展鹏贺：湖南大学法学院副教授，法学博士
内容提要
在以互联网、大数据和人工智能为代表的数字技术驱动下，我国行政方式正在经历前所未有的数字化变革。作为电子政务的制度延伸，数字化行政的效果正在向包括实体决定在内的行政程序全程自动实施跃迁。作为行政权行使方式的变化，实践中显现的数字化行政，必须要符合《宪法》对国家权力运行的正当性要求。类型化视角下，透过权力正当性理论框架的分析，我国当前源于行政创新的完全数字化行政行为制度，因具体规范的缺失，还难以获得充分的正当性水准。对此进行的正当性补正，需着眼于实体法数字化适用的特殊性，在制度建构上，从规范的数字化契合性和技术可控性角度框定完全数字化实施的边界。在此基础上，具体的正当性获得仍需回归依法行政路径，将制度层面的瑕疵补正要求和实施过程的风险防范需求予以法制化。
关键词
数字化 行政方式 行政程序 人工智能 正当性
目 录
一、问题的提出
二、数字技术驱动下行政方式变革的模式梳理
（一）电子政务背景下行政程序自动实施的端倪
（二）数字化行政方式的类型化界定
三、宪法规范下数字化行政方式的正当性检验
（一）行政权行使正当性检验标准的确立
（二）数字化行政方式正当性水准的判断
四、我国完全数字化行政行为制度正当性的补强方式与获得路径
（一）宪法层面的“制度—功能”正当性确认
（二）借助特别法规范的正当性水准补强方式
（三）内嵌入依法行政的正当性获得路径
结 语
一、问题的提出
一个数字政府的时代正阔步走来。世界范围内，互联网、大数据、人工智能共同驱动的第四次工业革命，际遇以优化行政管理和服务质量为目标的第四次政府革命。数字技术运用下，政府治理模式呈现出前所未有的结构性变革：传统“人—人”互动的行政方式，广泛实现了向“人—机”互动的数字化方式转变。面对当今社会行政任务膨胀与行政资源有限的突出矛盾，数字化行政方式以其显著的效能优势，日渐受到各国行政实践和立法的重点关注。近年来，为推动政府治理体系和治理能力现代化转型，我国也加快了运用数字技术改造行政方式的步伐。以国务院一系列推动“互联网+”、大数据和人工智能应用的政策文件为导向，大量传统上依赖人力和时空条件的行政管理、服务和监管活动，开始转向以网络数据传输和智能算法处理为基础的数字化处理方式。部分地方政府还通过制度创新，推行以“无人审批”“刷脸办证”等为代表的行政行为完全数字化实施模式。
针对持续扩张的数字化行政变革趋势，我国当下实践中源于行政自发革新的驱动模式，不免引发数字化方式是否契合宪法框架下行政权行使要求的担忧。这种担忧主要来自两个方面：微观上，如何应对互联网、大数据和人工智能各自技术特点引发的法律规制挑战，通过建构规则弥补技术缺陷,解决个案中具体技术样态的合法性；宏观上，如何将数字化行政趋向的技术之治整合入国家权力运行的法律之治中，透过宪法对行政权的正当性要求，界定数字化行政的合理范围。相比微观层面对具体技术规制已开展的丰富研究，目前对数字化行政转型能否契合权力行使的正当性要求，还鲜有专门讨论。本文将尝试从《中华人民共和国宪法》（以下简称《宪法》）约束行政权正当性的规范出发，通过正当性证成的理论架构为数字化行政划定正当边界，防止因盲目技术崇拜致使现有法律基础陷入解构失灵风险，同时也避免过度保守僵化阻碍技术对行政效能的提升。
考虑到“数字化行政”，亦或作为其效果描述的“自动化行政”只是描述性用语，而非严格的规范概念。为保障分析过程和结论的严谨，有必要首先从行政活动数字化转型的实践出发，厘清其指向的具体机制内容。同时，宏观的正当性讨论亦不能割裂其与微观上具体技术规制的联系。正当性的考察有助于暴露技术应用的规范不足，引导微观考察方向；而已有的技术规制讨论，亦可反向弥补可能的正当性瑕疵，提供宏观论证依据。因此，本文将沿如下思路展开：首先，从当前实践出发，梳理数字化行政方式的主要模式；其次，在宪法框架下检视其能否符合行政权行使的正当性要求；最后，针对可能存在的正当性瑕疵，提出制度建构上的补强方式并转换为依法行政下的具体规制路径。
二、数字技术驱动下行政方式变革的模式梳理
国家行政活动的技术化倾向，本非新鲜事物。早在18世纪，政治哲学中已经诞生了将国家视作机器运作（Staat als Maschine）的思想。现代行政法诞生后，法律上对技术改造行政方式的关注，也不是新近才引发的讨论热点。有关技术过程能否纳入法律规制范围的争论，甚至可以追溯到20世纪50年代电子化设备开始普及之时。科层制下行政资源有限性与行政任务繁复和扩张性间日益显现的矛盾，为以提升行政效率为导向的行政方式技术化变革持续提供着契机与动力。对此，福斯特霍夫（Forsthoff）早在1958年就针对当时行政实践中机器设备应用的趋势作出过论断：尽管当时的技术条件下，行政的基本结构没有根本改变，即机器设备通常只作为工作辅助手段而未触及人力实施行政过程的本质。但是，在法律制度实施意义上，机器替代人力的苗头，至少已经在社会保障和财政行政领域中需大量作出且内容重复的行政行为中有所显现，并有逐渐扩张的趋势。在其看来，虽然当时的技术水平下，设想行政活动完全以机器自动控制的方式实施还很不现实，但如果完全忽视这种发展的可能性同样也不现实。
在过去的半个多世纪里，福氏的判断正逐渐变成现实。随着电子信息技术发展对政府公共管理领域的渗透与改造，行政活动中电子信息设备的运用，完成了从单纯工具意义上的办公辅助手段，到具有独立法律效果的程序或行为机制的跃迁。从信息技术替代人工行政方式程度的发展过程看，20世纪90年代后在公共管理领域迅速兴起的电子政务（E-Government）浪潮，成为政府管理和服务流程再造，实现“行政现代化和科层制改革”的制度发端。当前行政实践中以数字技术驱动的行政活动方式变革，从制度沿革上仍可视为电子政务随技术升级而持续发展的产物。因此，考察我国现阶段数字化行政的具体模式，应当以电子政务对行政活动方式的改造为逻辑起点。
（一）电子政务背景下行政程序自动实施的端倪
电子政务作为科学技术与政府治理手段的融合，其目的不仅在于行政活动中“使用层面”技术性软硬件的投入，而是指向“行政—公民”沟通意义上行政模式的改造，需要同时满足技术效果可实现性和行政行为合法性的检验。因此，电子政务的实施亦应当以信息化基础的完备和制度实现方式的法律规制为双重前提。我国电子政务的建设始于政府机关办公自动化的尝试。但受制于当时信息化基础偏弱的客观条件，初期的制度构建主要聚焦于行政主导的信息化基础建设。其标志性的内容是以推动“政府上网”为核心的门户网站建设，并在此基础上启动政府信息和服务的网上“搬迁”。这一阶段尽管不乏法制化的导向与实践，但早期多以地方分散式立法为主，效力等级不高，且内容主要以强化各级政府信息化基础建设的责任为主，尚未充分触及行政程序和决定机制的改造。
政府通过信息化建设实现的单向度网络迁移，为通过电子政务进行双向互动的行政活动流程再造奠定了基础。在规范层面，形式上实现电子政务方式从单向迈向双向的制度转折出现在2001年修订的《中华人民共和国税收征收管理法》中。该法第26条规定，纳税义务人可以按规定要求，以数据电文的形式提交纳税申报材料。电子政务应用下，行政程序中的制度节点有了通过数据传输自动实施的可能。只不过这种立法上开创性的设置在适用上还受到一定的前提保留限制，即电子数据化的申报方式能否采用，取决于立法或行政的形成空间。
实质意义上将电子政务方式融入一般行政程序规定，并赋予其明确程序法意义的规范源于2003年制定的《中华人民共和国行政许可法》。根据该法第33条，在行政机关实施行政许可活动中，电子政务应当在三个层面获得应用：即许可事项的网上公开，许可申请的电子数据化实施，以及许可信息的机关间共享。尽管该条规定在目的上只是“倡导性”强调了行政机关单方的制度建设和完善义务，且并不必然产生相对人的主观公权利，但其明确提出将电子数据传递形式的申请作为许可程序的启动方式。传统的通过在行政机关当面递交或者邮寄纸质材料方式开启的行政许可程序，可以在电子政务构建的网络环境下，通过电子数据传输的方式实施。行政方式在电子信息技术改造下的自动实施，得到了一般意义上的规范认可。在此之后，国务院2004年印发的《全面推进依法行政实施纲要》又在更大范围内认可了电子政务对行政程序制度的改造，提出把扩大行政事务的网上办理作为行政管理方式改革的重要内容。
尽管这一阶段实现的个别行政程序环节电子化实施，在技术化程度及自动实施效果上还很有限，具体制度内容也相对粗糙。但以行政程序环节电子化为发端的自动实施模式，却为后续数字技术驱动下飞速发展的数字化行政实践奠定了技术路径和制度范式。这种奠基作用在内容上表现为以网络为路径、以数据为信息载体的“数据跑路”模式；在形式上则体现为通过程序制度的改造，推进行政行为的自动实施。从功能角度看，电子政务催生的程序自动实施方式亦契合了行政程序制度进步的方向。作为以实现知识生成（Wissensgenerierung）为目的的交流联系过程，行政程序的作用在于通过有组织、体系化地处理信息，保证行政活动实施有充分的知识基础。因此，程序实施方式的进步总是围绕着对这种沟通交流机制的改进而产生。电子政务显现的以网络为基础的电子数据化信息交流形式，以其效率优势，为应对多元社会行政任务与行政效能间的张力，提供了制度变革的突破口。在此意义上，后续数字技术应用下行政方式自动实施效果的扩张，亦是电子政务实现的行政方式变革在体系上的延续与升级。
（二）数字化行政方式的类型化界定
1. 方法论上数字化行政类型化区分的必要性
我国电子政务法制化的缓慢萌芽，没有放缓实践中技术进步改造行政活动方式的步伐。近年来，数字技术已在实践中表现出更为强劲的行政方式重塑力。技术与行政方式的融合，已经实现了从“政府上网”到“数字政府”的跨越。互联网、大数据和人工智能技术的综合作用下，政府的物理界限被打破、程序的异步推进成为可能。体现在自动实施的外在效果上，以智能终端为纽带的“去中心化”模式，正在取代此前单方面以优化行政机关信息处理能力为主的“中心化”模式。
虽然数字技术改造行政方式的路径没有本质改变，仍旧延续了以实现程序性信息自动交互为目标的制度导向。但数字化下技术自动实施效果向行政程序全程的扩张，以及“去中心化”的模式特点，使得实践中数字化行政的具体类型愈发难以用特定程序制度节点的自动实施来加以概括。一方面，实践层面数字化行政的外在效果随着技术化的深入愈发显现；另一方面，法律层面对数字化行政的规范界定却因实践的多样性而更加迷离。
如上文所述，作为概念的数字化行政，受实践中技术综合介入程度和应用场景差异的影响，其外延的辐射范围在一直扩大，但内涵上却依旧缺乏明确的界定，因此只能不断地泛化为客观的经验性描述。有鉴于此，当从行政法秉持的控权立场对数字化行政趋势予以关注并进行制度性回应时，与其追求一个规范层面难以周延的定义，不如在方法上顺应其描述性的特点，转而透过对实践的总结与归类，从行政法理论上抽象出当前数字化行政的主要类型。这种方法论视角的转移已在数字技术相关法律问题的研究中得以显现。有学者借鉴国际汽车工程学会（SAE）对无人驾驶技术分级的方式，提出对于数字技术应用下获得自动实施之行政方式的行政法规制，也应当通过分级的方式来区别对待，或者说应当根据行政行为的内容做出差别规定。
因此，在方法论上放弃以概念界定为逻辑起点，转而从类型化的角度，以所涉法律制度为标准，抽象出数字化行政的主要模式，规避技术介入程度和范围差异的不确定性与规范分析追求的准确性之间的矛盾，是从规范上厘清数字化转型与行政权正当行使的必要前提。
2. 法律制度实施视角下的数字化行政类型划分
自电子政务建设伊始，信息技术之于行政法领域的具体应用路径，主要围绕着提升行政活动中具体法律制度的自动实施效果而不断推进，比如，以数据电文的传输实现行政程序申请制度、行政机关间机构协助制度的自动实施。因此，透过相关法律制度实施方式的变革，并结合具体技术内容对数字化行政进行类型划分，可以相对客观地反映出法律范畴内数字化行政对行政权运行的影响。
如上文所述，当前我国行政活动中数字技术应用主要源于行政自发动力，所以数字化行政类型的划分就需要建立在对实践中互联网、大数据和人工智能的具体应用情况，以及由此引发的法律制度实施方式变革的梳理上。考虑到各级政府实际运用数字技术过程中外在表现形式多样和分散的特点，以穷尽具体制度实践方式进行类型化提炼，缺乏可操作性且易欠缺体系性。为避免在现实的繁复中陷入表象化的争论而未触及行政权行使受技术影响的核心问题，在进行数字化行政的类型划分时，应当从规范层面国家整体推进数字技术应用的导向规定出发，同时兼顾地方政府在此基础上具有突破性的实践创新。
（1）数字技术应用的规范梳理及其对行政方式的影响
按国家推行相关技术文件出台的时间先后，国务院首先于2015年发布《促进大数据发展行动纲要》，明确提出将大数据技术作为提升政府治理能力的新途径。通过大数据对海量数据的采集和分析能力，为行政执法及时提供违法预警信息、为行政决定提供客观的事实分析、为行政许可和审批的办理简化流程。大数据下一切信息皆可数据化处理的功能，突破了此前只在个别程序环节进行简单数据电文交流的技术限制，使得程序信息交互可以彻底摆脱对时空一致环境下，参与人面对面交流的依赖。
随后，为在大规模信息数据化的基础上实现数据交流，国务院在2016年《政府工作报告》中首次提出，要在各级政府的行政管理和服务活动中“大力推行‘互联网+政务服务’，实现部门间数据共享，让居民和企业少跑腿”。这一制度设想很快在同年发布的《关于加快推进“互联网+政务服务”工作的指导意见》中，具体化为行政程序申请、受理、审查、决定、送达过程的“全程在线”要求。传统行政程序中受时空、人力等物理条件制约的重要程序制度，在以数字化网络平台为媒介实现的“数据跑路”模式中，获得了广泛的自动实施。
技术层面，“互联网+”和大数据的运用得益于作为其基础之算法的智能化进步。后者的迅速发展同时掀起了一场法律人工智能革命。尽管相比私法范畴，公法领域因缺乏自由竞争催生的创新动力，以及更为严格的法律约束性，人工智能应用的起步相对保守。但随着世界各国对人工智能推动社会进步作用的重视，其在公共行政领域应用的重要性也开始凸显。在我国，政府管理和服务智能化改造的要求，在2016年出台的《关于加快推进“互联网+政务服务”工作的指导意见》中已初见端倪。2017年国务院发布的《新一代人工智能发展规划》，明确提出以网络和数据技术为基础，将人工智能应用于政府服务与决策，畅通行政主体与公众的交互渠道，推动社会治理的现代化。根据这一顶层设计，一方面确认了人工智能与互联网、大数据再造行政方式的发展趋势；另一方面赋予了数字化下法律制度自动实施效果从程序方式向实体决定跃迁的可能。至于实体决定的数字化实施是否须以人工智能作出，《新一代人工智能发展规划》没有明确规定。从其规范文义对人工智能本身界定的开放性，以及强调相关技术关联与配合的要求来看，国务院原则上对此秉持了开放立场。这一立场亦在后续的规范性文件中得到了延续。
至此，制度效果上涵盖行政活动从程序实施到实体决定全过程的数字化行政方式，在国家最高行政机关出台的政策和规范性文件中获得了确认。随着政策导向上对实体决定数字化实施的原则性认可，深圳、广州、天津等多地政府在各自的行政审批改革中，纷纷以“无人审批”为导向，尝试推行完全数字化的审批模式。通过地方的创新实践，传统人工审核的实体决定环节在数字化审批中，被终端机器依靠算法编程进行的数据审核替代。
（2）互联网、大数据、人工智能综合运用下数字化行政的类型划分
透过国家相关政策规范以及地方创新实践，法律制度实施变革视角下的数字化行政，在互联网、大数据和人工智能的作用下，呈现出以下三个方面的特点：
