
Kahler, Miles and David A. Lake. 2003. Globalization and Changing Patterns of Political Authority. In Miles Kahler and David A. Lake, editors, Governance in a Global Economy: Political Authority in Transition. Princeton: Princeton University Press: 412–438.
 
116
Miles Kahler, Global Governance Redefined, The Conference on Globalization, the State, and Society Washington University School of Law St. Louis, 13–14 November 2003..
 
117
Jayasuriya, Kanishka (1999) “Globalization, Law, and the Transformation of Sovereignty: The Emergence of Global Regulatory Governance,” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies: Vol. 6: Iss. 2, Article 3. p454–455.
 
118
Jide Nzelibe, Strategic Globalization: International Law As An Extension Of Domestic Political Conflict, 2011 Vol. 105, No. 2 Northwestern University Law Review 638.
 
119
Bock, E. Dora, Jeremy S. Wolter, and O.C. Ferrell (2020), “Artificial Intelligence: Disrupting What We Know About Services”, Journal of Service Marketing, 34 (3), 317–334.
 
120
Ross Gruetzemacher and Jess Whittlestone, “The Transformative Potential of Artificial Intelligence” [2020] Communications of the ACM https://​arxiv.​org/​abs/​1912.​00747
 
121
Cukier, Kenneth (2021), “Commentary: How AI Shapes Consumer Experiences and Expectations”, Journal of Marketing, 85 (1), 152–155.
 
122
Kevin C. Desouza and Kiran K. Somvanshi, How Blockchain Could Improve Election Transparency, BROOKINGS (May 30, 2018), https://​www.​brookings.​edu/​blog/​techtank/​2018/​05/​30/​how-blockchaincould-improve-election-transparency/​
 
123
Thomas Haines, Rajeev Goré and Mukesh Tiwari, “Verified Verifiers for Verifying Elections,” CCS ‘19: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, November 2019, https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​3319535.​3354247
 
124
Nicole Goodman, Here’s How We Can Get More People to Vote in Elections, THE CONVERSATION (Apr. 10, 2019), https://​theconversation.​com/​heres-how-wecan-get-more-people-to-vote-in-elections-112486
 
125
Daniel Martin Katz, Quantitative Legal Prediction—or—How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Start Preparing for the Data-Driven Future of the Legal Services Industry, 62 Emory L.J. 909, 939–41 (2013) (discussing predictive technologies used in patent litigation).
 
126
Anthony J. Casey & Anthony Niblett, The Death of Rules and Standards, 92 Ind. L.J. 1401, 1403 (2017).
 
127
John O. McGinnis, Machines v. Lawyers, CITY J. (2014), https://​www.​city-journal.​org/​html/​machines-v-lawyers-13639.​html
 
128
Magali Sarfatti Larson, The Rise Of Professionalism 3 (1977).
 
129
Anthony D’Amato, Can/Should Computers Replace Judges? 11 Ga. L. Rev. 1277, 1300–01 (1977) (presenting computerization as a path to a more “determinable legal system”).
 
130
Civic tech is the use of technology by governments to stimulate positive interactions among citizens themselves, and between citizens and their state.
 
131
Mayur Patel et al., The Emergence of Civic Tech 6–7 (2013); see also Michael Halberstam, Beyond Transparency: Rethinking Election Reform from an Open Government Perspective, 38 Seattle U. L. Rev. 1007, 1009–10 (2015) (discussing Open Government movement to increase transparency).
 
132
Frank Pasquale & Glyn Cashwell, Prediction, Persuasion, and the Jurisprudence of Behaviorism, 68 U. Toronto L.J. 63, 80 (2018). Frank Pasquale & Glyn Cashwell, Four Futures of Legal Automation, 63 UCLA L. Rev. Discourse 26, 28 (2015).
 
133
Sarah B. Lawsky, Formalizing the Code, 70 Tax L. Rev. 377, 379 (2017).
 
134
Ozkan Eren & Naci Mocan, Abstract, Emotional Judges and Unlucky Juveniles (Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Research, Working Paper No. 22611, 2016), http://​www.​nber.​org/​papers/​w22611.​pdf (finding that unexpected losses in “football games played by a prominent college team in the state … increase disposition (sentence) lengths assigned by judges during the week following the game”).
 
135
J.C. Smith, Machine Intelligence and Legal Reasoning, 73 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 277, 278 (1998) (“From the perspective of the lawyer, we have the concept of the rule of law, as contrasted with the rule of persons; thus, in some sense.”).
 
136
Margaret Jane Radin, Reconsidering the Rule of Law, 69 B.U. L. Rev. 781, 781 (1989) (explaining that “[t]he ideal of “the rule of law, not of men” calls upon us to strive to ensure that our law itself will rule (govern) us, not the wishes of powerful individuals”.
 
137
Pedro Domingos, The Master Algorithm 12–20 (2015) (discussing how integration of five schools of machine learning may lead to rapid advances in computing).
 
138
Margaret Jane Radin, Reconsidering the Rule of Law, 69 B.U. L. Rev. 781, 781 (1989).
 
139
Craig Lambert, Shadow Work 201–50 (2016) (discussing shadow work on the internet, such as offering free information through customer reviews that may be monetized through, for example, Zagat guides).
 
141
Boosting Procurement Efficiency Through Automation, SYNERGIST.IO (June 29, 2018), https://​synergist.​io/​procurement-automation/​ (automating procurement led to “reducing legal spending in this area by 75%”).
 
142
David Howarth, Is Law a Humanity (or Is it More Like Engineering)? 3 Arts & Human. Higher Educ. 9, 11–12 (2004). David Howarth, Law As Engineering 61–73 (2014).
 
143
David Golumbia, The Cultural Logic Of Computation 78 (2009).
 
144
Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, Big Data and Predictive Reasonable Suspicion, 163 U. PA. L. REV. 327, 350–51 (2015), Elizabeth E. Joh, Policing Police Robots, 64 UCLA L. Rev. Discourse 516, 519 (2016).
 
