Abstract
Germany imposes relatively large restrictions by prohibiting the issuance of fully automated administrative acts in cases of discretion through Article 35a of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act, but legislators can and do allow this in individual laws according to Article 1 (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which stipulates the “principle of priority of special laws”. The permissible forms of legislation can be categorized as (1) permissible if the official has no reason to deal with the case, (2) no restrictions or conditions on issuance, (3) no conditions on issuance, but the legislator specifies the exclusion of discretion in the Reasons for legislation, and (4) prohibiting the issuance of full automation from discretion. The application of human resource management procedures such as recruitment and evaluation of public officials, which are representative of discretionary administration, underscores the need to apply AI in mass procedures, and the algorithmization of discretionary criterions through technological advances will bring a revolution in public administration. If it is rejected or deemed impossible, the practical implications of full automation in public administration -which will eventually boil down to AI administration- will inevitably lead to a decline. To this end, law will have to do its part by focusing on defining the meaning of the discretionary criterion.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