第一，以数字化方式实施的行政程序制度范围显著扩大。在“数据跑路”时代，行政程序中信息交互对人的直接依赖正在减弱。比如依申请的政务服务中，以往是申请人“跑断腿”，而现在是数据“多跑路”。申请人可以通过网络信息填写和材料文书上传的方式在自助终端上自动启动程序，之后的程序推进直至决定的送达将完全靠数据传输和共享的形式完成。得益于程序制度的自动实施，“少跑路”的情形也同样发生在行政机关身上。比如近年来广泛应用的交通违法识别、智能城管执法等系统，在终端自动采集数据基础上，经过数字化的网络传输和数据分析，替代了以往必须由执法人员现场完成的执法检查、违法调查等过程。
第二，数字化方式由程序环节扩展至实体决定。不同于以往通过技术设备辅助作出决定的情形，比如单纯通过计算，借助参数化裁量基准得出确切的处罚数额；或者人工审核签发、通过电子邮件送达的电子证照。当前部分行政行为实体决定的作出，如“无人审批”等制度实践，已经不依赖人工，而完全转为由算法设计的数据分析处理过程。数字化行政开始由程序性的“服务功能”阶段，发展至实体性的“决策功能”阶段。
第三，数字化行政的技术样态相比电子政务建设时期发生了重大变化。其中，最具革命性和挑战性的改变，来自于人工智能的介入。相比从输入到输出全过程、全内容都预先设定好的技术模式，人工智能过程表现出明显的自主性和认知性。尽管人工智能的技术内涵和外延具有相当的开放性，但多数学者认为，人工智能对行政方式最根本的改变，在于深度学习的技术特点使机器拥有了通过数据学习独立决策的能力。考虑到人工智能在个别法律部门已经获得的主体资格认可，以及对比人类智识表现出的效能优势，以其为基础的自动化技术过程正在行政活动中呈现出星火燎原之势，有广泛替代程序性和实体性人力活动的趋势。
由此可见，一方面，从“程序—实体”法律制度实施角度，当前数字化行政既可以表现为单纯程序制度的自动实施，也可以承担作出实体决定的功能，即从程序到实体的完全数字化。另一方面，从技术应用角度，人工智能的介入，使得行政方式在实现机制上超越了纯粹程式化的“循规蹈矩”。机器通过学习，可以在算法基础上依靠学习过程中重建的规则确定输出。这一过程的不可知性，在引发众所周知“黑箱”问题的同时，亦影响着数字化行政的类型化界定。人工智能介入程度的差异，因其直接影响行政行为内容的人为掌控力，是决定数字化行政机制的重要变量。因此，对数字化行政方式的类型划分，应当在坚持“程序—实体”角度法律制度标准的同时，兼顾人工智能对数字化效果的实际影响。从这一双重标准出发，在当前的实践背景下，数字化行政按其实施机制基本可以划分为以下三种类型：
一是数字化程序实施，但实体决定仍为人工作出。这是自电子政务推行之初就产生的行政方式技术化表现，体现为个别或者全部程序制度依靠数字化设备实施，但是最终对外产生效力的实体决定还是建立在人的决策之上。从上文提及的程序辅助性角度看，程序制度的数字化是否由人工智能技术实现，原则上不会直接影响行政活动的实际效果。目前我国行政活动中绝大部分的数字化行政方式仍为此种类型。
二是“程序实施+实体决定”的完全数字化，但实体决定非以人工智能方式作出。以地方政府实践中“无人审批”制度为代表，这一类行政方式以“程序+实体”意义上的完全自动实施为特征，在机制和效果上表现为完全数字化作出行政行为。但生成实体决定所依赖的技术手段并非是机器通过自主学习作出的独立判断。从既有实践内容看，这一类数字化决定在技术上采取的是将内容严格的条件式规定，用精确的“输入—输出”限定性（determiniert）技术过程予以数字化表达。
三是“程序实施+实体决定”的完全数字化，且实体决定由人工智能方式作出。目前我国的行政实践中，这一类型的制度样本还未明确显现。但根据《新一代人工智能发展规划》内容的开放性和推动行政管理智能化的导向性，人工智能在行政管理和服务实践中的应用呈现持续扩张的趋势。同时，考虑到当前各级行政机关运用数字技术的活跃程度和技术发展的迅猛速度，不能完全忽视通过人工智能介入实体决定活动，从而将完全数字化行政行为制度扩展至更广泛的领域的可能。
至此，通过在政策规范和实践层面对我国数字化行政方式变革的梳理，以类型化的方式实现了“数字化行政”从非规范意义的现象描述到规范意义上法律制度实施方式的转换。而法律制度实施角度数字化行政所表现出的类型，亦反映了技术驱动下行政权行使方式的类型化转变。至于当前主要源自行政自发动力的变革，是否能按其各自类型在宏观的权力运行角度契合法律的约束性要求，就涉及到对宪法上国家权力运行正当性规范的解读。
三、宪法规范下数字化行政方式的正当性检验
现代法治国家，宪法层面对人民作为一切国家权力最终拥有者的规范确认，决定了一切国家权力的行使和国家任务的实现，都需要在这种权力配置规范下满足正当性（Legitimation）的检验，即在宪法确立的民主机制下实现权力运行与人民意志间的必要联系，并作为其制度合法性的来源。我国《宪法》分别在第2条、第3条第2、3款规定了国家权力的分配和行使。按照这些条款的规定：首先，一切国家权力来源于人民，人民在法律框架内通过各种途径管理国家各项事务；其次，人民通过立法机关行使国家权力，并将其进一步分配给包括行政在内的其他国家权力机关。作为人民主权原则的直接体现，上述宪法规定除了在狭义的宪法层面完成国家权力的分配，还应当对实践中国家权力的运行，尤其是行政权的行使发挥约束效果。如果说宪法上的依法行政要求是从行政实现公共利益的角度强调个人权利保护，那么民主制度规范下的权力正当性要求，则是从防止追求特殊群体利益角度强调权力的公益属性。法治国下的行政合法性和人民主权下的行政正当性应当作为宪法上并行的两种秩序体系。因此，透过宪法上权力的民主配置条款，国家权力运行的正当性问题已经从立宪层面制度设计意义上的政治衡量，转化为宪法适用层面制度实施意义上的规范要求。从规范效果出发，任何国家行政权的行使都要在《宪法》规范框架下接受正当性的检验，即保证行政权的实际运转要置于人民的有效控制之下。所以，当前以数字化行政方式实现的行政权行使，也必须要按《宪法》的要求完成正当性检验。否则，即便数字化的客观效果有助于行政任务的实现，也会因宪法上权力正当性的非难而无法在规范体系内获得认同。
（一）行政权行使正当性检验标准的确立
判断行政权数字化方式行使的正当性，首要的任务是从宪法抽象的权力配置条款出发，具体化正当性的检验标准。对此，德国学者比尔肯福德（Böckenförde）提出了经典的正当性证成理论，即原则上通过“组织—人员”（organisatorisch-personell）和“实体—内容”（sachlich-inhaltlich）的双重正当性检验标准，将行政权的行使置于环环相扣、衔接完整的正当性链条之下。同时，承认宪法基于其直接体现人民意志的最高法律效力，为实现特定的制度功能，直接以具体宪法规范的形式赋予某些权力在组织、方式、内容等方面的正当性。尽管我国《宪法》配置国家权力的具体结构与德国不同，但在宪法规范中体现出的追求国家行政权行使要受到人民的有效约束、接受权力正当性检验的规范目的是一致的。而且，正当性检验关注纵向的行政权行使问题，并不涉及横向的国家权力分配。因此，国家间权力架构方式的差异并不影响正当性理论的借鉴与适用。
“组织—人员”正当性是指承担国家行政权的组织及实际执行的职务担当人（Amtswalter）应当按照宪法规范的要求处在一个没有中断的、回溯到人民的正当性链条中，以此来证成其权力行使的正当性。就具体的正当性传递而言，首先，根据我国《宪法》第2条第2款，第86条第2款，第90条第2款，第105条第1、2款的规定，作为行政权执行主体的中央和地方各级人民政府及其组成，经由立法机关的权力分配过程而处于人民的有效影响之下。其次，根据《中华人民共和国国务院组织法》第2条第2款和《中华人民共和国地方各级人民代表大会和地方各级人民政府组织法》第55条第2款确立的行政内部统一领导机制，通过科层制下的命令执行途径，将这种影响层级传递到具体的职务承担人，即履行职权的行政机关公务人员。由此保证行政权的实施，在组织和人员层面可环环相扣地回溯到作为国家权力享有者的人民的意志。具体到个案的行政活动上，就是要求实际执行行政方式、作出决定的主体和个人符合上述正当性的层级检验。考虑到多元社会行政任务复杂的背景，行政活动在程序参与原则下，愈发成为多元主体介入的过程。因此，“组织—人员”正当性并非要求所有参与行政活动实施的主体都必须符合上述检验，而是从权力的实际作用角度，确保行使最终决定职权的个体满足正当性的证成；且在存有分歧情形下，非经正当性检验的主体参与行政决定过程不得损害前者的决定。
“实体—内容”正当性要求行政权具体内容的行使也要源于人民的意志传递，或者说要保证具体行政职权的确定与实施处于人民的有效影响之下。一方面，人民通过选举立法机关，由立法机关通过制定法律来划定行政权的界限并具体化权力的内容。即便是在行政形成权日益扩大的今天，通过立法对行政权进行“预防性控制”依旧处在约束行政权制度体系的核心地位，法律优位不仅是法治国下合法行政原则的核心要求，同样是行政权获得正当性确认的重要条件。另一方面，对于立法无法涵盖行政权全部内容的情形，比如框架性的立法授权或是对行政形成空间的确认，则可通过宪法层面立法机关的监督权和行政机关对其承担的负责义务来检视其内容的正当性。在我国，人民通过各级人民代表大会产生作为行政权主体的各级政府，各级政府也因此对同级人民代表大会负责，并受其监督。同时，根据《宪法》第2条第2款和第5条第4款，人民通过人大立法，规范行政权的内容，并以此管理国家行政事务。因此，我国《宪法》规范中，亦蕴含了从“实体—内容”角度检验行政权正当性的规范要求。
虽然上述两种标准侧重角度不同，但彼此间既不是相互排斥的独立关系，也不是相互吸收的替代关系。考虑到行政权所介入社会关系的复杂性，实践中行政权的行使方式也往往表现出多样性的差异特点，进而导致运用上述标准判断权力行使正当性时，难以从单一角度套用固定的证成模式。因此，宪法对行政权正当性的要求并不局限于某一特定的标准样式，而是从权力的实际行使出发，检验其是否能够按照宪法要求，获得充分的正当性水准（bestimmtes Legitimationsniveau），即实现权力行使的过程可以有效回溯到人民的意志与监督之下。为了保障这一正当性水准的实现，通常需要上述双重标准从主客体两方面相互配合，互为补充。一旦某一方面正当性传递的紧密程度相对松散时，就需要借助另一方面相对更为严格的正当性证成予以弥补。
此外，除了正当性证成的一般标准外，为保障特定功能目标的实现，宪法规范亦可直接就国家权力的具体行使做出明确规定。因此，在以“组织—人员”和“实体—内容”为原则的正当性传递模式外，为实现特定的行政目标和任务，宪法可以通过规则在“制度—功能”上直接授权，允许在特定的领域、以特定的方式来实施行政权。而其正当性亦由实施授权的具体宪法规范直接确认，无需再诉诸于上述双重检验标准。比如我国《宪法》第91条对于在国务院设立审计机关的规定，就是从“制度—功能”角度直接规定了审计机关独立行使审计权的正当性。考虑到授权的特定性，“制度—功能”意义上的正当性获得并非与“组织—人员”“实体—内容”标准构成并列关系，而是仅作为实现特别权力功能的例外模式，作为上述一般判定标准的补充。因此，宪法规范在制度和功能上直接授权的正当性效果亦不能过分放大，具体的规则亦不能过度扩张解释。
（二）数字化行政方式正当性水准的判断
上述“组织—人员”“实体—内容”的一般标准，以及特殊情形下由具体宪法规范实现的“制度—功能”正当性证成，为判断当前数字化行政方式变革的权力正当性提供了检视路径。
1. 单纯程序内容数字化的正当性
对于数字化方式仅限于行政程序的情形，尽管程序内容自动实施的范围和程度在不断加深，但其与电子政务建设之初个别程序片段的电子化实施，在行政行为角度的性质是一致的。需要注意的是，当前我国行政程序数字化改造的依据多源于行政政策、规范性文件或者实践创新，而法律层面零星关于程序内电子政务或数据电文方式应用的规定，其内容还是着眼于电子政务早期的技术条件。即便是将当前的数字化变革视为电子政务发展的高级阶段，这些零散的电子政务规定能否为当前以数字技术为基础的程序方式提供充足的法律依据，仍有待商榷。至少从文义和目的角度来看，当前的程序法律规范不能完全涵摄实践中程序数字化的制度样态。尽管直接法律依据的缺失使得程序数字化难以直接获得充分的正当性证成，但考虑到程序的辅助性，因具体法律规定欠缺而引起的内容正当性的不足，可以通过其他的正当性标准予以弥补。
首先，数字化下单纯程序过程的自动实施，无论其程度和范围如何，实体决定仍由行政主体内部依法履行职权的职务承担人做出。因此，在“组织—人员”正当性传递上，尽管数字化方式使得行政程序过程的人为掌控力有所下降，但具体完成决定环节并实际对外实施行政权效果的人为属性，使得行政决定在主体层面依旧可以掌握在已经充分正当性证成的人员手中。即具体通过意思表示做出决定的个人，可以在组织法上从内部的任务分工起始，通过人事任免和组织设置，层层上溯至人大对行政机关在组织和人事上的决定。即便决定是由授权组织实际作出，只要拥有合法的授权规范，这种“组织—人员”的正当性传递依然保持了其完整性。而至于未获得合法授权的个案情形，则实际引发的是行政行为的合法性问题，并不因此影响正常授权下组织上正当性的获得。
其次，在“实体—内容”层面，尽管目前数字化程序实施本身因具体法律规范的密度不足，还无法直接在所有程序内容上获得充分的正当性水准，但并不必然影响经由该数字化过程实施的行政权力在内容上的正当性。其一，立法机关对行政权行使具体内容的有效控制，通常以对特定主体在实体法上的授权来实现，即内容上的正当性赋予，实际和法律优位与法律保留的实现是同一个过程的两个方面。立法机关通过法律预先对实体决定构成要件和决定内容做出规定，无论程序是以何种方式进行，行政主体在实体上都是按照法律预先构建的事实要件做出决定。在这一过程中，承载行政权运行实际效果的实体决定通过其法律依据而处在立法机关的有效制约之下，也因此在内容正当性的传递上可以不间断地上溯至人民的意志。其二，即便在立法授予行政机关较大形成空间的情形下，实际的判断余地和裁量空间一方面可以通过行政系统内部层级间命令权的行使，比如上级为下级制定裁量基准，以及人大对行政机关的监督权来保证相关裁量活动在“实体—内容”上的正当性的水准。另一方面，还可以通过在“组织—人员”层面，使实际做出裁量决定的人处在相对更为紧密的正当性传递中，比如由机关负责人或者集体作出最终决定，以此来弥补过于概括授权对内容正当性可能的不利影响。
因此，对于数字化行政方式仅作用于行政程序实施的情形，即便数字化的具体细节仍缺乏全面规定，但因行政程序的辅助性和实体决定的人为性，使得这种单纯程序数字化的行政权行使，仍可以通过行为最终外部决定的“组织—人员”和“实体—内容”正当性传递有效地回溯至人民的意志。同时，通过人为实体决定获得的正当性亦淡化了数字化程序机制背后技术属性的影响。即便是以人工智能实施的程序环节，其因“黑箱”弱点而引发的程序性不可知风险，仍可以通过决定环节的人为判断和决策，来防止该风险转化成行为结果缺乏内容正当性的危险。至于实践中数字化的程序实施方式是否会产生程序违法或者事实认定不清的风险，则通常属于依法行政角度的个案合法性问题，并不必然否定其程序结果的正当性。除非技术化实施的程序机制事实上严重压缩了人为决定的空间，使得最终决定事实上完全沦为人工智能程序性结论的简单复刻。在此种极端情形下，表面上的程序数字化实际已经在效果上和“程序+实体”完全数字化相一致，进而使得“组织—人员”层面的人为介入并未实质发挥正当性水准的控制功能。此时的程序机制正当性检验，事实上已经转化为行政行为完全数字化实施的正当性水准判断问题。
2. 行政行为完全数字化实施的正当性
完全数字化情形下，整个行政行为的作出摆脱了对行政主体一方人为活动的依赖。但数字化程度提升的同时也引发了正当性水准不足的担忧。尤其考虑到当前以“无人审批”为代表的地方制度实践多源于行政的自发创新，法律或授权立法规范的缺失导致这种制度创新要在正当性检验中面临更大的非难性。在此背景之下，数字化行政方式从程序机制向实体决定的跃迁，究竟是已经超越了权力正当性要求所能承载的行政技术化极限，而事实上造成了宪法框架下的制度冲突；还是仍可在正当性的传递中有效回溯至人民的意志而获得足够的正当性水准？