145
Riva Richmond, Facebook’s New Way to Combat Child Pornography, N.Y. Times: Gadgetwise https://​gadgetwise.​blogs.​nytimes.​com/​2011/​05/​19/​facebook-to-combat-child-porn-using-microsofts-technology/​ Jennifer Langston, How PhotoDNA for Video Is Being Used to Fight Online Child Exploitation, Microsoft https://​news.​microsoft.​com/​on-the-issues/​2018/​09/​12/​how-photodna-forvideo-is-being-used-to-fight-online-child-exploitation/​
 
146
Ashley Deeks, The Judicial Demand for Explainable Artificial Intelligence, 119 Colum. L. Rev. 1829, 1832–38 (2019).
 
147
Γ. Ζέκος, Εξελιγμένη τεχνητή νοημοσύνη και Robo-δικαστήρια, Αρμενόπουλος 6/2021 p 1093 https://​www.​dsth.​gr/​armenopoulos-intro
 
148
John O. McGinnis & Russell G. Pearce, The Great Disruption: How Machine Intelligence Will Transform the Role of Lawyers in the Delivery of Legal Services, 82 Fordham L. Rev. 3041, 3041–42 (2013). Richard Susskind & Daniel Susskind, The Future Of The Professions 202 (2015) (describing computerized drafting of legal and other documents).
 
149
Benjamin Alarie, The Path of the Law: Towards Legal Singularity, 66 U. Toronto L.J. 443, 445 (2016); Benjamin Alarie et al., Law in the Future, 66 U. Toronto L.J. 423, 427–28 (2016). Tom Meltzer, Robot Doctors, Online Lawyers and Automated Architects: the Future of the Professions?, GUARDIAN (June 15, 2014, 2:00 PM), https://​www.​theguardian.​com/​technology/​2014/​jun/​15/​robot-doctors-online-lawyers-automated-architects-future-professionsjobs-technology
 
150
Richard H. Fallon, Jr., “The Rule of Law” as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 5 (1997) (describing these “ideal types … as (i) historicist, (ii) formalist, (iii) Legal Process, and (iv) substantive”).
 
151
Martin Ford, Rise Of The Robots 1–27 (2015). Ray Kurzweil, The Age Of Spiritual Machines 2–4 (2000); Nick Srnicek & Alex Williams, Inventing The Future: Post capitalism And A World Without Work 2–3 (2015).
 
152
Paul F. Kirgis, The Knowledge Guild: The Legal Profession in an Age of Technological Change, 11 Nev. L.J. 184, 184 (2010) ((“Susskind offers no evidence to support his claim that greater automation of legal work will result in less demand for human legal services. In fact, the evidence suggests that productivity increases in knowledge industries increase demand for those knowledge goods.”). Frank Pasquale, Two Concepts of Immortality: Reframing Public Debate on StemCell Research, 14 Yale J.L. & Human. 73, 75–76 (2002) (critiquing the “downloading” of memory, intellect, and will onto hardware or software).
 
153
Richard H. Fallon, Jr., “The Rule of Law” as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 5 (1997) Fallon’s list of aspects of Legal Process conceptions of the rule of law is drawn from the locus classicus of the Legal Process approach. Id. (citing Henry M. Hart, Jr. & Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process 4–5, 152–53, 157–58, 695 (William N. Eskridge, Jr. & Philip P. Frickey eds., 1994)).
 
154
Donald A. Dripps, Justice Harlan on Criminal Procedure: Two Cheers for the Legal Process School, 3 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 125, 126 (2005); Laura Kalman, The Strange Career of Legal Liberalism 20 (1996) (describing emergence of the Legal Process school).
 
155
Case C-131/12 Google Spain SL v Mario Costeja González [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:317, para 47, https://​eurlex.​europa.​eu/​legal-content/​EN/​TXT/​?​uri=​CELEX%3A62012CJ0131
 
156
Jürgen Kühling, “Rückkehr des Rechts: Verpflichtung von „Google & Co.“zu Datenschutz” [2014] Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 527.
 
157
The High Court’s Brexit Decision: A Lesson in Constitutional Law for the UK Government, in: Verfassungsblog – On matters constitutional, 3. November 2016, https://​verfassungsblog.​de/​the-high-courts-brexit-decision-a-lesson-inconstitutional​-law-for-the-uk-government/​. judgements in cases C-355/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:516, European Parliament v. Council, para 64ff, https://​eurlex.​europa.​eu/​legalcontent/​EN/​TXT/​?​qid=​1534186617433&​uri=​CELEX:​62010CJ0355, and C-293/12 and 594/12/, ECLI:EU:C:2014:238, Digital Rights Ireland, para 54ff, http://​curia.​europa.​eu/​juris/​documents.​jsf?​num=​C-293/​12
 
158
Microsoft Says AI Advances Will Require New Laws, Regulations, Bloomberg 18. January 2018, https://​www.​bloomberg.​com/​news/​articles/​2018-01-18/​microsoft-says-ai-advances-will-require-new-laws-regulations
 
159
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1–88, https://​eur-lex.​europa.​eu/​eli/​reg/​2016/​679/​oj
 
160
European Commission, “Shaping Europe’s digital future: Digital Privacy”, https://​ec.​europa.​eu/​digital-single-market/​en/​online-privacy
 
161
Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL. European Commission. Brussels, 21.4.2021. COM(2021) 206 final. 2021/0106 (COD) https://​digital-strategy.​ec.​europa.​eu/​en/​library/​proposal-regulationeurope​an-approach-artificial-intelligence
 
162
Guy Aridor, Yeon-Koo Che & Tobias Salz, The Effect of Privacy Regulation on the Data Industry: Empirical Evidence from GDPR, FED. TRADE COMM’N 1–4 (June 9, 2020), https://​www.​ftc.​gov/​system/​files/​documents/​public_​events/​1548288/​privacycon-2020-guy_​aridor.​pdf
 
163
John Locke, Of Civil Government Second Treatise 67, 68, Introduction by Russell Kirk, (Henry Regnery 1955).
 
164
Gunther Teubner, Law As An Autopoietic System 45–46 (1993). Niklas Luhmann, Law As A Social System 464 (trans. Klaus A. Ziegert, 2004).
 
