THE RIGHT TO A HUMAN TO MAKE DECISIONS IN THE SYSTEM OF SUBJECTIVE DIGITAL RIGHTS
Keywords:
right to a human decision, subjective digital right, automated decision-making, artificial intelligence, digital human rights, GDPR, EU AI Act, justice, human oversight, algorithmic transparencyAbstract
The rapid introduction of artificial intelligence systems into the processes of making legally significant decisions has raised the fundamental question of the place of human decision-making rights in the system of subjective digital rights before legal science. This article attempts to systematically define the normative content of this right, establish its relationship with other digital rights – the right to access the Internet, the right to personal data protection, the right to digital identity, the right to be forgotten, and the right to information self-determination – and define the limits of its implementation. Based on dogmatic analysis, system-structural, and comparative legal methods, the author examines the normative sources of the formation of this right (international documents and the legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan), critically assesses the doctrinal positions of leading researchers, and proposes an author’s three-component model of the content of the right to human decision, including procedural, material, and protective elements. The conclusion is substantiated that the right to human decision represents an independent subjective digital right, which simultaneously performs the function of a guarantee right, ensuring the realization of other digital rights in the context of an algorithmic society.
Downloads
References
1. Bayamlioğlu, E. (2022). The Right to Contest Automated Decisions Under the GDPR: Beyond the So-called Right to Explanation. Regulation & Governance, 16(4), 1058–1078.
2. Binns, R., & Veale, M. (2021). Is That Your Final Decision? Multi-stage Profiling, Selective Effects, and Article 22 of the GDPR. International Data Privacy Law, 11(4), 319–332.
3. OQ v. Land Hessen (SCHUFA), ECLI:EU:C:2023:957. (2023). Case C-634/21.
4. Council of Europe. (2018). Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data (Convention 108+, CETS No. 223). Council of Europe Portal. https://rm.coe.int/16808ac918
5. Council of Europe. (2024, May 17). Framework convention on artificial intelligence and human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Council of Europe Treaty Series - No. 225.
6. Court of Justice of the European Union. (2014, May 13). Judgment of the court (grand chamber) in case C-131/12, Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González. InfoCuria.
7. Cyberspace Administration of China. (2023, July 13). Interim measures for the management of generative artificial intelligence services.
8. Dror-Shpoliansky, D., & Shany, Y. (2021). It’s the end of the (offline) world as we know it: From human rights to digital human rights – a proposed typology. European Journal of International Law, 32(4), 1249–1282.
9. European Union. (2016). 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 (General Data Protection Regulation). 10. Official Journal of the European Union.
11. European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32024R1689
12. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
13. Hildebrandt, M. (2019). Privacy as protection of the incomputable self: From agnostic to agonistic machine learning. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 20(1), 83–121.
14. Kaminski, M. E. (2019). The right to explanation, explained. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 34(1), 189–218.
OECD. (2024, May 3). Recommendation of the council on artificial intelligence (OECD/LEGAL/0449). OECD Legal Instruments.
15. Personal Data Protection Commission Singapore. (2020). Model Artificial Intelligence Governance Framework (2nd ed.). PDPC Singapore Portal.
16. President of Uzbekistan. (2020, October 5). Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On approval of the Strategy “Digital Uzbekistan – 2030” and measures for its effective implementation”. National Database of Legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
17. President of Uzbekistan. (2024, October 14). Resolution of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On measures for enhancement of system of public administration in the sphere of youth policy and sport”. National Database of Legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
18. Republic of Uzbekistan. (2019, July 2). On Personal Data (No. LRU-547). National Database of Legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
Republic of Uzbekistan. (2022, April 15). On Cybersecurity (No. LRU-764). National Database of Legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
19. Republic of Uzbekistan. (2026, January 21). On making additions and changes to certain legislative acts of the Republic of Uzbekistan in connection with the regulation of relations arising from the use of artificial intelligence (No. LRU-1115). National Database of Legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
20. Selbst, A. D., & Powles, J. (2017). Meaningful Information and the Right to Explanation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(3), 233–242.
21. Shany, Y. (2023a). Digital Rights and the Outer Limits of International Human Rights Law. German Law Journal, 24(5), 847–866.
22. Shany, Y. (2023b, December 11). From digital rights to international human rights: the emerging right to a human decision maker. Oxford AI Ethics Blog.
23. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a right to explanation does not exist in the GDPR. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76–99.
24. Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. (2020). Strengthening legal protection against discrimination by algorithms. The International Journal of Human Rights, 24(10), 1572–1593.