从比较法的角度看，即便是在已将该制度予以一般法制化确认的国家，也同样经历着因数字化自动技术方式向行政实体决定扩张而引发的正当性争论。尤以德国为例，通过2017年《德国联邦行政程序法》修改中新设的第35a条，德国在一般行政程序法层面确立了行政行为“程序+实体”完全数字化自动实施的制度。作为行政行为界定条款的补充规定，第35a条虽只涉及行政行为实施方式的技术升级，并未触及行为属性，但有别于此前技术设备辅助决定的情形，完全数字化实施下，人的意志活动被完全排除在整个行政行为过程之外。因此，数字化方式下，完全自动作出行政行为的正当性判断，难以在一般行政程序法规范体系内，简单套用传统行政行为制度的正当性证成路径。
首先，从形式上，通常由第三方主体设计的机器和程序过程取代行政主体一方意思表示，是否截断了“组织—人员”正当性的传递？其次，从内容上，外化为机器“输入—输出”形式的实体法适用，如何保证内在的以预先代码编程为基础，整合数据采集、传输、分析处理直至生成决定的技术运行，如实复刻了实体法约束行政权实施的内容？就个案结果而言，这一实体法适用“嵌入软件”的过程可能首先关乎行为的合法性，但就制度实施而言，亦关系到实体法在内容上传递的正当性是否切实作用于以数字化方式实施的行政权力。此外，由于《德国联邦行政程序法》第35a条只强调效果上的“完全自动化作出”，从文义上看，该规定本身不排斥行政行为由技术上非限定性的、具有自我学习能力的人工智能实施。但这种技术开放性的规范安排可能会因“技术黑箱”向实体决定的渗透进一步加剧正当性风险。
针对上述三个方面的疑问，学理上主要围绕着规范层面的制度确认规定和实施层面的技术应用机制展开了讨论：
第一，尽管行政行为作为高权命令、决定或措施的概念要素中包含有行政主体意思表示的成分，但具体的意思表示并非行政行为成立的必须要素，或者说行政行为并不必要体现为行政主体一方直接的意思表示活动。虽然历史上行政行为的概念内涵依托“高权意思表示”产生。但自20世纪50年代以来，学界主流观点趋向认为，与私法中法律行为的意思表示要素不同，行政行为中意志的体现并非必须以行政主体一方具体个人的主观意思表示为前提，只要特定的行政行为在客观上“可归属于（zurechenbar）”具体的行政主体，即可认为满足了行政主体意志的要求。因此，在可归属性标准之下，以第三方技术主体提供的数字化程序或设备自动实施行政行为，并不必然导致这一决定过程在“组织—人员”层面脱离了行政主体的控制。只要自动化作出的行政行为可归属于有权的行政主体，则在满足行政行为构成要件的同时，也保证了“组织—人员”正当性的传递。就微观个案而言，不排除特定行政行为因缺乏具体人的意志活动而无法完成客观归属，导致行为在合法性角度被认定无效。但就宏观制度而言，以完全数字化方式作出行政行为决定，并不必然造成“组织—人员”正当性链条的断裂。事实上，整个程序的数字化自动实施也没有根本上排斥行政主体的意思表示。此前部分程序机制自动实施的实践已经表明，程序自动化之下，人的意志活动可以实际前置到具体程序的启动之前，融入对软件编程、设备功能调试的要求中。同时，这种前置的意思表示活动又可以反过来印证自动作出的行政行为对于特定行政主体的可归属性。
第二，虽然从外在表现上，行政程序从部分到整体的数字化只是自动实施效果范围的扩张，但完全数字化所引发的实体法适用机制变革，使其不能简单在行政程序的非形式化原则下，归属于行政主体的程序方式选择权范畴。因为实体法数字化自动适用，意味着产生外部效力的行政权行使内容发生重大变化。而程序法上概括授予行政主体的方式选择权，仅针对尚不产生外部效力的程序内部环节。所以，单纯的程序方式选择权还不足以在权力行使内容上赋予完全数字化行政行为充分的正当性。从行政权内容受实体法决定的逻辑出发，上述“实体—内容”层面正当性的疑问，实际是对实体法内容是否适合数字化方式实施的判断。考虑到行政权的内容主要依赖立法者通过实体法确定，数字化下自动适用方式与实体法的契合性问题本质上亦属实体法问题，而无法单纯在行政程序法框架内获得解决。有鉴于此，《德国联邦行政程序法》第35a条设置了明确的法律保留条款，即只有在特别法规定的情形下，行政行为才能以完全技术自动实施的途径作出。这一法律保留规定在权力正当性方面暗含的逻辑是，以数字化方式作出决定能否在内容上达到足够的正当性水准，取决于特别法制定过程中立法者的判断。虽然这一结论看似与以往“实体—内容”正当性传递中对立法者实体立法的依赖并无二致，但法律适用机制的变化，实际对立法者提出了额外要求。除了在“是/否”意义上判断具体内容能否以完全数字化方式实施外，还要在“如何”意义上考虑怎样设计具体规则的表达，以保证规范在“嵌入软件”过程中不会偏离立法者的意图。因此，一般行政程序法上的制度确认，只是部分解决了完全数字化行政行为内容上的正当性疑问。对于仍存疑问的部分，需从“立法—行政”角度，在程序法之外通过规范构建予以补充。
第三，尽管法律规范对技术样态持开放态度，但在超前立法的背景下，行政实践样本的缺乏使得理论上对人工智能介入的问题并没有形成一致的结论。支持者认为，程序法上的制度确认规范并不禁止人工智能的应用。毕竟从行政行为成立的“可归属”标准看，限定性技术与非限定性人工智能归属特定行政主体的表现形式并无本质差异，都可以体现为人为活动前置到“嵌入软件”的编程阶段。尽管人工智能基于自我学习的程式再造过程，使其技术结论相对预先程序设定具有不可知性。但即便是限定性技术过程，行政主体一方也难以完全了解编程的具体技术原理。因此，只要人工智能所排除或所采纳的程序结论并非完全不受法律规定、或行政主体人为事前干预的约束，就不会影响其合法性和正当性。谨慎者认为，相比人为决定在“组织—人员”层面实现的正当性水准，人工智能在自我学习基础上做出的决定，使这一正当性传递过程发生了根本性变化。或者说，尽管技术准备阶段的人为参与具备一定的正当性外观，但是因算法编程对结论缺乏完全的约束力，人工智能决定是否在内容上受到实体法有效制约仍存较大疑问。同时，从《德国联邦行政程序法》第35a条的内容来看，对技术内容的精确性，立法者实际也持格外审慎的态度。按照该条规定，当实体法规定存在判断余地、不确定法律概念或裁量空间时，不能以完全技术自动实施的方式作出行政行为。这一禁止性规定实际要求在技术应用标准化下实现事实与法律规范的精确对接，强调技术过程与实体法要求的一一对应，以防止实体法自动实施中事实前提和结果的不确定性。但人工智能技术上的非限定性和决定过程不可知的“黑箱”特点，使其与行政程序立法目的所追求的确定性间存在着紧张关系。即便是自动适用内容明确的羁束性规范，技术过程的不确定性和不可知性也会使行为决定陷入合法性和正当性的不确定状态。因此，仅凭程序法规范本身的技术开放性，并不能解决人工智能在权力正当性传递上的弱点。行政行为的完全数字化能否由人工智能技术实施的关键，在于特别法规范能否解决技术过程的缺陷；如果不能消除来自正当性上的怀疑，则完全数字化行政行为不能以人工智能的途径作出。
透过德国的立法实践及学理讨论可以发现：其一，数字化自动生成行政行为决定过程对行政主体意志活动的抽离，并不必然造成正当性传递的中断。其二，数字化方式从“程序”到“实体”跃迁的背后，是实体法内容的技术化自动适用。因此，一般行政程序立法上概括的制度认可尚不足以独立发挥权力内容正当性证成的作用。对此，程序法规范构造上的法律保留设置已暗含需要特别法补强“实体—内容”正当性水准的内在逻辑。其三，人工智能的技术特性决定了由其作出实体决定会使行政权内容正当性的传递陷入不确定状态。能否通过法律对技术的规制消除这种不确定性，直接关系到完全数字化行政行为制度对人工智能的兼容性。因此，尽管正当性要求并不预设权力的行使方式，但在完全数字化实施行政行为时，仅就程序法上“一般认可+特别授权”的规范构造而言，还存在着正当性水准上的瑕疵。
借助比较法的结论反观我国当前行政自发式的完全数字化行政行为实践，在缺少具体法律授权规范的情形下，仅以行政政策性或规范性文件为制度依据，显然无法满足正当性标准的检验。因此，为了合理划定完全数字化行政行为的制度边界，确保数字技术应用处于权力正当性要求的有效控制中，有必要通过借鉴比较法的经验，在规范层面明晰我国当前制度实践正当性水准的补强方式和具体获得路径。
四、我国完全数字化行政行为制度正当性的补强方式与获得路径
（一）宪法层面的“制度—功能”正当性确认
如上文所述，在正当性的证成上，除了作为原则的“组织—人员”和“实体—内容”双重检验标准外，国家行政权的具体运行亦可例外通过宪法规范层面的直接授权，从“制度—功能”上获得正当性的证成。因此，一种理想的状态是：倘若能在我国《宪法》中准确落实对完全数字化行政行为的制度授权，并通过规范内容涵摄具体数字化决定的对象和技术特征，则当前行政自发式制度实践的正当性缺陷问题就可以迎刃而解。
然而，在我国《宪法》文本中，既没有一般意义上直接对行政权数字化实施的概括认可规定，也没有就某一类具体行政权内容作出技术化自动实施的授权。《宪法》框架内直接与行政方式相关的规定主要体现在第2条第3款，以及第27条第1款。前者是对国家权力行使正当性的一般要求，后者是对国家机关活动效能原则的规定。尽管按照《宪法》第2条第3款的文义，人民管理国家各项事务途径和形式的多样化规定，不预先将国家权力的行使绑定于固定的方式上。但是该规定内容的开放性只是在一般意义上赋予立法者在具体分配国家权力行使时组织和方式上的选择权。无论是从规范目的还是其在《宪法》规范中的体系关系而言，并不能成为特定权力行使方式的依据。而且，第2条第3款主要的规范意义在于，通过对“人民”权力主体地位的强调，揭示国家权力行使在组织和内容两方面向人民回溯的正当性要求。作为提出权力正当性要求的规范本身，显然不适合同时作为赋予特定权力内容和方式正当性的规范基础。
至于《宪法》第27条第1款对行政效能原则的确认，能否基于数字化行政目标导向与其规范内容的契合性，直接从功能上给予完全数字化行政行为制度以充分的正当性水准？从确认效能原则的规范构造来看，也难以得出肯定的答案。第27条第1款是对所有国家机关的一般要求，即不仅是行政机关，而是包括立法、司法在内的所有国家权力机关都负有改进工作方式，提升工作效能的义务。因此，主体规定的抽象性不足以构成对行政权运行的特别授权。与此同时，《宪法》对效能原则的具体要求是“不断提高工作质量和工作效率”，其实质是着眼于建国后国家机构建设的经验教训，解决国家机关工作中长期存在的效率低下问题。即使从“目的—手段”相适应的角度，将效能原则视为国家行政任务与社会发展有序互动背景下，行政活动目标对行政方式改进的客观要求，其规范内容也只是对国家行政机关的概括性和持续性义务规定。因此，某种具体形式行政方式的运用，比如此处所讨论的数字化行政，并不能直接以《宪法》第27条为制度基础。同理，《宪法》中的效能规定亦不能从“制度—功能”层面构成对行政行为完全数字化实施的特别授权。
（二）借助特别法规范的正当性水准补强方式
尽管我国《宪法》在行政活动方式上所秉持的开放性表明，权力正当性要求并不反对行政行为的完全数字化，但宪法规范本身尚不足以从“制度—功能”角度直接赋予当前的完全数字化行政行为实践以充分的正当性。因此，解决当前法律基础“空置状态”下该制度实践的正当性问题，仍需要回归到具体行政法律规范的构建上。
根据比较法观察的结论，行政权实体内容以完全数字化方式自动实施并非不受限制。判断完全数字化方式实施的行政行为是否在权力内容上具备了足够的正当性水准，关键不在于程序法层面概括的制度确认，而取决于相应实体法规范的内容，能否确保数字化技术过程如实传递实体法所承载的具体权力内容要求。因此，相应的授权规范也绝非仅在形式上对行政创新实践进行简单背书。具体规范内容的构建需要建立在对“内容范畴”和“技术前提”的充分考量之上。前者侧重从规范对象角度，要求所涉实体法内容适合“翻译”成数字化的自动技术过程，后者侧重从技术应用角度，强调法律规定对所采数字技术的可控制性。
1. 规范内容的数字化契合性
数字化行政方式下，实体法数字化自动适用的前提是自然语言文字形式的规范内容，可以通过形式化语言的代码得到表达。考虑到自然文字表意复杂性与形式化代码编程精确性间可能存在的矛盾，并非所有的实体法内容都可以跨越这道“语义门槛”。因此，在规范的构建过程中，无论是通过新设具体规范，还是通过授权将既有实体规范纳入数字化自动实施范围，相应的实体规范内容都应当具备数字化自动实施的契合性。
但这并非要求立法者实际扮演程序员的角色，就如何将实体法规定具体转化成数字化代码作出全面规定或者直接将具体代码上升为法律。一方面，立法者能力的局限使其在客观上不可能就代码编制的具体细节作出规定；另一方面，《宪法》第5条体现的依法行政原则也并不要求行政对立法的绝对依附。立法与行政分工之下，立法权需要对行政权为实现其功能所拥有的形成空间予以适度尊重。即便是行政权以数字化方式自动行使时，也不适合将技术化的全部代码过程置于立法者的预先规定之下，否则将混淆立法权和行政执行权的分工界限。实际选择哪个技术主体、运用何种算法具体编程，以及投入使用相应的技术设备，只要没有禁止性法律保留，本质上属于行政自主决定的范畴。
而规范的数字化契合性，实际是从法律实施角度出发，着眼于保证代码“翻译”实体法规定的准确性，对规范内容构造提出的适合或者便于实现这一“翻译”过程的要求。其目的是为了确保具体规范约束行政权行使的意旨如实通过数字代码过程传递，使自动的技术结论遵循权力正当性要求回溯至人民的意志。考虑到完全数字化下实施机制预先设定和实施过程无人介入的特点，相关授权规范需要兼具文本的语义明确性和对象的个案同质性。从而确保其内容可以通过前置的数字化代码过程得到准确表达，并在彼此独立具体个案间获得反复适用的可能。具体而言，在规范构造的形式和内容上，应当符合如下要求：
第一，为了便于自然语言与形式化语言间的转换，规范的句法结构应当清晰明确。相比于条件式的句法结构，概括性目的授权以及为行政主体留有较大判断余地的规范，或者结果开放性、依赖于行政主体个案中调查权进一步具体化的规范，难以通过预先的代码设置准确传递，或者说难以完全涵盖立法对权力行使的要求。
第二，在句法清楚的基础上，规范的内容还要避免个案面向的价值判断。从德国完全自动化作出行政行为的立法目的看，这一行政方式的变革主要针对行政管理实践中反复大量作出、内容条件一致的实体决定。比如最为典型、也最先获得制度实践的自动化征税决定，其事实要件只涉及客观化的内容标准与计算方式。而对于复杂的价值判断规定，尽管当前的数字技术并非不能将复杂判断过程转换成自动化代码形式，比如自动驾驶领域常用的决策规划算法的应用。但涉价值判断的规范内容，意在强调行政权行使的个案导向，难以预先设定衡量标准。因此，将建立在价值权衡上的行政决定完全交由数字化方式生成，除了可能引发个案层面合法性问题外，还会在制度层面加重正当性瑕疵。毕竟，在注重个案差异的权衡要求下，预先的代码设置难以逃脱对权力行使内容不当限缩的指摘。
第三，规范事实内容的类型化构造，避免使用不确定法律概念。在当前的技术条件下，无论完全数字化行政行为以何种具体的技术样态实施，实体法内容的代码化翻译都需建立在确定的标准之上。如上文反复强调，代码对实体规范内容的准确翻译及传递，是完全数字化行政行为获得个案合法性与制度正当性的前提。因此，反过来从规范的数字化契合角度看，能够赋予完全数字化方式内容正当性的规范，在其构造上亦应当配合代码过程中标准的确立，即授权规范中事实内容的规定本身就可以按特定的客观标准进行类型化划分。与此同时，事实前提的类型化不应以根据主观标准具体化的不确定法律概念为基础，否则通过代码预设的内容标准将丧失在实践中可反复适用的客观性，进而导致获得自动实施的行政权内容并非规范要求的准确反映。
