Algorithmic Administrative Justice: Procedural Safeguards and Techno-Legal Standards in Crisis-Driven Digital Government

Purpose
The rapid deployment of automated decision systems in public administration has fundamentally altered the institutional foundations of administrative law. This article examines how traditional procedural safeguards, reason-giving, notice, fair hearing, and judicial review operate within algorithmic governance systems, particularly in crisis contexts such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
Design/methodology/approach
The study adopts a doctrinal and comparative legal methodology, combining analysis of administrative law with algorithmic governance studies. It examines three illustrative case studies involving automated administrative decision systems in different jurisdictions and evaluates their implications for procedural justice.
Findings
The analysis demonstrates that algorithmic decision systems frequently undermine core procedural guarantees due to opacity, reliance on statistical reasoning, and constraints on institutional capacity. Traditional procedural frameworks are therefore insufficient to govern algorithmic administration. The article proposes a framework of algorithmic administrative justice that translates legal principles into techno-legal standards embedded in system structures, including human-in-the-loop decision-making triggers, counterfactual explanations, algorithmic auditing, and enhanced data transparency.
Practical implications
The study provides policy guidance for governments deploying automated decision systems, recommending institutional reforms such as mandatory Algorithmic Impact Assessments, specialized administrative tribunals, and the integration of techno-legal expertise within public agencies.
Originality/value
The article contributes to emerging scholarship on digital administrative law by demonstrating that procedural safeguards must evolve from “procedure as process” toward “procedure as architecture,” ensuring that algorithmic governance remains compatible with principles of administrative justice