165
Lawrence M. Friedman, American Law 257 (1984) “Law carries a powerful stick: the threat of force. This is the first inside its velvet glove”.
 
166
Thomas O. Sargentich, The Contemporary Debate About Legislative-Executive Separation of Powers, 72 Corn. L. Rev. 430, 450 (1987) (“A close relation between the rule of law and separation of powers is evident in both the liberal and democratic elements of liberal democratic theory.”).
 
167
G Marcus and E Davis, Rebooting AI: Building Artificial Intelligence We Can Trust (Pantheon 2019); D Spiegelhalter, The Art of Statistics: Learning from Data (Pelican 2019) 143–187.
 
168
M Loughlin, “The erosion of sovereignty” (2016).
 
169
T O’Reilly, “Government as a Platform” (2010) 6 Innovations 1. M Goede, “E-Estonia: The e-government cases of Estonia, Singapore, and Curaçao”(2019) 8 Archives of 20 Business Research 2.
 
170
Zuboff S (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. London: Profile Books.
 
171
Jacques Crémer et al., European Comm’n, Competition Policy for the Digital Era 6 (2019), http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​competition/​publications/​reports/​kd0419345enn.​pdf
 
172
Espinoza, J (2020) EU targets Big Tech with “hit list” facing tougher rules. Financial Times, 11 October.
 
173
Tim Wu and Stuart A. Thompson, “The Roots of Big Tech Run Disturbingly Deep,” The New York Times, June 7, 2019, https://​www.​nytimes.​com/​interactive/​2019/​06/​07/​opinion/​google-facebook-mergers-acquisitionsanti​trust.​html
 
174
Alexandra Bruell, “Amazon Forecast to Be No. 3 Digital Advertising Player in 2018,” The Wall Street Journal, September 19, 2018, https://​www.​wsj.​com/​articles/​amazon-forecast-to-be-no-3-digital-advertising-player-in-2018-1537351201?​mod=​article_​inline
 
175
Matt Day and Jackie Gu, “The Enormous Numbers Behind Amazon’s Market Reach,” Bloomberg, March 27, 2019; https://​www.​bloomberg.​com/​graphics/​2019-amazon-reach-across-markets/​
 
176
Espinoza, J (2020) EU targets Big Tech with “hit list” facing tougher rules. Financial Times, 11 October. https://​www.​ft.​com/​content/​c8c5d5dc-cb99-4b1f-a8dd-5957b57a7783 McNamee, R (2020) A historic antitrust hearing in Congress has put big tech on notice. The Guardian, 21 July. https://​www.​theguardian.​com/​commentisfree/​2020/​jul/​31/​big-tech-house-historic-antitrust-hearing-times-have-changed
 
177
Rodrigo Fernandez, Ilke Adriaans, Tobias J. Klinge and Reijer Hendrikse, Engineering digital monopolies The financialisation of Big Tech December 2020 SOMO.
 
178
Alexiadis, P. & de Streel, A. (2020), “Designing an EU intervention standard for digital platforms,” Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Florence School of Regulation. RSCAS 2020/14.
 
179
Case AT.39740 Google Search (Shopping) and the ongoing proceedings against Amazon (See case AT.40462 Amazon Marketplace) and Apple (See cases AT.40437 Apple - App Store Practices (music streaming) and AT.40652 Apple - App Store Practices (e-books/audiobooks).
 
180
Axel Gautier, Leonardo Madio, Shiva Shekhar, Platform duality and network externalities, 2021 p25.
 
181
Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Ramon Ramirez, Elizabeth Warren Champions Michelob Ultra, Breaking Up Amazon at SXSW, Daily Dot (Mar. 9, 2019), https://​www.​dailydot.​com/​layer8/​elizabethwarren-john-kasich-sxsw/​
 
182
MB Chalmers, “SmartLaw 2.0: The new future of law” (Lexology, 22 August 2018) . M Tegmark, Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (Allen Lane 2017) 105.
 
183
RA Posner, How Judges Think (Harvard University Press 2008).
 
184
E Volokh, “Chief Justice Robots” (2019) 68 Duke Law Journal 1135, 1138.
 
185
G Sartor and LK Branting, “Introduction: Judicial Applications of Artificial Intelligence” in G Sartor and LK Branting (eds) Judicial Applications of Artificial Intelligence (Springer 1998).
 
186
Alarie, Benjamin, The Path of the Law: Toward Legal Singularity (May 27, 2016). https://​doi.​org/​10.​2139/​ssrn.​2767835
 
187
P Stein, Legal Evolution: The Story of an Idea (Cambridge University Press 2009); S Deakin, “Legal Evolution: Integrating Economic and Systemic Approaches,” University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 41/2011 (2011).
 
188
J Habermas, On the Logic of the Social Sciences (1967) cited in W Outhwaite, Habermas: Key Contemporary Thinkers (second ed., Polity Press 2009). H Ross, Law as a Social Institution (Hart 2001).
 
189
P Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power (Harvard University Press 1991).
 
190
HLA Hart, The Concept of Law (third ed., Oxford University Press 2012).
 
191
State of Wisconsin v Loomis 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016); H-W Liu, C Fu and Y-J Chen, “Beyond State v Loomis: Artificial Intelligence, Government Algorithmization and Accountability” (2019) 27 International Journal of Law and Information Technology 2; R Yu and RS Alo, “What’s Inside the Black Box? AI Challenges for Lawyers and Researchers” (2019) 19 Legal Information Management 1.
 