2. 数字技术的可控性
在实体法满足数字化契合性的情形下，尽管选择具体的技术方案、进行代码编译本质上属于行政执行权自主决定的范畴，但并非意味着行政主体的技术垄断。《宪法》对行政活动中技术应用的开放性规定，也并非意味着完全数字化行政行为中行政主体的技术自治。虽然立法上不宜触及具体的技术细节，比如形式化语言代码的具体算法编译，但是作为行政权内容行使的载体，实际采用的技术样态至少要在功能上实现权力内容正当性的传递要求。因此，为保障这一功能的实现，应当在规范层面就所选择技术样态的可控性作出必要规定。
在当前限定性与非限定性的技术划分下，按照技术可控要求，矛盾的焦点集中在人工智能的运用上。尽管《新一代人工智能发展规划》从政策导向上强调了人工智能介入行政管理实践和行政决策过程的必然趋势。但结合比较法的观察，在规范层面没有消除人工智能“黑箱”过程不可知风险的情况下，以其为基础实现的完全数字化行政行为始终面临内容正当性水准不足的风险。目前，针对“黑箱”效应的规制，主要是遵循技术设计角度提出的透明和负责两项基本原则，并在此基础上实现公平、可靠、参与和权利保障并重的人工智能应用。在具体的规制途径上，基本是围绕着人工智能算法的编制过程，从事前、事中和事后的时间维度展开。其一，以公民权利保护为出发点，通过对人工智能技术设计注入算法伦理要求并施加后果责任，将法律体系所追求的公平、公正、公开透明等价值追求转化成算法设计伦理以及相应的算法标准，并在实际编制过程中予以贯彻。其二，扩大算法编制过程的参与机制，将约束人为活动的“正当程序”理念引入算法编制和实施过程，以此来保证受影响主体的权益可以被算法编制者充分考虑。其三，通过公开算法内容、建立算法备案制度、赋予个体算法解释请求权等事后公开机制，寻求对算法内容的理解和算法结论的控制。
虽然算法的规制途径正日趋体系化，但就具体作用机制和效果而言，与其说是规范算法实施、实现技术过程内在的自律，不如说是约束算法编制主体、提出外在的算法设计行为规则。在透明原则的导向下，尽管上述规制方式从不同角度覆盖了算法设计到实施的全过程，但并非可以借此实质解锁算法“黑箱”，构建可复现和可预判的人工智能过程。人工智能自我学习过程的不可知性并没有随着形式化的算法公开而消解。同理，预置的伦理规则是否在人工智能决策中得到了充分执行，也并不能简单通过算法标准的设定和解释获得确信。
因此，当前所提出的算法规制策略实际是从有限的风险预判出发，通过对技术原理或结论的描述来增强人工智能结论的可接受性，而非通过控制算法实施的“输入/输出”过程实现结论的可演绎性。与传统行政程序中建立在主体间直接信息沟通基础上的程序透明不同，算法公开的路径尚不能客观实现人工智能决策过程的透明。这意味着，经由人工智能所实现的完全数字化行政行为，即便依实体法具备羁束属性，其技术结论与规范内容的重合也并不能客观上证实算法决策是忠实适用事实前提规定的结果。所以，人工智能决策过程的不可控性与权力正当性所要求的内容传递可控性之间的矛盾，当前仍无法通过对算法的规制得到合理解决。
综上，行政方式的技术开放性虽然不限制人工智能的介入，甚至国家的政策导向还鼓励运用其提升行政的效率。但考虑到当前算法规制手段的局限性，完全或者依赖人工智能方式实施行政行为的正当性瑕疵，尚不能通过具体的技术治理规范获得补正。因此，基于技术可控的考虑，有必要在完全数字化方式作出行政行为时，对人工智能的运用予以严格约束。
（三）内嵌入依法行政的正当性获得路径
上文提及，行政权行使正当性的获得，通常与其合法性的获致，共同构成依法行政下法律规范约束行政权的“一体两面”。行政方式数字化变革下，行政行为“程序+实体”自动实施在正当性证成上对规范形式和内容的依赖同样表明，弥补实体法适用由人为决定走向数字技术决定过程中出现的正当性瑕疵，需要从依法行政层面，通过规制数字化行政方式的运用来实现。考虑到我国现行约束行政方式的法律规范大多源于前数字化时期，零散的电子政务条款已不足以对数字技术应用作出全面回应。因此，在当前行政自发实践的背景下，确保完全数字化行政行为以符合权力正当性检验的方式实施，实际转化为对数字化行政变革进行法制化约束时，将正当性要素内嵌入依法行政要求的问题。
具体而言，就是要完善完全数字化行政行为的制度规范设置。一方面，考虑到无人介入的技术特点，从“实体—内容”层面，将上述实体法“技术可译”和数字化方式“技术可控”的补强方式进行一般化的规范确认，确保抽象制度建构上的正当性水准。另一方面，考虑到数字化代码编译与实施的分离，从“组织—人员”层面，强化行政机关必要的前置性义务，以及程序性介入机制，避免具体制度实施中的正当性风险。
1. 适用范围的法律保留
来自比较法的经验已经表明，无论是行政机关对于行政行为作成方式原则上享有的选择自由，还是一般意义上概括的制度确认，都不足以在内容上使完全数字化行政行为获得充分的正当性水准。为了保证实体法规范转换为形式化代码过程的准确性，避免技术翻译过程变相成为“二次立法”，从而架空实体法对技术结论的控制力，并非所有行政行为的授权规范都适合数字化的自动实施方式。至于哪些实体法要求在形式和内容上与数字技术过程相匹配，本质上应由立法判断，不能任由行政机关在执行过程中进行自由选择。因此，对于完全以数字化方式作出的行政行为，其范围应当遵循法律保留的限制。除非有特别法规范的明确授权，否则不能将行政行为完全交由数字化方式作出。
在法律保留具体范围的设定上，按照从实体法“技术可译”角度的分析，首先，根据授权事项是否契合预先标准化设定，排除仅对行政机关进行目的性概括授权的事项。其次，根据授权要求能否得到技术语言准确传递，排除需要结合个案情形进行价值权衡的事项。最后，为保证预置的技术过程在不同个案中的反复适用，排除需依主观标准具体化不确定法律概念的情形，以及原则上排除行政裁量行为。除非在只需借助客观事实标准作出裁量决定的情形下，通过裁量基准的约束，行政机关的裁量空间已经事实上“缩减为零”。
2. 技术样态选择的约束
相比依法行政框架中原本蕴含的，以保护行政参与人权益为目标设置具体技术规制要求的积极规范路径；在嵌入正当性要素后，对完全数字化行政行为的约束，还需要通过消极的规范路径，限制行政机关采用不符合“技术可控”要求的数字技术。尽管非限定性人工智能技术在替代人工决策上具有显著的效能优势，但由于当前算法治理手段的局限，使得作为输入端的授权规范和输出端的算法结论间无法建立起“实体—内容”上的正当性传递。因此，针对完全数字化行政行为的特殊性，有必要在行政方式技术开放性的原则下，设置特别的技术约束规则，排除行政行为实体决定完全或者事实上仅依赖非限定性人工智能决策作出。
3. 行政机关的前置性参与义务
尽管范围的法律保留和技术选择的约束从制度建构层面确保了完全数字化行政行为的正当性水准，但考虑到数字化方式牵涉到复杂的技术设计和运行，在制度的实施层面仍存在技术过程偏离授权初衷的正当性风险。因此，内嵌入依法行政要求的正当性获得路径中，同样蕴含着防范制度实施中正当性风险的要求。完全数字化条件下，行政行为的作出实际包含了“抽象”和“具体”两个技术决定过程。抽象决定是前置性代码编制过程，具体决定则是编译好的代码方案在个案中生成具体行为决定的过程。受制于行政机关自身人力和技术条件的限制，实际承担抽象决定任务的通常是第三方技术主体。与传统行政机关向第三方私主体购置办公设备、软件而形成的简单政府采购关系不同，这一代码编译的抽象决定过程实际构成了行政权行使的外包。它直接决定着制度实施中形式化技术语言是否是实体法内容的准确传递，并影响后续个案中行政权实际行使的正当性水准。有鉴于此，应当通过对这一过程的规制，避免抽象技术决定完全遁入私主体的自治而引发权力内容正当性的传递风险。
以数字化方式作出实体决定时，传统行政行为决定所包含的意思要素通常提前至技术准备阶段。因此，在规制路径的选择上，可以从依法行政角度强化行政机关对抽象技术决定过程的参与义务，通过提升“组织—人员”层面的控制力，防范可能存在的正当性风险。就参与义务的具体内容而言，一方面，要加强行政机关对技术编制过程的实际参与和控制机制，包括审慎选取技术主体、确认技术标准、提出具体技术目标、参与技术方案的论证与评估；另一方面，吸收新修改的《中华人民共和国行政处罚法》第41条的立法模式，明确行政机关对抽象技术决定的功能检验职责，包括对整体技术实施流程的审定，以及进行实际应用场景模拟的技术验收制度。
4. 个案实施中的风险预警与人工介入机制
在完全数字化行政行为的个案实施中，抽象技术决定的“具体化”始终无法消弭转化前后契合度的顾虑，即预置的技术过程是否能抵消个案间差异的影响而反复适用，或者说如何应对个案情形可能超出抽象技术决定预设条件的技术僵局状况。这种从抽象到具体的技术涵摄风险不仅关乎着个案决定是否符合事实前提的合法性，也关乎着数字技术方式传递的实体法要求能否对个案结果实现充分控制的正当性。因此，尽管个案实施中数字化方式排除行政机关的实际参与，但为避免因技术预设无法应对个案情形而引发的合法性和正当性风险，需要在行政程序中设置预警机制并对行政机关课以相应的介入义务。
具体而言，第一，可以在预置的代码程式中配套设置风险识别系统，用以在技术过程的自动实施中及时识别和发现可能偏离设计初衷的情形。比如德国在税收行政领域引入完全自动征税决定的同时，规定行政机关可以通过设置风险管理系统，及时过滤需人工介入调查的重大风险情形。第二，规定特定情形下行政机关以人工方式介入的义务。在风险识别系统提示个案不匹配风险，或者行政相对人认为有个案特殊性、明确要求以人工方式进行事实调查的，行政机关应当及时将数字化实施方式转为人工决定方式。第三，给予行政机关人工介入的裁量权限。作为防范正当性风险的兜底性保障机制，除行政机关明确负有介入义务的情形外，应当给予行政机关主动介入数字化过程的裁量权。经由行政程序作出行政决定的过程，实际是行政机关主导推动的、围绕行政调查权行使展开的过程。即便是在数字化方式的自动实施下，也并不意味着行政机关对程序负责义务的全面放弃。因此，行政机关有义务对数字化方式作出行政行为的过程进行监督，对于个案具体情形可能偏离预设技术标准的，可以结合具体的判断作出是否转为人工实施的决定。
五、结语
正如赫拉利曾在《未来简史》中充满忧虑地警告：“一旦权力从人类手中交给算法，人文主义的议题就可能惨遭淘汰。”面对数字技术驱动下，从工具意义辅助手段广泛向法律制度实施方式跃迁的数字化行政变革，行政活动中人为因素的消减亦在国家权力运行角度引发“机器治人”的担忧。尽管宪法框架下，行政活动原则上具有技术开放性，而且依法行政原则亦尊重行政的方式选择权，但是技术的开放并不意味技术的放任。作为行政权力运行的方式载体，数字化行政方式的技术选择与运用首先要符合宪法上“组织—人员”和“实体—内容”标准下权力正当性的检验，确保数字化过程处在不间断的、有效回溯至人民的正当性传递中。
数字化行政的正当性危机，突出体现在数字化方式由程序环节跨越至实体决定，实现行政行为完全自动实施的过程中。尤其是在我国当前行政自发式驱动模式下，实践中完全数字化行政行为正当性水准不足的问题更为显现。透过比较法的经验观察，补正当前制度建构上的正当性瑕疵，需要在规范上实现实体授权的“技术可译”和数字化方式的“技术可控”。因此，完全数字化行政行为的正当性获得，最终需要回归依法行政角度，将正当性要素嵌入合法性要求，一方面通过法律保留和技术约束规定，在“实体—内容”上补强抽象制度的正当性水准；另一方面通过强化程序机制，在“组织—人员”上避免具体实施中的正当性风险。
翻译：
Zhan Penghe: Associate Professor, Law School, Hunan University, Doctor of Law
Content summary
Driven by digital technologies represented by the Internet, big data and artificial intelligence, Chinese administrative methods are undergoing unprecedented digital changes. As an extension of e-government system, the effect of digital administration is shifting to the automatic implementation of administrative procedures including entity decision. As a change in the way of exercising administrative power, the digital administration manifested in practice must conform to the legitimate requirements of the Constitution for the operation of national power. Under the typed perspective, through the analysis of the theoretical framework of the rightness of power, the complete digital administrative behavior system from the administrative innovation is difficult to obtain the full level of rightness because of the lack of concrete norms.
In order to make up for this, we need to focus on the particularity of the digital application of substantive law, and frame the boundary of the complete digital implementation from the perspective of the digital fit of the standard and the technical controllability of the system construction. On this basis, the acquisition of specific legitimacy still needs to return to the path of administration according to law, and the requirements of defect correction at the system level and risk prevention in the implementation process should be legalized.
Key words
The legitimacy of digital administrative procedures artificial intelligence
First, the question raised