Algorithmic governance; Administrative law; Automated decision systems

1. Adams, N. P., & Greene, A. R. (2023). Legitimacy. Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6730-0_1092-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Amankwah-Amoah, J. (2020). Note: Mayday, Mayday, Mayday! Responding to environmental shocks: Insights on global airlines’ responses to COVID-19. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.102098 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Amankwah-Amoah, J., Khan, Z., Wood, G., & Knight, G. (2021). COVID-19 and digitalization: The great acceleration. Journal of Business Research, 136, 602–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2021.08.011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Ashen, M. E., Ayvaci, M. U. S., & Raghunathan, S. (2019). When Algorithmic Predictions Use Human-Generated Data: A Bias-Aware Classification Algorithm for Breast Cancer Diagnosis. Information Systems Research, 30(1), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2018.0789 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Averill, C., & Averill, C. (2024). Algorithmic Reason-Giving, Arbitrary and Capricious Review, and the Need for a Clear Normative Baseline. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 93(1), 40. https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/uclr/vol93/iss1/2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Ball, S., & Hannah, A. (2025). Robodebt: administrative harm and Australian social policy. Australian Journal of Political Science, 60(2), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2025.2542739 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Barocas, S., Selbst, A. D., Bambauer, J., Bedoya, A., Blumenthal, M., Citron, D., Grimmelmann, J., Hardt, M., Herzog, D., Hiller, J., Hoofnagle, C., Huey, J., Ishizuka, P., Kirkpatrick, M., Konopasky, A., Kroll, J., Maccarthy, M., Narayanan, A., Norton, H., … Vladeck, D. (2016). Big Data’s Disparate Impact. California Law Review, 104(3), 671. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38BG31 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Binns, R. (2017). Algorithmic Accountability and Public Reason. Philosophy & Technology 2017 31:4, 31(4), 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13347-017-0263-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Böök, B., & Senden, L. (2025). The puzzle of algorithmic discrimination in European equality law: Putting together some practical, legal and conceptual pieces in: Research Handbook on European Anti-Discrimination Law. In Research Handbook on European Anti-Discrimination Law (pp. 482–509). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781789906318/chapter24.xml [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Borgesano, F., De Maio, A., Laghi, P., & Musmanno, R. (2025). Artificial intelligence and justice: a systematic literature review and future research perspectives on Justice 5.0. European Journal of Innovation Management, 28(11), 349–385. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2025-0117 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00168;WGROUP:STRING:PUBLICATION [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Breidbach, C. F. (2024). Responsible algorithmic decision-making. Organizational Dynamics, 53(2), 101031. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ORGDYN.2024.101031 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Burlea-Schiopoiu, A., Borcan, I., & Dragan, C. O. (2023). The Impact of the COVID-19 Crisis on the Digital Transformation of Organizations. Electronics 2023, Vol. 12, 12(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/ELECTRONICS12051205 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Butler, O. (2025). Algorithmic Decision-Making, Delegation and the Modern Machinery of Government. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 45(3), 727. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqaf018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Cameron, M. (2025, November 9). Understanding Due Process: Legal Definition And Fundamental Rights Explained . Law Shun. https://lawshun.com/article/what-is-the-definition-of-due-process-of-law [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Carter, L., Desouza, K. C., Dawson, G. S., & Pardo, T. (2024). Digital transformation of the public sector: Designing strategic information systems. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 33(3), 101853. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSIS.2024.101853 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Case C-634/21 (December 7, 2023). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62021CJ0634_RES [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Clarke, R., Michael, K., & Abbas, R. (2024). Robodebt: A Socio-Technical Case Study of Public Sector Information Systems Failure. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 28, 1–42. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v28.4681 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Contini, F. (2020). Artificial Intelligence and the Transformation of Humans, Law and Technology Interactions in Judicial Proceedings. Law, Technology and Humans, 2(1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.5204/LTHJ.V2I1.1478 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Cordella, A., & Gualdi, F. (2025). Policymaking in the digital era: Exploring techno-legal assemblages and their impact on policy formulation. Government Information Quarterly, 42(2), 102023. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GIQ.2025.102023 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Cornacchia, G., Anelli, V. W., Biancofiore, G. M., Narducci, F., Pomo, C., Ragone, A., & Di Sciascio, E. (2023). Auditing fairness under unawareness through counterfactual reasoning. Information Processing & Management, 60(2), 103224. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103224 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Cotterrell, R. (2019). Comparative Law and Legal Culture. In R. Mathias & Z. Reinhard (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (2nd ed., pp. 709–733). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198810230.013.22 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Council of Europe. (2026, April). HANDBOOK OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (CDDH). SPDP, Council of Europe . [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Crăciun, A. F., Umar, M., Qin, M., Nicolescu, A. C., & Lobonț, O. R. (2025). Digital Metamorphosis: Harnessing Transformation in the Public Sector for Sustainable Governance and Resilience. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-91778-3_1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Danelid, F. (2024). Automation Bias in Public Sector Decision Making: a Systematic Review [UMEA UNIVERSITET]. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1870243/FULLTEXT01.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. De’, R., Pandey, N., & Pal, A. (2020). Impact of digital surge during Covid-19 pandemic: A viewpoint on research and practice. International Journal of Information Management, 55, 102171. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJINFOMGT.2020.102171 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Diakopoulos, N. (2016). Accountability in algorithmic decision making. Communications of the ACM, 59(2), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2844110 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. DPcuria. (2023, December 7). CJEU - C-634/21 SCHUFA Holding and Others 7 Dec 2023. DPcuria Data Protection Case Law. https://www.dpcuria.eu/details?reference=C-634/21 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. EDD. (2021, January 11). Report 2020-628.2. Employment Development Department. https://information.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2020-628.2/responses.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. EDD. (2022, October 7). Employment Development Department Issues Unemployment Insurance Payment Program Updates. News Release: Employment Development Department. www.edd.ca.gov [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. ELA. (2023, May 26). Artificial Intelligence and Algorithms in Risk Assessment A Handbook. European Labour Authority. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Engstrom, D. F., & Ho, D. (2020). Algorithmic Accountability in the Administrative State. Yale Journal on Regulation , 37, 800–854. https://dho.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/EngstromHo.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Eom, S. J., & Lee, J. (2022). Digital government transformation in turbulent times: Responses, challenges, and future direction. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), 101690. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GIQ.2022.101690 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. EU. (2015). EU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. European Parliament Legal Affairs. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Flaminia, A. B. (2025, January 17). Triggering access to justice: the relation between the duty to give reasons and time limits in administrative litigation in Italy, Germany, and France. Review of European Administrative Law. https://realaw.blog/2025/01/17/triggering-access-to-justice-the-relation-between-the-duty-to-give-reasons-and-time-limits-in-administrative-litigation-in-italy-germany-and-france-by-flaminia-aperio-bella/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Gans-Combe, C. (2022). Automated Justice: Issues, Benefits and Risks in the Use of Artificial Intelligence and Its Algorithms in Access to Justice and Law Enforcement. Research Ethics Forum, 9, 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15746-2_14 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. GDPR. (n.d.). Art. 12 GDPR – Transparent information, communication and modalities for the exercise of the rights of the data subject - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Intersoft Consulting. Retrieved April 13, 2026, from https://gdpr-info.eu/art-12-gdpr/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Gebru, B. J. (2018). Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research: Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 81, 1–15. https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/gender-shades-intersectional-accuracy-disparities-in-commercial-gender-classification/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Ghosh, A., Saini, A., & Barad, H. (2025). Artificial intelligence in governance: recent trends, risks, challenges, innovative frameworks and future directions. AI & SOCIETY 2025 40:7, 40(7), 5685–5707. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00146-025-02312-Y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Goodman, B., & Flaxman, S. (2017). European union regulations on algorithmic decision making and a “right to explanation.” AI Magazine, 38(3), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1609/AIMAG.V38I3.2741 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Gritsenko, D., Markham, A., Pötzsch, H., & Wijermars, M. (2022). Algorithms, contexts, governance: An introduction to the special issue. New Media and Society, 24(4), 835–844. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221079037;JOURNAL:JOURNAL:NMSA;ISSUE:ISSUE:DOI [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Howle, E. M. (2021, January 28). Employment Development Department Significant Weaknesses in EDD’s Approach to Fraud Prevention Have Led to Billions of Dollars in Improper Benefit Payments: Report 2020-628.2. Auditor of the State of California. https://information.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2020-628.2/index.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Hung, T. W., & Yen, C. P. (2023). Predictive policing and algorithmic fairness. Synthese, 201(6), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04189-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Hutchinson, T. (2016). The Doctrinal Method: Incorporating Interdisciplinary Methods in Reforming the Law. Erasmus Law Review, 8(3), 130–138. https://doi.org/10.5553/ELR.000055 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. J Zuiderveen Borgesius, F., Kruikemeier, S., C Boerman, S., & Helberger, N. (2017). Tracking walls, take-it-or-leave-it choices, the GDPR, and the ePrivacy regulation. European Data Protection Law Review, 3(3), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2017/3/9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Janssen, M., & Kuk, G. (2016). The challenges and limits of big data algorithms in technocratic governance. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 371–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GIQ.2016.08.011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Ji, K. (2016). Cloud computing resource scheduling optimization based on ant colony algorithm with dynamic trend prediction. Bulletin of Science and Technology, 32(1), 187–190. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Kaminski, M. E. (2019). The Right to Explanation, Explained. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 34(1), 189. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38TD9N83H [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Karl, R. V. (2024). Explainable AI for Public Sector Decision Making: A Systematic Literature Review. Jurnal Teknik Informatika C.I.T Medicom, 16(5), 309–320. https://www.bing.com/search?q=%20Explainable%20AI%20for%20public%20sector%20decision%20making%3A%20A%20systematic%20literature%20review.&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&lq=0&pq=%20explainable%20ai%20for%20public%20sector%20decision%20making%3A%20a%20systematic%20literature%20review.&sc=0-82&sk=&cvid=70EE406560B040B29C064C3A40709D1A [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Koshiyama, A., Kazim, E., Treleaven, P., Rai, P., Szpruch, L., Pavey, G., Ahamat, G., Leutner, F., Goebel, R., Knight, A., Adams, J., Hitrova, C., Barnett, J., Nachev, P., Barber, D., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Klemmer, K., Gregorovic, M., Khan, S., … Chatterjee, S. (2024). Towards algorithm auditing: managing legal, ethical and technological risks of AI, ML and associated algorithms. Royal Society Open Science, 11(5), 230859. https://doi.org/10.1098/RSOS.230859 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Kroll, J. A., Huey, J., Barocas, S., Felten, E. W., Reidenberg, J. R., Robinson, D. G., & Yu, H. (2017). Accountable algorithms. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 165(3), 633–705. https://collaborate.princeton.edu/en/publications/accountable-algorithms/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Lobonț, O. R., Crăciun, A. F., Barbu, C., Nicolescu, A. C., & Vătavu, S. (2026). Digital Transformation in the Public Sector: Unlocking Trends, Opportunities and Governance Insights. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 560 LNBIP, 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-08603-7_1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Mantelero, A. (2022). Beyond Data: Human Rights, Ethical and Social Impact Assessment in AI (Vol. 36). Springer: T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-531-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Mashaw, J. L. . (1983). Bureaucratic justice : managing social security disability claims. Yale University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Media Statement. (2023, July 7). Final report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme | Prime Minister of Australia. Australia Media: Final Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. https://www.pm.gov.au/media/final-report-royal-commission-robodebt-scheme [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Meijer, A., & Bekkers, V. (2015). A metatheory of e-government: Creating some order in a fragmented research field. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GIQ.2015.04.006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Meijer, A., Boon, W., Meijer, A., & Boon, W. (2021). Digital platforms for the co-creation of public value. Policy & Politics, 49(2), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16115951032181 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Metcalf, J., Moss, E., Watkins, E. A., Singh, R., & Elish, M. C. (2021). Algorithmic impact assessments and accountability: The co-construction of impacts. FAccT 2021 - Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 735–746. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445935 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Mohamed, A., Abdelqader, K., & Shaalan, K. (2025). Explainable Artificial Intelligence: A systematic Review of Progress and Challenges. Intelligent Systems with Applications, 28, 200595. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ISWA.2025.200595 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Monteiro, J. I., & Iunes Monteiro, J. (2025). The Need for Responsible Use of AI by Public Administration: Algorithmic Impact Assessments (AIAs) as Instruments for Accountability and Social Control. Public Governance and Emerging Technologies: Values, Trust, and Regulatory Compliance, 179–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-84748-6_9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Murodova, S. (2025). The Black Box Problem in Administering Justice: Risks of Opaque Algorithms in Legal Decision-Making. International Journal of Law and Policy, 3(6), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.59022/IJLP.331 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Murray, A. (2024). Automated Public Decision Making and the Need for Regulation. LSE Public Policy Review, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.31389/LSEPPR.110 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Nwambuko, T. C., Eyikorogha, Q., & Chigozie, J. N. (2025). Digital Governance and E-Government Transformation in Public Service Delivery in Nigeria. International Journal of Current Science Research and Review, 8(10), 5038–5047. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijcsrr/V8-i10-17 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. OECD. (2023, November). French Welfare Algorithm Discriminates Against Vulnerable Groups, Rights Groups Reveal - OECD.AI. OECD.AI Policy Observatory and GPAI Global Partnership. https://oecd.ai/en/incidents/2023-11-28-f598 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. O’Leary, A. (2025, December 5). A History of Unemployment Benefits in the United States . GovFacts. https://govfacts.org/rights-freedoms/economic-workplace-rights/unemployment-benefits/a-history-of-unemployment-benefits-in-the-united-states/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. O’Leary, C., & Stewart, J. (2007). Governance factors affecting internal auditors’ ethical decision-making: An exploratory study. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22(8), 787–808. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900710819643 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Osadchyi, A. (2023). Digitalization of Administrative Procedures. Problems of Legality, (163), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990x.163.291971 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Pasquale, F. (2015). he Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Harvard University Press. https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Black_Box_Society.html?id=TumaBQAAQBAJ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Piccioli, M. (2024, October 17). Human rights organizations issue complaint against risk-scoring algorithmic system in France . JURIST News. https://www.jurist.org/news/2024/10/human-rights-organizations-issue-complaint-against-risk-scoring-algorithmic-system-in-france/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., Smith-Loud, J., Theron, D., & Barnes, P. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. FAT* 2020 - Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Rizk, A., & Lindgren, I. (2025). Automated decision-making in public administration: Changing the decision space between public officials and citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 42(3), 102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GIQ.2025.102061 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Roehl, U. B. U. (2023). Automated decision-making and good administration: Views from inside the government machinery. Government Information Quarterly, 40(4), 101864. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GIQ.2023.101864 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Roehl, U. B. U., & Hansen, M. B. (2024). Automated, administrative decision-making and good governance: Synergies, trade-offs, and limits. Public Administration Review, 84(6), 1184–1199. https://doi.org/10.1111/PUAR.13799;WEBSITE:WEBSITE:PERICLES;JOURNAL:JOURNAL:15406210;WGROUP:STRING:PUBLICATION [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Schmidt-Assmann, E. (1993). Basic Principles of German Administrative Law. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 35(1 & 2), 65–91. http://14.139.60.116:8080/jspui/bitstream/ 123456789/17484/1/006_Basic%20Principles%20of%20German%20Administrative%20Law%20%2865-91%29.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. Schmitz, T. (2013). The administrative procedure in German administrative law. RUNG TÂM PHÁP LUẬT ĐỨC / GERMAN LAW CENTRE . www.jura.uni-goettingen.de/schmitz; [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019). Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. FAT* 2019 - Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287598;PAGE:STRING:ARTICLE/CHAPTER [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. Sham, A. H., Aktas, K., Rizhinashvili, D., Kuklianov, D., Alisinanoglu, F., Ofodile, I., Ozcinar, C., & Anbarjafari, G. (2023). Ethical AI in facial expression analysis: racial bias. Signal, Image and Video Processing, 17(2), 399–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11760-022-02246-8/METRICS [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