192
M Hildebrandt, “Law as computation in the era of artificial legal intelligence: Speaking law to the power of statistics” (2017).
 
193
Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 251 (1949) (describing the “grave responsibility” of sentencing).
 
194
Eric Holder, Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Address at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 57th Annual Meeting and 13th State Criminal Justice Network Conference (Aug. 1, 2014), https://​www.​justice.​gov/​opa/​speech/​attorney-general-eric-holder-speaks-national-association-criminal-defense-lawyers-57th (cautioning that recidivism risk assessments “may exacerbate unwarranted and unjust disparities”).
 
195
State v. Loomis881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016) Wisconsin Supreme Court Requires Warning Before Use of Algorithmic Risk Assessments in Sentencing. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s mandated PSI advisement is a critical—though likely ineffectual—acknowledgement of the potential problems of algorithmic risk assessments. https://​harvardlawreview​.​org/​2017/​03/​state-v-loomis/​
 
196
M Annany and K Crawford, “Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability” (2018) 20 New Media & Society 3; J Pearl and D MacKenzie, The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect (Penguin 2018) 358.
 
197
P Boucher, “Leibniz: What Kind of Legal Rationalism?” in M Dascal (ed) Leibniz: What Kind of Rationalist? (Springer 2008).
 
198
CP Wells, “Langdell and the Invention of Legal Doctrine” (2010) 28 Buffalo Law Review 3. CC Langdell, Cases on Contracts (Little Brown & Co. 1871), vi. MH Hoeflich, “Langdell and the Invention of Legal Doctrine,” (1986) 30 The American Journal of Legal 83 History 2.
 
199
OW Holmes, The Common Law (Little Brown & Co. 1881) 1. OW Holmes, “The Path of the Law” (1897) 110 Harvard Law Review 5, 997. MH Fisch, “Justice Holmes, the Prediction Theory of Law, and Pragmatism” (1942) 39 The Journal of Philosophy 4; RA Posner, “The Path Away from the Law”(1996) 110 Harvard Law Review 1039.
 
200
S Brewer, “Law, Logic, and Leibniz: A Contemporary Perspective,” in A Artosi, B Pieri and G Sartor (eds) Leibniz: Logico-Philosophical Puzzles in the Law (Springer 2013).
 
201
R Pound, “Mechanical Jurisprudence,” Columbia Law Review 8 no. 605 (1908).
 
202
SR Ratner, “Legal Realism School,” in R Wolfrum (ed) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law 89 Online (Oxford University Press, 2007).
 
203
KN Llewellyn, The Bramble Bush: The Classic Lectures on the Law and Law School (Oxford University Press, [1930] 2008).
 
204
J Dewey, “Logical Method and Law” (1924) 10 Cornell Law Review 1, 25. C Gray, The Nature and Sources of Law (Columbia University Press 1909); R Pound, “Justice According to Law” (1914) 1 The Midwest Quarterly 3.
 
205
J McCarthy, “Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine, Part 94 I”(1960), http://​www-formal.​stanford.​edu/​jmc/​recursive.​pdf; cf. SL Andersen, “John McCarthy: Father of AI” (2002) 17 IEEE Intelligent Systems 5. J McCarthy, “Philosophical and Scientific Presuppositions of Logical AI,” in HJ Levesque and F Pirri (eds).
 
206
Hart, The Concept of Law, 124–154. WG Popp and B Schlink, “Judith, A Computer Program to Advise Lawyers in Reasoning a Case” (1974) 15 Jurimetrics Journal 303.
 
207
MZ Bell, “Why Expert Systems Fail” (1985) 36 Journal of the Operational Research Society 7 (1985).
 
208
P Leith, “Fundamental Errors in Legal Logic Programming”(1986) 29 The Computer Journal 6. M Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension (Rev ed., University of Chicago Press 2009) 3–25.
 
209
JE Laird, C Lebiere and PS Rosenbloom, “A Standard Model of the Mind: Toward a Common Computational Framework Across Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Science, Neuroscience, and Robotics” (2017) 38 AI Magazine 4.
 
210
David Spiegelhalte, The Art of Statistics: Learning from Data (Pelican Books) March 28, 2019.
 
211
PS Churchland, “Can Neurobiology Teach Us Anything About Self Consciousness?” (1994) 42 Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 3; M Allen and KJ Friston, “From cognitivism to autopoiesis: towards a computational framework for the embodied mind” (2018) 195 Synthese 6 (2018).
 
212
John MacCormick, What Can Be Computed?: A Practical Guide to the Theory of Computation, Princeton University Press.
 
213
J Schmidhüber, “Algorithmic Theories of Everything” (2000) https://​arxiv.​org/​abs/​quant-ph/​0011122; P Hut, M Alford and M Tegmark, “On Math, Matter and Mind” (2006) 36 Foundations of Physics 6.
 
214
L Floridi, “Against Digital Ontology” (2009) 168 Synthese 1. J Smithies, The Digital Humanities and the Digital Modern (Palgrave 2017) Hildebrandt, Mireille, Law as Computation in the Era of Artificial Legal Intelligence: Speaking law to the power of statistics. / In: University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 68, No. 1, 2, 2018, p. 12–35.
 
215
Alain Supiot’s identification of (the “anthropological function” of law as a “technique [for the] humanization of technology,” contend that the replacement of juridical reasoning with computation would ultimately result in the subordination of the “rule of law” to a new “rule of technology”.) Homo Juridicus: On the Anthropological Function of Law By Alain Supiot. London, New York: Verso, 2007.
 
217
Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice provides that the Court may judge according to criteria of equity rather than by applying the law. This so-called contra legem equity serves as an alternative to cases in which the application of the law may lead to an unfair result.
 
218
According to Winfield, “Humans have several different kinds of intelligence – all of which combine to make us human”.
 