An era of digital government is upon us. Worldwide, the fourth industrial revolution driven by the Internet, big data and artificial intelligence meets the fourth government revolution aimed at optimizing administrative management and service quality. Under the application of digital technology, the government governance mode has presented an unprecedented structural change: the traditional administrative mode of “human-human” interaction has widely realized the transformation to the digital mode of “human-machine” interaction. Faced with the prominent contradiction between the expansion of administrative tasks and the limited administrative resources in today’s society, digital administrative mode has been increasingly concerned by the administrative practice and legislation of various countries with its remarkable efficiency advantage.
In recent years, in order to promote the modernization transformation of government governance system and governance ability, our country has also accelerated the pace of transforming administrative mode with digital technology. Guided by a series of policy documents from The State Council promoting the application of “Internet Plus”, big data and artificial intelligence, a large number of administrative, service and regulatory activities, which traditionally rely on human and space-time conditions, have begun to shift to digital processing based on online data transmission and intelligent algorithm processing. Through institutional innovation, some local governments have implemented the completely digital implementation mode of administrative behaviors represented by “no one approves” and “facial application for certificates”.
According to the trend of digital administrative reform which expands continuously
According to the trend of digital administrative reform which expands continuously, the driving mode of spontaneous administrative reform in our country cannot avoid raising concerns about whether the digital mode conforms to the requirement of the downward exercise of political power under the constitutional framework. This concern mainly comes from two aspects: at the micro level, how to deal with the legal regulatory challenges caused by the technical characteristics of the Internet, big data and artificial intelligence, and how to construct rules to make up for the technical defects and solve the legitimacy of specific technical patterns in the case; On the macro level, how to integrate the technological governance of digital administration into the legal governance of national power operation, and define the reasonable scope of digital administration through the constitutional requirements for the legitimacy of administrative power.
Compared with the abundant researches on specific technical regulations at the micro level, there are few special discussions on whether digital administrative transformation can meet the legitimate requirements of power exercise. This paper will try to start from the norms of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) that restrict the legitimacy of executive power, and delimit the legitimate boundary for digital administration through the theoretical framework of legitimacy justification, so as to prevent the existing legal basis from falling into the risk of deconstruction and failure due to blind technology worship, and also avoid excessive conservatism and rigidity that hinder the improvement of administrative efficiency of technology.
Consider that “digital administration”, or “automated administration” as a description of its effects, is a descriptive term rather than a strictly normative concept.
In order to ensure the rigor of the analysis process and conclusion, it is necessary to start from the practice of digital transformation of administrative activities, and clarify the specific mechanism content to which it points. At the same time, the macroscopic discussion of justification cannot separate its connection with the microcosmic specific technical regulation. The investigation of legitimacy is helpful to expose the deficiency of the specification of technology application and guide the direction of micro investigation.
The existing technical regulation discussion can also reverse remedy the possible defects of legitimacy and provide the basis for macroscopic argumentation. Therefore, this paper will be developed along the following lines: First, from the current practice, comb out the main mode of digital administrative way; Secondly, it examines whether it can meet the requirement of the legitimacy of the exercise of executive power under the framework of constitution. Finally, in view of the possible defects of legitimacy, the reinforcement method of system construction is proposed and transformed into a specific regulation path under the administration by law.
Sorting out the mode of administrative mode reform driven by digital technology
The technicalization tendency of state administrative activities is not a new thing. As early as the 18th century, Staat als Maschine, or the state as a machine, was born in political philosophy. After the birth of modern administrative law, the legal attention to technological transformation of administrative mode is not a recent hot topic. The debate over whether technological processes can be regulated by law dates back even to the 1950s, when electronic devices began to proliferate. The contradiction between the finiteness of administrative resources and the complexity and expansion of administrative tasks under the bureaucratic system provides an opportunity and impetus for the technological reform of administrative mode oriented by improving administrative efficiency.
Regarding this, Forsthoff made a conclusion as early as 1958 for the trend of the application of machines and equipment in the administrative practice at that time: although the technical conditions at that time, the basic structure of the administration has not changed fundamentally, that is, the machines and equipment usually only serve as a means to assist the work without touching the essence of the human implementation of the administrative process.
However, in the sense of the implementation of the legal system, the possibility of machine replacing human has at least been shown in the social security and financial administrative field of a large number of repeated administrative behaviors, and has a trend of gradual expansion. In his opinion, although it was far from realistic to imagine that administrative activities could be carried out entirely by automatic machine control under the current state of technology, it was also unrealistic to completely ignore the possibility of such development.
For more than half a century, his judgment has been coming true.