79. Sharma, A. M., & Arumugam, S. K. (2024). Pattern Recognition: An Outline of Literature Review that Taps into Machine Learning to Achieve Sustainable Development Goals. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 868, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-9037-5_8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. Singh, M. P. (1985). Administrative Powers: Administrative Act. In German Administrative Law (pp. 32–49). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-02457-7_3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

81. Spadafora, F. (2023). U.S. Unemployment insurance through the Covid-19 crisis. Journal of Government and Economics, 9, 100069. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JGE.2023.100069 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

82. Terry, C. (2023, December 13). Unraveling Robodebt: Legal Failures, Impact on Vulnerable Communities, and Future Reforms - The University of Sydney. University of Sydney Law Chool. https://www.sydney.edu.au/law/news-and-events/news/2023/12/13/unraveling-robodebt-legal-failures-impacts.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

83. Terry, H., & Nigel, D. (2012). Defining and describing what we do: doctrinal legal research. Deakin Law Review, 17(1), 83–119. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21153/dlr2012vol17no1art70 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

84. Thapa, I. (2020). Administrative Law: Concept, Definition, Nature, Scope and Principle and its Sources. Public Administration Campus, Trihhuvan UniversityNepal. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347514733_Administrative_Law_Concept_Definition_Nature_Scope_and_Principle_and_its_Sources [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

85. Veale, M., & Edwards, L. (2018). Clarity, surprises, and further questions in the Article 29 Working Party draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(2), 398–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CLSR.2017.12.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

86. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/IDPL/IPX005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

87. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Russell, C. (2017). Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3063289 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

88. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Russell, C. (2018). Counterfactual Explanations Without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31(2), 842–861. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

89. Wang, X., Wu, Y. C., Ji, X., & Fu, H. (2024). Algorithmic discrimination: examining its types and regulatory measures with emphasis on US legal practices. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 7, 1320277. https://doi.org/10.3389/FRAI.2024.1320277/TEXT [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

90. Widłak, T. (2025). Techno-Legal Virtues in Hybrid Adjudication: Judicial Excellence in AI-Augmented Courts. Minds and Machines 2025 36:1, 36(1), 3-. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11023-025-09756-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

91. Wirtz, B. W., & Müller, W. M. (2019). An integrated artificial intelligence framework for public management. Public Management Review, 21(7), 1076–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1549268 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

92. Yeung, K. (2018). Algorithmic regulation: A critical interrogation. Regulation and Governance, 12(4), 505–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/REGO.12158;PAGE:STRING:ARTICLE/CHAPTER [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

93. Zammit, J. R. (2023, December 7). The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) opposes two data processing practices by credit information agencies. Press Release No 186/23 Court of Justice of the European Union. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Indirect Effect of Liquidity and Activity on Company Value with Profitability as an Intervening Variable
• Effect of Financial Skills, Knowledge, and Attitude on The Financial Behaviour of Clergy
• A Decade of Review: Trends in Budget Execution and Financial Performance of Development Projects in Tanzania (2014/15-2023/24)
• The Influence of Pre-Project Planning on the Budget Absorption Rate of Public Funded Infrastructure Projects in Kenya a Comparative Case Study of Narok, Migori, and Kisii County Government Projects
• Assessment of Factors Influencing Digital Transformation in Hotels’ Facility Management in Abuja Metropolis, Nigeria