219
Winfield, A. (2019). On the simulation (and energy costs) of human intelligence, the singularity and simulationism. In A. Adamatzky, & V. Kendon (Eds.), From astrophysics to unconventional computation. Emergence, complexity and computation (Vol. 35). Cham: Springer.
 
220
Smith, B., & Browne, C. A. (2019). Tools and weapons. The promise and the peril of the digital age. Penguin Press, 2019. Surden, H. (2019). Artificial intelligence and law: An overview. Georgia State University Law Review, 35(4), 1304–1337.
 
221
Roger Brownsword, Law, Technology and Society: Re-Imagining the Regulatory Environment 181 (2019).
 
222
Maayan Perel & Niva Elkin-Koren, Black Box Tinkering: Beyond Disclosure in Algorithmic Enforcement, 69 FLA. L. REV. 181, 189 (2017).
 
223
Nicolas P. Suzor, Lawless: The Secret Rules That Govern Our Digital Lives 72 (2019) (“Automated copyright detection systems have now been built into many other services on the Internet. Facebook has developed its own detection systems, and companies like Audible Magic produce software that has been adopted by many platforms.”).
 
224
17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v) (2018) (requiring “[a] statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law”).
 
225
Sonia K. Katyal, Private Accountability in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, 66 UCLA L. Rev. 54, 65 (2019) (“Algorithms hold tremendous value. Big data promise significant benefits to the economy . . . .”).
 
226
United States v. Athlone Indus., Inc., 746 F.2d 977, 979 (3d Cir. 1984) (“Robots cannot be sued.”); U. Pagallo, Killers, Fridges, and Slaves: A Legal Journey in Robotics, 26 AI & SOC’Y 347, 349 (2011) (“[C]ommon legal standpoint excludes robots of any kind from criminal responsibility.”).
 
227
Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1; United States v. Wise, 370 U.S. 405, 416 (1962) (“[A] corporate officer is subject to prosecution under s 1 of the Sherman Act whenever he knowingly participates in effecting the illegal contract, combination, or conspiracy.”).
 
228
Hawkins, J. (2017). What intelligent machines need to learn from the neocortex. https://​spectrum.​org/​computing/​software/​what-intelligent-machinesneed-to-learn-from-the-neocortex
 
229
High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (AI HLEG). (2018). Draft ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. https://​ec.​europa.​eu/​knowledge4policy​/​publication/​draft-ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai_​en. High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (AI HLEG). (2019). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. Available at: https://​ec.​europa.​eu/​futurium/​en/​ai-allianceconsulta​tion
 
230
https://​ec.​europa.​eu/​digital-single-market/​en/​news/​ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai. Winfield, A. (2019). On the simulation (and energy costs) of human intelligence, the singularity and simulationism. In A. Adamatzky, & V. Kendon (Eds.), From astrophysics to unconventional computation. Emergence, complexity and computation (Vol. 35). Cham: Springer.
 
231
Frank, L., & Nyholm, S. (2017). Robot sex and consent: Is consent to sex between a robot and a human conceivable, possible, and desirable). Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25, 305–323.
 
232
https://​fra.​europa.​eu/​en/​publication/​2019/​data-quality-and-artificial-intelligence-mitigating-bias-and-error-protect. Collins, R. (2019). Two idea(l)s of the international rule of law. Global Constitutionalism, 8(2), 191–226.
 
233
Yeung, K. (2019). Responsibility and AI. Council of Europe Study DGI (2919)5.
 
234
M. Ryan Calo, Open Robotics, 70 MD. L. REV. 571 (2011).
 
235
Wachter, S., & Mittelstadt, B. (2019). A right to reasonable inferences: Re-thinking data protection law in the age of big data and AI. Columbia Business Law Review, 1, 1–130.
 
237
Cheng Mo, Wei Sun, Point-by-point feature extraction of artificial intelligence images based on the Internet of Things Computer Communications 159 (2020) 1–8.
 
238
977 F.2d 1510 (ninth Cir. 1992).
 
240
G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, at 76 (Dec. 10, 1948). Yvonne Donders, The Right to Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress: In Search of State Obligations in Relation to Health, 14 MED. HEALTH CARE & PHIL. 371, 371 (2011), https://​www.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​pmc/​articles/​PMC3190088 (“After having received little attention over the past decades, one of the least known human rights provisions in international human rights law—the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications—has had its dust blown off.”) (citations omitted); Jessica M. Wyndham & Margaret Weigers Vitullo, Why the Right to Science Matters for Everyone, OPENDEMOCRACY (Apr. 20, 2017), https://​www.​opendemocracy.​net/​jessicam-wyndham-margaret-weigers-vitullo/​why-right-to-science-matters-for-everyone (“Although nearly 70 years have passed since this right to science was first [articulated], the implications of the right and its meaning for individuals and governments have never been fully articulated.”).
 
241
Haochen Sun, The Fundamental Right To Technology https://​ssrn.​com/​abstract=​3635947 p445 Amber Miekle, Technology Justice: A Call To Action (2016), https://​infohub.​practicalaction.​org/​
 
242
Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001, 2006, 2011–12 (2015); United States v. Am. Library Ass’n, 539 U.S. 194, 205–06 (2003). Washington v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 318 F. Supp. 3d 1247, 1251, 1263–64 (W.D. Wash. 2018); Gina Martinez, Why the Legal Battle over 3D-Printed Guns May Prove Futile, TIME (Aug. 1, 2018), http://​time.​com/​5354963/​3d-printed-guns-hard-to-stop. Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2217–20 (2018); Adam Liptak, In Ruling on Cellphone Location Data, Supreme Court Makes Statement on Digital Privacy, N.Y. TIMES (June 22, 2018), https://​www.​nytimes.​com/​2018/​06/​22/​us/​politics/​supreme-court-warrants-cellphone-privacy.​html
 
243
521 U.S. 844 (1997) Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Patents and Human Rights: The Paradox Re-Examined, in Intellectual Property And Access To Science And Culture: Convergence Or Conflict? 65, 65 (Christophe Geiger ed., 2016) (arguing that the right to technology “extends only to basic technologies, such as medicines, transportation, telephones, and computers—as opposed to Ferraris, smartphones, high-definition televisions, Roombas or Fitbits”).
 