With the development of electronic information technology to the government public management field penetration and transformation, the use of electronic information equipment in administrative activities, completed the transition from a simple tool meaning of office auxiliary means to an independent legal effect of the procedure or behavior mechanism. From the perspective of the development process of information technology replacing manual administration, the wave of E-Government, which rose rapidly in the field of public administration after the 1990s, became the beginning of the system of reengineering government management and service process and realizing “administrative modernization and bureaucracy reform”.
The transformation of administrative activity mode driven by digital technology in current administrative practice can still be regarded as the product of the continuous development of e-government along with the upgrading of technology from the perspective of system evolution. Therefore, investigating the concrete mode of digital administration at present stage, we should take e-government to the transformation of administrative activities mode as the logical starting point.
(1) The clues of automatic implementation of administrative procedures under the background of e-government
As the integration of science and technology and government governance means, e-government aims not only at the input of technical hardware and software at the “use level” in administrative activities, but also at the transformation of administrative mode in the sense of “administration-citizen” communication, which needs to meet the realization of technical effect and the test of the legitimacy of administrative behavior. Therefore, the implementation of e-government should also be based on the complete information foundation and the legal regulation of the way to realize the system as the dual premise. The construction of E-government in our country begins with the attempt of office automation in government offices.
However, subject to the objective conditions of the weak information foundation at that time, the initial system construction mainly focused on the administration-led information infrastructure construction. Its signature content is to promote the “government online” as the core of the portal construction, and on this basis to start the government information and services online “relocation”. Although there is no lack of legal orientation and practice in this stage, in the early stage, local decentralized legislation is mainly adopted, with low effectiveness level, and the content mainly focuses on strengthening the responsibility of information infrastructure construction of governments at all levels, and the reform of administrative procedures and decision mechanism has not been fully touched.
The one-way network migration realized by the government through the information construction lays the foundation for the process reengineering of administrative activities through the two-way interaction of e-government.
At the normative level, the institutional transition of realizing the form of e-government from one way to two way appears in the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Tax Collection and Administration revised in 2001. Article 26 of the Law stipulates that taxpayers may submit tax declaration materials in the form of data messages as required by regulations. In the application of e-government, it is possible for the system nodes in administrative procedures to be implemented automatically through data transmission. However, the application of this pioneering legislative setting is still subject to certain prerequisite reservation restrictions, that is, whether the electronic digital declaration method can be adopted depends on the formation of legislative or administrative space.
In essence, the regulation that integrates e-government methods into general administrative procedures and endows them with explicit procedural law meaning originates from the Administrative Licensing Law of the People’s Republic of China enacted in 2003.
According to Article 33 of the Law, e-government should be applied at three levels in the implementation of administrative license activities by administrative organs: online disclosure of license matters, electronic data-based implementation of license applications, and sharing of license information among organs. Although the purpose of this article is only “advocacy”, which emphasizes the unilateral system construction and perfection obligation of the administrative organ, and does not necessarily produce subjective public rights of the counterpart, it clearly puts forward the application in the form of electronic data transmission as the starting way of the license procedure.
The traditional administrative licensing procedures, which are initiated by submitting paper materials in person or mailing them to administrative organs, can be implemented by means of electronic data transmission under the network environment built by e-government. The automatic implementation of administrative mode under the transformation of electronic information technology has been recognized by the standard in the general sense. Later, in 2004, The State Council issued the Implementation Outline of Comprehensively Promoting Administration according to Law, which recognized the reform of the administrative procedure system by e-government in a larger scope, and proposed that the expansion of online handling of administrative affairs should be regarded as an important content of the reform of administrative management mode.
Although the electronic implementation of individual administrative procedures in this stage is limited in the degree of technicalization and the effect of automatic implementation, the specific system content is relatively rough.
However, the automatic implementation mode starting from the electronization of administrative procedures lays a technical path and institutional paradigm for the rapid development of digital administrative practice driven by digital technology. In terms of content, the foundation is shown as the “data running” mode, which takes network as the path and data as the information carrier. In form, it is reflected in promoting the automatic implementation of administrative acts through the reform of procedural system. From the point of view of function, the automatic implementation of procedures spawned by e-government also conforms to the direction of the progress of administrative procedures system.
As a communication process for the purpose of knowledge generation (Wissensgenerierung), the function of administrative procedures is to ensure that there is sufficient knowledge base for the implementation of administrative activities through the organized and systematic processing of information. As a result, progress in the way procedures are implemented always revolves around the improvement of this communication mechanism. The electronic digital information exchange form based on network presented by e-government, with its efficiency advantage, provides a breakthrough for system reform to cope with the tension between administrative tasks and administrative effectiveness in a pluralistic society. In this sense, the expansion of the automatic implementation effect of administrative mode under the application of digital technology is also the continuation and upgrade of the administrative mode reform realized by e-government in the system.
(2) The classification of digital administrative methods
- Methodological necessity of digital administrative classification
The slow germination of legal system of e-government does not slow down the pace of technological progress in practice to reform administrative activities. In recent years, digital technology has shown a more powerful reshaping power of administrative methods in practice. The integration of technology and administrative mode has realized the leap from “government online” to “digital government”. The combination of the Internet, big data and artificial intelligence technologies has broken down the physical boundaries of government and made asynchronous advancement of programs possible. In terms of the external effect of automatic implementation, the “decentralization” mode with intelligent terminal as the link is replacing the previous unilateral “decentralization” mode which focuses on optimizing the information processing ability of administrative organs.
Although the path of administrative mode transformation by digital technology has not changed essentially, it still continues the system orientation aiming at realizing automatic interaction of procedural information. However, the expansion of the effect of automatic implementation of technology to the whole process of administrative procedures under digitalization and the characteristics of the “decentralized” mode make the specific types of digital administration in practice more difficult to be summarized by the automatic implementation of specific process system nodes. On the one hand, the external effect of digital administration in practice becomes more and more obvious with the deepening of technicalization. On the other hand, the legal standard definition of digital administration is more blurred because of the diversity of practice.
As mentioned above, as a concept of digital administration
As mentioned above, as a concept of digital administration, affected by the differences in the comprehensive intervention degree of technology and application scenarios in practice, its extended radiation range has been expanding, but the connotation is still lack of clear definition, so it can only be constantly generalized to objective empirical description. In view of this, when we pay attention to the trend of digital administration from the standpoint of power control in administrative law and make institutional response, rather than pursuing a definition that is difficult to be clarified at the standard level, we should conform to its descriptive characteristics in the method and abstract the main types of current digital administration from the theory of administrative law through the summary and classification of practice.
This shift in methodological perspective has been shown in the study of legal issues related to digital technology. Some scholars refer to the classification method of autonomous driving technology of SAE, and propose that the administrative law regulation of automatic implementation under the application of digital technology should also be treated differently through the classification method, or different provisions should be made according to the content of administrative behavior.
Therefore, the paper gives up conceptual definition as the logical starting point in methodology,
Therefore, the paper gives up conceptual definition as the logical starting point in methodology, and abstracts the main mode of digital administration from the perspective of typing, takes the legal system involved as the standard, avoids the contradiction between the uncertainty of the difference in the degree and scope of technological intervention and the accuracy pursued by normative analysis, which is the necessary prerequisite for clarifying the digital transformation and the proper exercise of administrative power from the perspective of norms.
- Division of digital administrative types from the perspective of legal system implementation
Since the beginning of the construction of e-government, the specific application path of information technology in the field of administrative law mainly focuses on improving the automatic implementation effect of specific legal systems in administrative activities, such as the transmission of data messages to realize the automatic implementation of administrative procedure application system and inter-administrative organ assistance system. Therefore, the impact of digital administration on the operation of administrative power within the legal scope can be reflected relatively objectively through the reform of the implementation mode of relevant legal system and the classification of digital administration types combined with specific technical content.
As mentioned above, the application of digital technology in our administrative activities mainly originates from the spontaneous administrative drive
As mentioned above, the application of digital technology in our administrative activities mainly originates from the spontaneous administrative drive, so the division of digital administrative type needs to be based on the specific application of the Internet, big data and artificial intelligence in practice, and the result of the reform of legal system.
Considering the characteristics of various and scattered forms of expression in the process of the actual application of digital technology by governments at all levels, it is lack of operability and easy to lack of system to generalize the classification. In order to avoid superficial disputes in the complex reality without touching the core issue that the exercise of executive power is affected by technology, the classification of digital administration types should start from the guidance of the national overall promotion of digital technology application at the level of norms, while taking into account the groundbreaking practical innovation of local governments on this basis.
(1) The regulation of the application of digital technology and its influence on the administrative mode
According to the time of promulgation of relevant technical documents, The State Council first issued the Program of Action to Promote the Development of Big Data in 2015, which clearly put forward big data technology as a new way to improve the governance capacity of the government. With the ability to collect and analyze massive data through big data, it can provide timely illegal warning information for administrative law enforcement, provide objective factual analysis for administrative decisions, and simplify the process of handling administrative licenses and approvals. Under big data, all information can be processed in data, which breaks through the previous technical limitation of simple data and message exchange only in individual program links, and makes program information interaction completely free from the dependence on face-to-face communication between participants in a spatio-temporal consistent environment.
Subsequently, in order to realize data exchange on the basis of large-scale information data, The State Council proposed for the first time in the 2016 “Government Work Report” that “vigorously implement ‘Internet + government services’ in the administrative management and service activities of governments at all levels, realize data sharing among departments, and let residents and enterprises run less errands”. The idea of this system was soon concretized into the “whole-online” requirements for the application, acceptance, examination, decision and service of administrative procedures in the Guiding Opinions on Accelerating the work of “Internet + Government Services” issued in the same year. In traditional administrative procedures, the important procedures system, which is restricted by physical conditions such as time, space and manpower, has been widely implemented automatically in the “data run” mode realized by the media of digital network platform.
At the technical level, the use of “Internet Plus” and big data benefits from the intelligent advances in algorithms that underlie it.
The latter’s rapid development has also led to a revolution in legal artificial intelligence. Despite the lack of competitive innovation and stricter legal constraints in public law compared with private law, AI applications have started relatively conservatively. However, as countries around the world attach importance to the role of artificial intelligence in promoting social progress, the importance of its application in the field of public administration also begins to highlight. In our country, the requirement of intelligent reform of government management and service, the 2016 “Guidance advice on accelerating the work of” Internet + government service “has begun to emerge.
In 2017, The State Council issued the Development Plan for the New Generation of Artificial Intelligence, which clearly proposed that based on network and data technology, artificial intelligence should be applied to government services and decision-making, so as to smooth the interaction channels between administrative subjects and the public, and promote the modernization of social governance. According to this top-level design, on the one hand, it confirms the development trend of artificial intelligence, Internet and big data reengineering administrative way;
On the other hand, it makes it possible for the automatic implementation effect of legal system to transition from procedural mode to entity decision. As for whether the digital implementation of physical decisions should be made by AI, the New Generation of AI Development Plan does not specify clearly. Judging from the openness of the definition of artificial intelligence itself in its normative meaning and the requirement of emphasizing the correlation and cooperation of relevant technologies, The State Council has adopted an open stance in principle. This position has been continued in subsequent normative documents.
So far, the digital administrative method,
So far, the digital administrative method, which covers the whole process of administrative activities from procedure implementation to entity decision, has been confirmed in the policies and normative documents issued by the country’s highest administrative organ. With the policy-oriented recognition of the implementation of digital entity decisions in principle, many governments in Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Tianjin and other places have tried to implement a completely digital examination and approval mode guided by “no one’s examination and approval” in their respective administrative examination and approval reforms. Through local innovation practice, the physical decision process of traditional manual review is replaced by data review conducted by terminal machine relying on algorithm programming in digital approval.
(2) Classification of digital administration under the comprehensive application of Internet, big data and artificial intelligence
Under the influence of the Internet, big data and artificial intelligence, the digital administration from the perspective of implementing changes in the legal system through relevant national policies and norms and local innovation practices presents the following three characteristics:
First, the scope of administrative procedures implemented digitally has significantly expanded.
In the age of “data run away”, the direct dependence of information interaction on people in administrative procedures is diminishing. For example, in the application of government services, it used to be the applicant “run leg”, but now it is the data “run road”. The applicant can automatically start the procedure on the self-service terminal by filling in the network information and uploading the materials and documents, and then the procedure will be advanced until the delivery of the decision will be completed in the form of data transmission and sharing.
Thanks to the automatic implementation of the procedural system, the situation of “running away less” also occurs in the administrative organs. For example, in recent years, the widely used traffic illegal identification, intelligent urban management law enforcement and other systems, on the basis of automatic data collection terminal, through digital network transmission and data analysis, instead of the previous must be completed by law enforcement personnel on-site law enforcement inspection, illegal investigation and other processes.
Second, the digital way is decided by the extension of the program to the entity.
Different from the past through the technical equipment to assist the decision situation, such as simply through calculation, with the aid of parametric discretion benchmark to get the exact amount of punishment; Or an electronic certificate issued by hand and delivered by E-mail. At present, the decision making of some administrative behavior entities, such as the system practice of “no one to approve”, has no longer relied on manual labor, but has completely shifted to the data analysis and processing process designed by algorithm. Digital administration begins to develop from procedural “service function” stage to substantive “decision function” stage.
Thirdly, the technological pattern of digital administration has changed significantly compared with the construction period of e-government.
Among them, the most revolutionary and challenging change comes from the intervention of artificial intelligence. Compared with the pre-set technology model from input to output, the whole process of artificial intelligence shows obvious autonomy and cognition. Although the technical connotation and extension of artificial intelligence are quite open, most scholars believe that the most fundamental change of artificial intelligence to the administrative mode lies in that the technical characteristics of deep learning enable machines to make independent decisions through data learning. Considering the recognition of the subject qualification of artificial intelligence in individual legal departments, and the efficiency advantage shown by human intelligence, the automation technology process based on artificial intelligence is showing a trend of spreading fire in administrative activities, and there is a trend of replacing procedural and substantive human activities.
