Aug 2026· Frontiers in Political Science· 1 citation· 33 references
Abstract
Artificial intelligence is increasingly used in public administration to classify individuals, assess risks, prioritize cases, support eligibility determinations and guide the allocation of public resources. In the European Union, these uses are governed by the Artificial Intelligence Act, the GDPR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Formal compliance, however, does not by itself ensure lawful and accountable administration. AI relocates discretion from the visible act of decision-making to less visible choices concerning data, model design, procurement, thresholds and interface architecture. This Policy and Practice Review therefore treats human-centric AI governance not as a general ethical aspiration, but as an administrative and constitutional framework for governing public power. Drawing on EU law, public administration scholarship and a comparative institutional analysis of selected Member State practices, it develops six interdependent dimensions: legal anchoring, accountable discretion, fundamental rights by design, meaningful human oversight, contestability and justification, and institutional resilience. The analysis shows that common EU rules may produce unequal levels of protection where public authorities differ in technical expertise, audit capacity, procurement independence and access to effective remedies. It also argues that accountability must follow the chain of influence through which algorithmic systems shape administrative outcomes, rather than only the formal chain of decision-making. The article translates this framework into actor-specific recommendations concerning fundamental rights impact assessments, procurement, auditability, human oversight, transparency, contestability and post-deployment monitoring. It concludes that AI-enabled administration remains legitimate only where public authorities retain the capacity to understand, justify, correct, suspend and democratically control the systems they use.
The central claim is that constitutional and democratic requirements should not be treated as external compliance burdens when embedded into institutional design, they operate as productive constraints that improve legitimacy, implementation discipline, and the long-term trustworthiness of AI-enabled public decision-making.
C. Oliveira· Open Access Journal of Data...· 0 citations
The article demonstrates how labour markets and migration governance function as "stress-test" domains in which continuous classification, automated risk assessment, worker scoring, and fragmented data environments can amplify existing structural inequalities.
A. Sinchev, Svetlana Bekmambetova· Work· 0 citations
A normative analysis of thirteen recent studies on the challenges of technology implementation, ethical trust, and legal regulation suggests that the current governance dilemma stems not only from technological limitations but also from institutional neglect, which enables accountability avoidance.
A six-element governance framework is developed comprising legitimate purpose and proportionality; explicit allocation of roles and responsibility; traceable data, evidence, and uncertainty; competent human oversight and calibrated reliance; stakeholder participation, contestability, and redress; and continuous monitoring, audit, and institutional learning.
The rapid global deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) has created governance challenges relating to accountability, privacy, corporate oversight, and regulatory compliance. While the European Union (EU) Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) are often analysed separately, limited scholarship has examined how both frameworks operate together in shaping corporate governance beyond the EU. This article investigates how the AI Act and the GDPR function as complementary regulatory instruments that reconfigure governance structures within firms and influence corporate decision-making globally. The research adopts a doctrinal and comparative legal methodology, informed by regulatory governance theory, combining analysis of EU legislative texts, enforcement practice, academic literature, and governance guidance. Building on work in digital regulation and regulatory capitalism, the study finds that both instruments extend governance-by-design principles into corporate practice by embedding compliance obligations into risk management systems, internal controls, board oversight, and accountability processes (Bradford, 2020; De Gregorio & Dunn, 2022). The article concludes that the AI Act and GDPR operate as twin pillars of digital governance that enable the EU to govern corporate conduct at a distance. The paper contributes to scholarship on AI regulation and corporate governance by offering an original analytical framework relevant to both academics and practitioners.
Maria de Lourdes Haynes, Akram Al Matarneh· Corporate Law & Governan...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.