244
137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017).
 
245
412 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Nev. 2006). The Court summarized its fair use ruling as follows: [T]he first fair use factor weighs heavily in Google’s favor because its “Cached” links are highly transformative. The second fair use factor weighs only slightly against fair use because Field made his works available in their entirety for free to the widest possible audience. The third fair use factor is neutral, as Google used no more of the copyrighted works than was necessary to serve its transformative purposes. The fourth fair use factor cuts strongly in favor of fair use in the absence of any evidence of an impact on a potential market for Field’s copyrighted works. A fifth factor, a comparison of the equities, likewise favors fair use. A balance of all of these factors demonstrates that if Google copies or distributes Field’s copyrighted works by allowing access to them through “Cached” links, Google’s conduct is fair use of those works as a matter of law.
 
246
336 F.3d 811 (ninth Cir. 2003). 508 F.3d 1146 (ninth Cir. 2007) (ruling that “a search engine provides social benefit by incorporating an original work into a new work, namely, an electronic reference tool”).
 
247
977 F.2d 1510 (ninth Cir. 1992). at 1523 (ruling that reverse engineering “has led to an increase in the number of independently designed video game programs offered for use with the [plaintiff’s] console”); Pamela Samuelson & Suzanne Scotchmer, The Law and Economics of Reverse Engineering, 111 Yale L.J. 1575, 1608–09 (2002) (“From this approximation of source code, reverse engineers can discern or deduce internal design details of the program such as information necessary to develop a program that will interoperate with the decompiled or disassembled program.”).
 
248
No. 2:10-cv-1036-LRH-PAL, 2010 WL 4115413 (D. Nev. Oct. 19, 2010). Ali Breland, How White Engineers Built Racist Code – and Why It’s Dangerous for Black People, The Guardian (Dec. 4, 2017), (“facial recognition software has problems recognizing black faces because its algorithms are usually written by white engineers who dominate the technology sector. These engineers build on pre-existing code libraries, typically written by other white engineers.”).
 
249
Drew Harwell, Federal Study Confirms Racial Bias of Many Facial-Recognition Systems, Casts Doubt on Their Expanding Use, Wash. Post (Dec. 20, 2019).
 
250
Daniel E. Ho, Emily Black, Maneesh Agrawala, & Li Fei-Fei, Evaluating Facial Recognition Technology: A Protocol For Performance Assessment In New Domains, 2021 Denver Law Review 753 [Vol. 98.4.
 
251
U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
 
252
Barton Beebe, Bleistein, The Problem of Aesthetic Progress, and the Making of American Copyright Law, 117 Colum. L. Rev. 319, 341 (2017).
 
253
561 U.S. 593, 130 S. Ct. 3218.
 
254
Kesan J. and Wang R., 2020. Eligible subject matter at the patent office: An empirical study of the influence of Alice on patent examiners and patent applications. Minnesota Law Review, 105(2). Harris, S., Trippe, A., Challis, D. and Swycher, N., 2020. Construction and evaluation of gold standards for patent classification—A case study on quantum computing. World Patent Information, 61, p. 101961.
 
255
561 U.S. 593, 634 (2010).
 
256
464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984).
 
257
Christopher Kalanje, Leveraging Intellectual Property: Beyond the “Right to Exclude,” WIPO, https://​www.​wipo.​int/​sme/​en/​documents/​leveraging_​ip_​fulltext.​html
 
258
565 U.S. 302 (2012). Haochen Sun, Copyright and Responsibility, 4 Harv.J. Sports & Ent. L. 263, 297 (2013).
 
259
Haochen Sun, The Fundamental Right To Technology https://​ssrn.​com/​abstract=​3635947 P 480.
 
261
Brett Frischmann & Evan Selinger, Re-Engineering Humanity 1 (2018).
 
262
Sergio Gramitto, The Technology and Archeology of Corporate Law 32 (Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 18–40, 2018), https://​papers.​ssrn.​com/​sol3/​papers.​cfm?​abstract_​id=​3232816
 
263
https://​papers.​ssrn.​com/​sol3/​papers.​cfm?​abstract_​id=​2992804 (observing that); Christoph Van der Elst & Anne Lafarre, Blockchain and Smart Contracting for the Shareholder Community, 20 Eur. Bus. Org. L. Rev. 111 (2019).
 
264
Florian Möslein, Robots in the boardroom: artificial intelligence and corporate law, in Research Handbook On The Law Of Artificial Intelligence 649, 657–66 (Woodrow Barfield & Ugo Pagallo eds., 2019.
 
265
Ronald J. Gilson, From Corporate Law to Corporate Governance, in The Oxford Handbook Of Corporate Law And Governance 3, 15–22 (Jeffrey N. Gordon & Wolf-Georg Ringe eds., 2018).
 
266
Mireille Hildebrandt, Primitives of Legal Protection in the Era of Data-Driven Platforms, 2 Geo. L. Tech. Rev. 252, 254–55 (2018) (drawing parallels between modern day platforms, the Greek agora, and the Roman forum as spaces for market exchanges, political discourse, and other forms of expression).
 