It can be seen that, on the one hand, from the perspective of the implementation of the “procedure-entity” legal system
It can be seen that, on the one hand, from the perspective of the implementation of the “procedure-entity” legal system, the current digital administration can not only be manifested as the automatic implementation of the simple procedural system, but also can undertake the function of making substantive decisions, that is, the complete digitization from procedure to entity. On the other hand, from the perspective of technology application, the intervention of artificial intelligence makes the implementation mechanism of administrative way go beyond the pure stylized “following the rules”. Through learning, the machine can determine the output on the basis of the algorithm by relying on the rules reconstructed in the learning process.
The unpredictability of this process not only causes the well-known “black box” problem, but also affects the classification of digital administration. The difference of artificial intelligence intervention degree is an important variable to determine the digital administrative mechanism, because it directly affects the human control of the content of administrative behavior. Therefore, the classification of digital administrative mode should not only adhere to the legal system standard of “procedure – entity” Angle, but also take into account the actual influence of artificial intelligence on digital effect. Starting from this double standard, under the current practical background, digital administration can be basically divided into the following three types according to its implementation mechanism:
First, digital procedures are implemented, but physical decisions are still made manually.
This is the technicalization of administrative mode produced since the beginning of the implementation of e-government, which is reflected in the implementation of individual or all procedural systems relying on digital equipment, but the final external effective entity decision is still based on human decision-making. From the perspective of procedural subsidiarity mentioned above, whether the digitization of procedural system is realized by artificial intelligence technology will not directly affect the actual effect of administrative activities in principle. At present, the digital administrative means in most of our administrative activities are still this type.
Second, “program implementation + physical decision” is completely digitized, but the physical decision is not made by artificial intelligence.
Represented by the “no one to approve” system in local government practice, this kind of administrative mode is characterized by the complete automatic implementation in the sense of “procedure + entity”, and in terms of mechanism and effect, the administrative behavior is completely digital. But the technical means by which entity decisions are generated are not independent judgments made by the machine through autonomous learning. In view of the existing practical content, this kind of digitalization decision is technically expressed in strict conditional form by precise technological process of “input-output determiniert”.
Third, “program implementation + physical decision” is completely digitized, and the physical decision is made by artificial intelligence.
At present, this type of system sample has not clearly appeared in our country’s administrative practice. However, according to the openness of the content of the New Generation of Artificial Intelligence Development Plan and the orientation of promoting administrative intelligence, the application of artificial intelligence in administrative management and service practice shows a trend of continuous expansion. At the same time, considering the active degree of digital technology applied by administrative organs at all levels and the rapid speed of technological development, the possibility of completely digital administrative behavior system extending to a wider range of fields cannot be completely ignored by involving artificial intelligence in entity decision activities.
At this point, through combing the reform of digital administration mode in the level of policy norm and practice, the typified way realizes the transformation of “digital administration” from the phenomenon of non-normative meaning to the implementation mode of legal system in normative meaning. From the perspective of legal system implementation, the types of digital administration also reflect the technology-driven typological transformation of the way of exercising political power. As for whether the current reform, which mainly originates from the spontaneous impetus of administration, can fit the binding requirements of law according to their respective types in the perspective of macro power operation, it involves the interpretation of the legitimate norms of state power operation in the Constitution.
The legitimacy test of digital administrative mode under the constitutional norm
In modern countries ruled by law, the normative confirmation of the people as the final owners of all state power at the constitutional level determines the exercise of all state power and the realization of national tasks. It is necessary to satisfy the test of Legitimation in such power allocation norms, namely realizing the necessary connection between power operation and people’s will in the democratic mechanism established by the Constitution. And as a source of their institutional legitimacy. Our Constitution stipulates the distribution and exercise of state power in Article 2, Article 3, paragraph 2 and 3. According to the provisions of these articles:
First, all state power originates from the people, and the people manage the affairs of the state through various channels within the framework of law;
Secondly, the people exercise state power through the legislature and further distribute it to other organs of state power, including the executive. As a direct embodiment of the principle of people’s sovereignty, the above constitutional provisions should not only complete the distribution of state power in the narrow sense of the Constitution, but also exert a restrictive effect on the operation of state power in practice, especially the exercise of executive power. If the requirement of administration by law in the constitution emphasizes the protection of individual rights from the perspective of administration to realize public interests, then the requirement of power legitimacy under the norm of democratic system emphasizes the public property of power from the perspective of preventing the pursuit of special group interests.
The administrative legitimacy under the rule of law and the administrative legitimacy under the people’s sovereignty should be regarded as two parallel order systems in the constitution.
Therefore, through the provision of democratic allocation of power in the Constitution, the legitimacy of the operation of state power has been transformed from the political measurement in the sense of system design at the constitutional level to the normative requirement in the sense of system implementation at the level of constitutional application. Starting from the normative effect, the exercise of any state administrative power should be tested for its legitimacy under the normative framework of the Constitution, that is, to ensure that the actual operation of the administrative power should be under the effective control of the people.
Therefore, the current implementation of the executive power through digital administration must also complete the legitimacy test according to the requirements of the Constitution. Otherwise, even if the objective effect of digitization is conducive to the realization of administrative tasks, it will not be recognized in the normative system due to the criticism of the legitimacy of power in the constitution.
(1) Establishment of testing standards for the legitimacy of the exercise of executive power
To judge the legitimacy of the digital exercise of administrative power, the first task is to specify the criterion of legitimacy based on the abstract power allocation clause of the Constitution. A German scholar, Bockenforde, has put forward the classic theory of justification, namely, in principle, through the dual legitimacy test standards of organisatorisch-personell and Sachlich-content, organisation-organics-inhaltlich, The exercise of executive power should be placed under the chain of legitimacy which is interlinked and integrated. At the same time, it recognizes that the Constitution, based on its supreme legal effect which directly reflects the will of the people, has legitimized the organization, mode and content of certain powers directly in the form of specific constitutional norms in order to realize specific institutional functions.
Although the specific structure of the allocation of state power in our Constitution is different from that of Germany, the normative purpose of pursuing the exercise of state executive power to be effectively constrained by the people and to accept the legitimacy test of power reflected in the constitutional norms is the same. Moreover, the legitimacy test focuses on the vertical exercise of executive power and does not involve the horizontal distribution of state power. Therefore, the differences in the ways of power structure between countries do not affect the reference and application of the legitimacy theory.
The legitimacy of “organization-personnel” means that the organization
The legitimacy of “organization-personnel” means that the organization that assumes the executive power of the state and the person in charge of the actual execution of the post (Amtswalter) should be in an uninterrupted chain of legitimacy dating back to the people in accordance with the requirements of the constitutional norms, so as to justify the exercise of its power. In terms of the specific transmission of legitimacy,
First of all, according to the provisions of Article 2 (2), Article 86 (2), Article 90 (2), and Article 105 (1) and 2 of the Constitution, the central and local people’s governments and their composition, as the subject of executive power, are under the effective influence of the people through the power distribution process of the legislature.
Secondly, according to Article 2 (2) of the Organic Law of The State Council of the People’s Republic of China and Article 55 (2) of the Organic Law of the People’s Republic of China on Local People’s congresses and Local People’s Governments, this level of influence is transmitted to specific job bearers through the way of order execution under the bureaucracy.
That is, the civil servants of the administrative organs performing their functions and powers.
Thus, the implementation of executive power can be guaranteed, which can be linked back to the will of the people as the participants of state power at the level of organization and personnel. Specific to the administrative activities of a case, it is required that the actual implementation of the administrative mode, the subject and the individual making the decision conform to the level test of the above legitimacy. Considering the complex background of administrative tasks in pluralistic society, administrative activities become more and more the process of multi-subject involvement under the principle of procedural participation.
Therefore, the legitimacy of “organization-personnel” does not require that all subjects involved in the implementation of administrative activities must conform to the above test, but from the perspective of the actual role of power, to ensure that the individuals exercising the final decision-making authority meet the legitimacy of the proof. And in the case of differences, the participation of the subject without the legitimacy test in the administrative decision process shall not damage the decision of the former.
The legitimacy of “entity – content” requires that the exercise of the specific content of the administrative power should also come from the transmission of the will of the people
The legitimacy of “entity – content” requires that the exercise of the specific content of the administrative power should also come from the transmission of the will of the people, or to ensure that the determination and implementation of the specific administrative power are under the effective influence of the people. On the one hand, the people elect legislatures, which enact laws to define the limits of executive power and specify the content of power. Even in today’s expanding administrative formation power, “preventive control” of administrative power through legislation is still in the core position of restraining administrative power system. Legal superiority is not only the core requirement of legal administrative principle under the rule of law, but also an important condition for the legitimacy confirmation of administrative power.
On the other hand, in the case that legislation cannot cover all the contents of the executive power, such as framing legislative authorization or confirming the administrative formation space, the legitimacy of the contents can be examined through the supervision power of the legislature and the responsibility obligation of the administrative organ at the constitutional level. In China, the people elect governments at all levels through the people’s congresses as the main body of executive power, and governments at all levels are therefore accountable to and subject to the supervision of the people’s congresses at the corresponding levels.
At the same time, in accordance with Article 2, Paragraph 2, and Article 5, Paragraph 4, of the Constitution, the people legislate through the NPC to regulate the content of the executive power and thus manage the administrative affairs of the state. Therefore, in our Constitution code, it also contains the standard requirement to test the legitimacy of administrative power from entity — content Angle.
Although the above two standards focus on different perspectives, but they are neither mutually exclusive independent relationship, nor mutually absorbing alternative relationship.
Considering the complexity of the social relations in which the executive power intervenes, the ways of exercising the executive power in practice also often show the characteristics of diversity and differences, which makes it difficult to apply a fixed pattern of proof from a single Angle when judging the legitimacy of power exercise by the above criteria. Therefore, the Constitution’s requirements for the legitimacy of executive power are not limited to a specific standard style, but may start from the actual exercise of power to test whether they can obtain sufficient legitimation level in accordance with the constitutional requirements.
That is, the process of realizing the exercise of power can be effectively traced back to the will and supervision of the people. In order to ensure the realization of this level of legitimacy, the above double standards usually need to cooperate with and complement each other from both the subject and the object. Once the tightness of the legitimacy transmission of a certain aspect is relatively loose, it needs to make up for it with the help of the relatively stricter legitimacy identification of the other side.
In addition, in addition to the general standard of justification, in order to ensure the realization of specific functional goals, constitutional norms can also directly make explicit provisions on the specific exercise of state power.
Therefore, in addition to the legitimacy transmission mode based on the principles of “organization-personnel” and “entity-content”, in order to achieve specific administrative goals and tasks, the Constitution can directly authorize the “system-function” through rules, allowing the implementation of administrative power in a specific field and in a specific way. And its legitimacy is directly confirmed by the specific constitutional norms of the implementation of the authorization without resorting to the above double test.
For example, Article 91 of our Constitution stipulates the establishment of audit institutions in The State Council, which directly stipulates the legitimacy of independent exercise of audit power by audit institutions from the perspective of “system-function”. Considering the specificity of authorization, the acquisition of legitimacy in the sense of “institution-function” is not in parallel with the standards of “organization-personnel” and “entity-content”, but only as an exception mode to realize the function of special power, as a supplement to the above general criteria. Therefore, the legitimacy effect of direct authorization by constitutional norms in terms of system and function cannot be over-amplified, nor can specific rules be over-interpreted.
(2) Judgment on the legitimacy level of digital administrative mode
The above general standards of “organization-personnel” and “entity-content”, as well as the justification of “system-function” realized by specific constitutional norms in special cases, provide an examination path for judging the power legitimacy of the current digital administrative mode reform.
Legitimacy of digitization of simple program content
Although the scope and degree of automatic implementation of program content are deepening, it is consistent with the electronic implementation of individual program segments at the beginning of the construction of e-government in terms of administrative behavior. It should be noted that at present, the basis of the digital reform of administrative procedure mainly originates from administrative policies, normative documents or practical innovation, while the legal layer scattered provisions on the application of e-government or data message means in the procedure, its content still focuses on the early technical conditions of e-government.
Even if the current digital transformation is regarded as an advanced stage of e-government development, it is still debatable whether these scattered e-government provisions can provide sufficient legal basis for the current digital-technology-based procedural approach. At least from the point of view of meaning and purpose, the current procedural legal norms cannot fully accommodate the institutional form of procedural digitization in practice. Although the lack of direct legal basis makes it difficult for the digitization of procedures to obtain sufficient justification directly, considering the subsidiarity of procedures, the deficiency of content legitimacy caused by the lack of specific legal provisions can be remedied by other standards of legitimacy.
First of all, with the automatic implementation of the simple procedural process under digitalization, no matter what its extent and scope,
First of all, with the automatic implementation of the simple procedural process under digitalization, no matter what its extent and scope, the entity decision is still made by the duty bearers within the administrative subject who perform their functions and powers according to law. Therefore, in terms of “organization-personnel” legitimacy transmission, although the digital method makes the human control power of administrative procedure process decreased, the human attribute of concretely completing the decision link and actually implementing the effect of administrative power externally makes the administrative decision still in the hands of the personnel with sufficient legitimacy.
That is to say, individuals who make decisions specifically through the expression of their will can start from the internal division of tasks in the organizational law, and work their way up to the organizational and personnel decisions of the administrative organs made by the People’s Congress through the appointment and removal of personnel and organizational Settings. Even if the decision is actually made by the authorized organization, as long as there are legal authorization norms, this “organization-person” legitimacy transmission still maintains its integrity. As for the case situation of not obtaining legal authorization, it actually causes the problem of legitimacy of administrative acts, which does not affect the acquisition of organizational legitimacy under normal authorization.
