Details
| Translated title of the contribution | Algorithm-compatible administrative law? Legal and linguistic considerations concerning the "standardization of legal terminology" |
|---|---|
| Original language | German |
| Pages (from-to) | 251-272 |
| Number of pages | 22 |
| Journal | Verwaltung |
| Volume | 54 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Publication status | Published - 2021 |
Abstract
The translation of law into (computer) code seems to be currently on everyone's lips. Lawrence Lessigs' famous dictum "Code is Law" has recently been rephrased saying that"Law"wasalso "Code". This means that the wording of laws should directly take their "computer implementability" into consideration. Astarting point for those postulations can be seen in the (relatively) new section 35a of the (Federal) Administrative Prodecure Act (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz), which allows "automatic" decisions in specific cases. A new paper of the Fraunhofer FOKUS institute takes this up and suggests that we have only to look for the appropriate, unambiguous term that corresponds withanunequivocal legal meaning. In doing so, lawcould beprogrammable. But this is exactly the point where the problem arises: laws have more than one addressee; they address lawyers as well as citizens (mostly laypeople). Furthermore, legal terminology is context dependent. The current hype regarding the "algorithmization" of legal terminology also hides the fact that this issue was - more or less - discussed once before under the paradigm "legal cybernetics" between 1960 and 1985. So how can we approach the problem of context-dependency of law under the new paradigm of algorithmization? In our contribution on "Algorithm- compatible administrative law? Legal and linguistic considerations concerning the 'standardization' of legal terminology", we will introduce different approaches to safeguard the compatibility of law with computer technics. But how sophisticated a technical method can be: It is the democratically legitimised parliament that must make the fundamental decisions when it comes to an "algorithmization" of legal terminology, because there is no text without context.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Social Sciences(all)
- Public Administration
- Social Sciences(all)
- Law
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Verwaltung, Vol. 54, No. 2, 2021, p. 251-272.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - ALGORITHMENKOMPATIBLES VERWALTUNGSRECHT?
T2 - Juristische und sprachwissenschaftliche Überlegungen zu einer „Standardisierung von Rechtsbegriffen“
AU - Seckelmann, Margrit
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Duncker und Humblot GmbH. All rights reserved.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - The translation of law into (computer) code seems to be currently on everyone's lips. Lawrence Lessigs' famous dictum "Code is Law" has recently been rephrased saying that"Law"wasalso "Code". This means that the wording of laws should directly take their "computer implementability" into consideration. Astarting point for those postulations can be seen in the (relatively) new section 35a of the (Federal) Administrative Prodecure Act (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz), which allows "automatic" decisions in specific cases. A new paper of the Fraunhofer FOKUS institute takes this up and suggests that we have only to look for the appropriate, unambiguous term that corresponds withanunequivocal legal meaning. In doing so, lawcould beprogrammable. But this is exactly the point where the problem arises: laws have more than one addressee; they address lawyers as well as citizens (mostly laypeople). Furthermore, legal terminology is context dependent. The current hype regarding the "algorithmization" of legal terminology also hides the fact that this issue was - more or less - discussed once before under the paradigm "legal cybernetics" between 1960 and 1985. So how can we approach the problem of context-dependency of law under the new paradigm of algorithmization? In our contribution on "Algorithm- compatible administrative law? Legal and linguistic considerations concerning the 'standardization' of legal terminology", we will introduce different approaches to safeguard the compatibility of law with computer technics. But how sophisticated a technical method can be: It is the democratically legitimised parliament that must make the fundamental decisions when it comes to an "algorithmization" of legal terminology, because there is no text without context.
AB - The translation of law into (computer) code seems to be currently on everyone's lips. Lawrence Lessigs' famous dictum "Code is Law" has recently been rephrased saying that"Law"wasalso "Code". This means that the wording of laws should directly take their "computer implementability" into consideration. Astarting point for those postulations can be seen in the (relatively) new section 35a of the (Federal) Administrative Prodecure Act (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz), which allows "automatic" decisions in specific cases. A new paper of the Fraunhofer FOKUS institute takes this up and suggests that we have only to look for the appropriate, unambiguous term that corresponds withanunequivocal legal meaning. In doing so, lawcould beprogrammable. But this is exactly the point where the problem arises: laws have more than one addressee; they address lawyers as well as citizens (mostly laypeople). Furthermore, legal terminology is context dependent. The current hype regarding the "algorithmization" of legal terminology also hides the fact that this issue was - more or less - discussed once before under the paradigm "legal cybernetics" between 1960 and 1985. So how can we approach the problem of context-dependency of law under the new paradigm of algorithmization? In our contribution on "Algorithm- compatible administrative law? Legal and linguistic considerations concerning the 'standardization' of legal terminology", we will introduce different approaches to safeguard the compatibility of law with computer technics. But how sophisticated a technical method can be: It is the democratically legitimised parliament that must make the fundamental decisions when it comes to an "algorithmization" of legal terminology, because there is no text without context.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85122215664&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3790/verw.54.2.251
DO - 10.3790/verw.54.2.251
M3 - Artikel
AN - SCOPUS:85122215664
VL - 54
SP - 251
EP - 272
JO - Verwaltung
JF - Verwaltung
SN - 0042-4498
IS - 2
ER -