267
Martin Petrin, Corporate Management in the Age of AI, 2019 Colum. Bus. L. Rev. 965, 966–68.
 
268
Chiara Picciau, The (Un)Predictable Impact of Technology on Corporate Governance at: https://​ssrn.​com/​abstract=​3643500 P 64 Jill E. Fisch & Simone M. Sepe, Shareholder Collaboration, 98 Tex. L. Rev. 863 (2020) (arguing that collaboration between insiders and institutional investors could be firm-value enhancing by aggregating the partial and complementary information in their possession). Broadridge, Virtual Shareholder Meetings. 2019 Facts And Figures 3 (2020), https://​www.​broadridge.​com/​_​assets/​pdf/​broadridge-virtualsharehold​er-meetings-2019-facts-and-figures.​pdf
 
269
Digital Rights Ireland v. Minister for Communications, CJEU, Joined Cases C-293/12 & C-594/12,, (Apr. 8, 2014).
 
270
CJEU, Case C-207/16, Ministerio Fiscal, 2 October 2018, points 56 and 57”. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, serious interference can be justified, in areas of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, only by the objective of fighting crime which must also be defined as “serious.” By contrast, when the interference that such access entails is not serious, that access is capable of being justified by the objective of preventing, investigating, detecting and prosecuting “criminal offences’ generally.” Secretary of State v. Watson, CJEU, Joined Cases C-203/15 & C-698/15, (Dec. 21, 2016).
 
271
Rb. Den Haag 5 February 2020 (Nederlands Juristen Comité voor de Mensenrechten/Staat Der Nederlanden) (Neth.), https://​uitspraken.​rechtspraak.​nl/​inziendocument?​id=​ECLI:​NL:​RBDHA:​2020:​865 Netherlands law allows the government to collect data from various government databases so as to create risk profiles showing the likelihood that a given individual is cheating on social security benefits.
 
272
Eugene Volokh, Chief Justice Robots, 68 Duke L.J. 1135 (2019); Tim Wu, Will Artificial Intelligence Eat the Law? The Rise of Hybrid Social-Ordering Systems, 119 Colum. L. Rev. 2001 (2019).
 
273
Timothy K. Armstrong, Digital Rights Management and the Process of Fair Use, 20 Harv.J.L. &Tech. 49, 56 (2006) (“[Digital rights management] mechanisms engineered to protect fair use rights are in the long-term interests of both content providers and consumers.”); Niva Elkin-Koren, Fair Use by Design, 64 UCLA L. Rev. 1082, 1085 (2017) (“[T]he checks that [fair use] intends to create on the rights of authors must . . . be embedded in the design of online systems.”); Jeff Desjardins, How Much Data Is Generated Each Day?, World Econ. F. (Apr. 17, 2019), https://​www.​weforum.​org/​agenda/​2019/​04/​how-much-data-is-generated-each-day-cf4bddf29f/​
 
274
Edward W. Felten, A Skeptical View of DRM and Fair Use, Comm. Acm, Apr. 2003, at 57, 58 (“A [digital rights management system] that gets all fair use judgments right would in effect be a “judge on a chip” predicting with high accuracy how a real judge would decide a lawsuit challenging a particular use. Clearly, this is infeasible with today’s technology.”); Julie E. Cohen, Between Truth And Power: The Legal Constructions Of Informational Capitalism 192 (2019) (“Automated processes have obvious efficiency advantages, but such processes may not align well (or at all) with applicable legal requirements that are couched in shades of gray.”).
 
275
J Dewey, “The Historic Background of Corporate Legal Personality” (1926) 35 Yale LJ 660.
 
276
VAJ Kurki, A Theory of Legal Personhood (OUP 2019) Bumper Development Corp. v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1991] 1 WLR 1362 (recognizing legal personality of an Indian temple under English law).
 
277
Automated Vehicles: A Joint Preliminary Consultation Paper (Law Commission, Consultation Paper No. 240; Scottish Law Commission, Discussion Paper No 166, 2018).
 
278
V Morawetz, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (Little, Brown 1886) 2 (“the fact remains self-evident that a corporation is not in reality a person or a thing distinct from its constituent parts. The word corporation is but a collective name for the corporators”).
 
279
S Bayern, “Of Bitcoins, Independently Wealthy Software, and the Zero-Member LLC” (2014) 108 Northwestern U L Rev. 1495–500.
 
280
S Bayern, “The Implications of Modern Business-Entity Law for the Regulation of Autonomous Systems” (2015) 19 Stanford Technology L Rev. 101.
 
281
CE Amsler, RL Bartlett, and CJ Bolton, “Thoughts of Some British Economists on Early Limited Liability and Corporate Legislation” (1981) 13 History of Political Economy 774; G Dari-Mattiacci et al., “The Emergence of the Corporate Form” (2017) 33 J of L, Economics and Organization 193.
 
282
K Iwai, “Persons, Things and Corporations: The Corporate Personality Controversy and Comparative Corporate Governance” (1999) 47 AJCL 583; SM Watson, “The Corporate Legal Person” (2019) 19 J Corporate L Studies 137.
 
283
S Chesterman, “Does ASEAN Exist? The Association of Southeast Asian Nations as an International Legal Person” (2008) XII Singapore Year Book of International Law 199. Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 US 310 (corporations are not members of society and that there are compelling governmental interests to curb corporations’ ability to spend money during local and national elections.) (corporations are not members of society and that there are compelling governmental interests to curb corporations’ ability to spend money during local and national elections.).
 
284
European Parliament Resolution with Recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)) (European Parliament, 16 February 2017), para 59(f).
 
285
Ziemianin, K. (2021). Civil legal personality of artificial intelligence. Future or utopia?. Internet Policy Review, 10(2). https://​doi.​org/​10.​14763/​2021.​2.​1544 P 19.
 
286
KS Abraham and RL Rabin, “Automated Vehicles and Manufacturer Responsibility for Accidents: A New Legal Regime for a New Era” (2019) 105 Virginia L Rev. 127.
 
287
7 JJ Bryson, ME Diamantis, and TD Grant, “Of, for, and by the People: The Legal Lacuna of Synthetic Persons” (2017) 25 Artificial Intelligence and Law 280.
 
288
JW Yockey, “Beyond Yates: From Engagement to Accountability in Corporate Crime” (2016) 12 New York U J of L and Business 412–413.
 
289
C Mulligan, “Revenge Against Robots” (2018) 69 South Carolina L Rev. 579; WR Thomas, “Incapacitating Criminal Corporations” (2019) 72 Vanderbilt L Rev. 905.
 
290
MA Lemley and B Casey, “Remedies for Robots” (2019) 86 U Chicago L Rev. 1370. RA Guttman, “Effective Compliance Means Imposing Individual Liability” (2018) 5 Emory Corporate Governance and Accountability Rev. 77. 65.
 
291
SM Solaiman, “Legal Personality of Robots, Corporations, Idols and Chimpanzees: A Quest for Legitimacy” (2017) 25 Artificial Intelligence and Law 174.
 
292
E Hildt, “Artificial Intelligence: Does Consciousness Matter?” (2019) 10(1535) Frontiers in Psychology, 1–3; G Meissner, “Artificial Intelligence: Consciousness and Conscience” (2020) 35 AI & Society 231.
 
293
Open Letter to the European Commission: Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (April 2018) J Turner, Robot Rules: Regulating Artificial Intelligence (Palgrave Macmillan 2019).
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Alexiadis, P. & de Streel, A. (2020). Designing an eu intervention standard for digital platforms. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Florence School of Regulation. RSCAS 2020/14. Alexiadis, P. & de Streel, A. (2020). Designing an eu intervention standard for digital platforms. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Florence School of Regulation. RSCAS 2020/14.
2.
go back to reference Karayiannis, A. D., & Hatzis, A. N. (2012). Morality, social norms and the rule of law as transaction cost-saving devices: the case of ancient Athens. Eur J Law Econ, 33, 621–643.CrossRef Karayiannis, A. D., & Hatzis, A. N. (2012). Morality, social norms and the rule of law as transaction cost-saving devices: the case of ancient Athens. Eur J Law Econ, 33, 621–643.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Casey, A. J., & Niblett, A. (2017). The death of rules and standards, 92 Ind. L.J. 1401, 1403. Casey, A. J., & Niblett, A. (2017). The death of rules and standards, 92 Ind. L.J. 1401, 1403.
4.
go back to reference Scalia, A. (1989). The rule of law as a law of rules, 56 U. CHI. L. Rev. 1175. Scalia, A. (1989). The rule of law as a law of rules, 56 U. CHI. L. Rev. 1175.
5.
go back to reference Deeks, A. (2019). The judicial demand for explainable artificial intelligence, 119 Colum. L. Rev. 1829, 1832–38. Deeks, A. (2019). The judicial demand for explainable artificial intelligence, 119 Colum. L. Rev. 1829, 1832–38.
6.
go back to reference Bock, E. D., Wolter, J. S., & Ferrell, O. C. (2020). Artificial intelligence: disrupting what we know about services. Journal of Service Marketing, 34(3), 317–334.CrossRef Bock, E. D., Wolter, J. S., & Ferrell, O. C. (2020). Artificial intelligence: disrupting what we know about services. Journal of Service Marketing, 34(3), 317–334.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Cukier, K. (2021). Commentary: How AI shapes consumer experiences and expectations. Journal of Marketing, 85(1), 152–155.CrossRef Cukier, K. (2021). Commentary: How AI shapes consumer experiences and expectations. Journal of Marketing, 85(1), 152–155.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference David, P. (2010). Fidler, Eastphalia emerging?: Asia, international law, and global governance. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 17(1), 7. David, P. (2010). Fidler, Eastphalia emerging?: Asia, international law, and global governance. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 17(1), 7.
9.
go back to reference Volokh, E. (2019). Chief justice robots. 68 Duke Law Journal, 1135, 1138. Volokh, E. (2019). Chief justice robots. 68 Duke Law Journal, 1135, 1138.
10.
go back to reference Fuller, L. (1969). The morality of law. Yale University Press. Fuller, L. (1969). The morality of law. Yale University Press.
12.
go back to reference Zekos, G. (2013). Constitution, arbitration and courts. Nova Science. Zekos, G. (2013). Constitution, arbitration and courts. Nova Science.
13.
go back to reference Zekos, G. (2019a). Developments on courts’ involvement in arbitration. Volume 1: The rule of law, Volume 2: Courts and law. Nova Science. Zekos, G. (2019a). Developments on courts’ involvement in arbitration. Volume 1: The rule of law, Volume 2: Courts and law. Nova Science.
14.
go back to reference Zekos, G. (2008). International commercial and marine arbitration. Routledge-Cavendish.CrossRef Zekos, G. (2008). International commercial and marine arbitration. Routledge-Cavendish.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Zekos, G. (2019b). The United States of Europe the global players. Nova Science. Zekos, G. (2019b). The United States of Europe the global players. Nova Science.
16.
go back to reference Arajärvi, N. (2018). The rule of law in the 2030 Agenda. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 10(1), 187–217.CrossRef Arajärvi, N. (2018). The rule of law in the 2030 Agenda. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 10(1), 187–217.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Gowder, P. (2016). The rule of law in the real world. Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Gowder, P. (2016). The rule of law in the real world. Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Fallon, R. H., Jr. (1997). “The rule of law” as a concept in constitutional discourse. Columbia Law Review, 97(1), 8–9.CrossRef Fallon, R. H., Jr. (1997). “The rule of law” as a concept in constitutional discourse. Columbia Law Review, 97(1), 8–9.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Sarah, B. (2017). Lawsky, formalizing the code. 70 Tax Law Review 377, 379. Sarah, B. (2017). Lawsky, formalizing the code. 70 Tax Law Review 377, 379.
20.
go back to reference Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Profile Books. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Profile Books.
Metadata
Title
AI & Demarcation of the Rule of Law
Author
Georgios I. Zekos
Copyright Year
2022
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94736-1_4

Premium Partner