Secondly, at the level of “entity-content”, although the implementation of digital procedures itself cannot directly obtain the full level of legitimacy in all procedural contents due to the insufficient density of specific legal norms
At the level of “entity-content”, although the implementation of digital procedures itself cannot directly obtain the full level of legitimacy in all procedural contents due to the insufficient density of specific legal norms, it does not necessarily affect the legitimacy of administrative power implemented through the digital process in terms of content.
It does not necessarily affect the legitimacy of administrative power implemented through the digital process in terms of content.
First, the effective control of the legislative body over the specific content of the executive power is usually realized by the authorization of the specific subject in the substantive law, that is, the granting of the legitimacy in the content. The realization of actual and legal superiority and legal reservation are two aspects of the same process. The legislature makes provisions on the constituent elements and content of the substantive decision in advance through laws. No matter how the procedure is carried out, the administrative subject makes decisions substantively in accordance with the factual elements pre-constructed by laws. In this process, the substantive decision bearing the actual effect of the operation of the executive power is under the effective restriction of the legislature through its legal basis, so the transmission of the legitimacy of the content can be traced to the will of the people continuously.
Second, even in the case of a large space for the formation of administrative organs by legislation, the actual room for judgment and discretion can be on the one hand through the exercise of inter-hierarchy command power within the administrative system. For example, the superior establishes the discretion benchmark for the subordinate, and the People’s Congress supervises the administrative organs to ensure the legitimacy level of relevant discretionary activities in terms of “entity — content”. On the other hand, at the level of “organization-personnel”, people who actually make discretionary decisions can be placed in a relatively close transmission of legitimacy, such as the head of the organ or the collective to make the final decision, so as to make up for the possible adverse effects of over-generalization of authorization on the legitimacy of content.
Therefore, for the situation where digital administrative mode only acts on the implementation of administrative procedures,
Therefore, for the situation where digital administrative mode only acts on the implementation of administrative procedures, even though the specific details of digitalization still lack comprehensive provisions, the auxiliary nature of administrative procedures and the humanness of entity decision make the exercise of administrative power in the digitalization of such simple procedures, The will of the people can still be effectively traced through the “organization-person” and “entity-content” legitimacy transmission that is ultimately determined externally by behavior. At the same time, the legitimacy obtained through the artificial entity decision also weakens the influence of the technical attribute behind the digital program mechanism.
Even if the program is implemented by artificial intelligence, the procedural unknowable risk caused by the weakness of “black box” can still be prevented from transforming the risk into the danger that the behavior result lacks the legitimacy of the content through the artificial judgment and decision of the decision link. As for whether the digital procedure implementation method in practice will produce the risk of illegal procedure or unclear fact identification, it usually belongs to the case legitimacy problem from the Angle of administration by law, and does not necessarily deny the legitimacy of the procedure result.
Unless the procedural mechanism of technical implementation actually severely compresses the space for human decision making, making the final decision virtually a simple reproduction of the artificial intelligence’s procedural conclusion. In this extreme case, the apparent program digitization has actually been consistent with the complete digitization of “program + entity” in effect, so that the artificial intervention at the level of “organization-personnel” has not really played a legitimate level of control function. At this time, the legitimacy test of procedural mechanism has actually been transformed into the legitimacy level judgment of the complete digital implementation of administrative acts.
Legitimacy of complete digital implementation of administrative acts
In the case of complete digitization, the whole administrative behavior gets rid of the dependence on the artificial activities of the administrative subject. But the increase in digitization has also raised concerns about a lack of legitimacy. Especially considering that the current local system practice represented by “no approval” mostly originates from the spontaneous innovation of administration, the lack of legal or authorized legislative norms leads to the greater criticism of such system innovation in the legitimacy test. In this context, the transition of digital administrative mode from procedural mechanism to entity decision has gone beyond the limit of administrative technicalization which can be carried by the requirement of power legitimacy, and in fact caused institutional conflicts under the constitutional framework. Or can it still be effectively traced back to the will of the people in the transmission of legitimacy to obtain sufficient levels of legitimacy?
From the perspective of comparative law, even in countries that have confirmed the system as a general law
From the perspective of comparative law, even in countries that have confirmed the system as a general law, they are also experiencing controversy over the legitimacy caused by the expansion of digital automatic technology to administrative entity decisions. Taking Germany as an example, through the revision of the new Article 35a of the German Federal Administrative Procedure Law in 2017, Germany has established a system of fully digitalized automatic implementation of the administrative act “procedure + entity” at the level of the general administrative procedure law.
As a supplementary provision to the definition of administrative acts, although Article 35a only involves the technological upgrading of the implementation mode of administrative acts, without touching the attributes of behaviors, it is different from the previous situation in which technology and equipment assisted decisions. Under the completely digital implementation, human volitional activities are completely excluded from the whole process of administrative acts. Therefore, it is difficult to simply apply the legitimacy of traditional administrative act system in the standard system of general administrative procedure law to judge the legitimacy of administrative act completely automatically under the digital mode.
First of all, in form, machines and procedural processes usually designed by third parties replace the expression of one party’s meaning of the administrative subject,
First of all, in form, machines and procedural processes usually designed by third parties replace the expression of one party’s meaning of the administrative subject, whether it truncates the transmission of the legitimacy of “organization-personnel”? Secondly, in terms of content, the application of substantive law in the form of machine “input – output” is externalized. How to ensure the internal technical operation of data collection, transmission, analysis and processing until generation decision based on pre-code programming, and faithfully reproduce the content that substantive law restricts the implementation of executive power?
In terms of the outcome of the case, the process of applying “embedded software” to the substantive law may first concern the legitimacy of the behavior, but in terms of the implementation of the system, it also concerns whether the legitimacy of the content transmission of the substantive law actually acts on the administrative power implemented in a digital way. In addition, Article 35a of the German Federal Administrative Procedure Law only emphasizes the “fully automated making” of the effect. From the perspective of the text, the regulation itself does not exclude the implementation of administrative acts by artificial intelligence which is technically non-restrictive and has the ability of self-learning. However, this normative arrangement of technological openness may further aggravate the legitimate risk due to the infiltration of “technological black box” into entity decision.
In view of the questions in the above three aspects, the discussion is mainly carried out in terms of the system confirmation regulation at the normative level and the technology application mechanism at the implementation level:
First, although administrative acts, as the conceptual elements of high-power orders, decisions or measures, contain elements of the expression of administrative subject’s meaning
First, although administrative acts, as the conceptual elements of high-power orders, decisions or measures, contain elements of the expression of administrative subject’s meaning, specific expression of meaning is not a necessary element for the establishment of administrative acts, or administrative acts need not be embodied as direct expression of meaning activities of administrative subject. Although the concept of administrative behavior in history depends on “high power expression”. However, since the 1950s, the academic mainstream has tended to hold that, different from the elements of expression of intention of legal acts in private law, the embodiment of will in administrative acts does not have to be based on the subjective expression of intention of a specific individual of the administrative subject, as long as the specific administrative act is objectively “attributable to” the specific administrative subject,
It can be regarded as satisfying the requirements of the will of the administrative subject. Therefore, under the imputable attribute standard, the digital program or equipment provided by the third party technology subject automatically implements the administrative behavior, which does not necessarily lead to the decision process being out of the control of the administrative subject at the level of “organization-personnel”.
As long as the administrative act made by automation can belong to the administrative subject
As long as the administrative act made by automation can belong to the administrative subject, it can not only satisfy the constituent elements of administrative act, but also ensure the transmission of the legitimacy of “organization-personnel”. As far as micro cases are concerned, it is not excluded that the specific administrative act can not complete the objective attribution due to the lack of the will activity of the specific person, which leads to the validity of the act. However, as far as macro system is concerned, it is not necessary to break the legitimacy chain of “organization-personnel” to make the decision of administrative behavior in a completely digital way.
In fact, the digital automatic implementation of the whole procedure does not exclude the intention of the administrative subject fundamentally. The previous practice of automatic implementation of some program mechanisms has shown that, under program automation, human volitional activities can actually advance to the start of specific programs and be integrated into the requirements of software programming and equipment function debugging. At the same time, this kind of pre-meaning expression activity can in turn confirm the automatic administrative behavior for the specific administrative subject of the attribution.
Second, although from the external expression
Second, although from the external expression, the digitalization of administrative procedures from part to whole is only the expansion of the scope of automatic implementation effect, the reform of the application mechanism of substantive law triggered by the complete digitalization makes it impossible to simply belong to the scope of procedural mode choice of administrative subject under the principle of non-formalization of administrative procedures. Because of the automatic application of digital substantive law, it means that the content of the exercise of administrative power with external effect has changed greatly. However, in procedural law, the mode option of conferring the administrative subject is only aimed at the internal procedure without external effect.
Therefore, the simple procedural option is not enough to give full legitimacy to the completely digital administrative act in terms of the content of power exercise. From the logic that the content of administrative power is determined by substantive law, the above question about the legitimacy of “entity – content” level is actually a judgment on whether the content of substantive law is suitable for the implementation of digital method. Considering that the content of administrative power is mainly determined by legislators through substantive law, the compatibility between the automatic application method and substantive law under digitalization is also a substantive law problem in essence, and cannot be solved solely within the framework of administrative procedure law.
In view of this, Article 35a of the German Federal Law on Administrative Procedure has set up an explicit legal reservation clause
In view of this, Article 35a of the German Federal Law on Administrative Procedure has set up an explicit legal reservation clause, that is, only under the circumstances stipulated in the special law, administrative acts can be made by means of fully technical automatic implementation. The implicit logic of this legal reservation on the legitimacy of power is that whether digital decision making can achieve sufficient level of legitimacy in terms of content depends on the judgment of lawmakers during the enactment of the special law. Although this conclusion seems to be no different from the previous reliance on the substantive legislation of legislators in the “entity-content” legitimacy transmission, the changes in the legal application mechanism actually put forward additional requirements for legislators.
In addition to judging whether specific content can be implemented in a fully digital manner in the sense of “yes/no”, it is also considered in the sense of “how” how to design the expression of specific rules to ensure that the specification does not deviate from the intention of the legislator during the process of “embedding software”. Therefore, the system confirmation in the general administrative procedure law only partially solves the question of legitimacy in the content of completely digital administrative acts. For the parts that remain in doubt, it is necessary to supplement them through normative construction outside procedural law from the Angle of “legislation-administration”.
Third, although legal norms are open to technological patterns,
Third, although legal norms are open to technological patterns, in the background of advanced legislation, the lack of administrative practice samples makes no consistent conclusion on the issue of artificial intelligence intervention in theory. Proponents argue that institutional confirmation norms in procedural law do not prohibit the use of AI. After all, from the perspective of the “belongability” standard for the establishment of administrative behavior, there is no essential difference between the expression form of the attribution of the limited technology and the non-limited artificial intelligence to the specific administrative subject. Both can be reflected in the programming stage of human activities leading to “embedded software”.
This is despite the fact that AI is based on a self-learning process of reprogramming, making its technical conclusions less intelligible than preprogrammed ones. However, it is difficult for the administrative subject to fully understand the specific technical principles of programming even in the limited technical process. Therefore, the legality and legitimacy of artificial intelligence will not be affected as long as the procedural conclusions excluded or adopted by AI are not completely free from legal provisions or artificial prior intervention of administrative subjects. Cautious people believe that compared with the level of legitimacy achieved by human decision at the organization-personnel level, the decision made by artificial intelligence based on self-learning makes a fundamental change in this process of legitimacy transmission.
In other words, although the artificial participation in the technical preparation stage has a certain appearance of legitimacy
In other words, although the artificial participation in the technical preparation stage has a certain appearance of legitimacy, it is still doubtful whether the content of artificial intelligence decision is effectively restricted by substantive law due to the lack of complete binding on the conclusion of algorithm programming. At the same time, from the content of Article 35a of the German Federal Administrative Procedure Law, lawmakers actually hold a very cautious attitude towards the accuracy of the technical content. According to this article, when the substantive law provides that there is room for judgment, uncertainty of legal concept or room for discretion, administrative acts cannot be carried out in the form of fully technical automatic implementation.
This prohibitive stipulation actually requires the precise docking of facts and legal norms under the standardization of technology application, and emphasizes the one-to-one correspondence between the technical process and the requirements of the substantive law, so as to prevent the uncertainty of the factual premise and result in the automatic implementation of the substantive law. However, the “black box” features of non-limitation and unknowable decision process in artificial intelligence technology make it have a tense relationship with the certainty pursued by the legislative purpose of administrative procedure. Even if the binding norms with explicit content are automatically applied, the uncertainty and unknowability of the technical process will make the behavioral decision fall into the uncertain state of legitimacy and legitimacy.
Therefore, the technical openness of procedural law alone cannot solve the weakness of AI in the transfer of power legitimacy.
The key to whether the complete digitization of administrative acts can be implemented by artificial intelligence technology is whether the special law can solve the defects of the technical process. If we can’t eliminate the doubt from the legitimacy, the completely digital administrative behavior can not be carried out by artificial intelligence.
Through the legislative practice and academic discussion in Germany
Through the legislative practice and academic discussion in Germany, it can be found that: first, the digital automatic generation of administrative act decision process does not necessarily lead to the interruption of the transmission of legitimacy. Second, the digital mode from “program” to “entity” behind the transition, is the automatic application of substantive law content technology. Therefore, the system recognition summarized in the legislation of general administrative procedure is not enough to play the role of justifying the content of power independently. In this regard, the legal reservation setting on the construction of procedural law norm has implied the internal logic that special law is needed to reinforce the level of “entity – content” legitimacy.
Third, the technical characteristics of artificial intelligence determine that the entity decision made by artificial intelligence will cause the transmission of the legitimacy of executive power content to fall into an uncertain state. Whether this uncertainty can be eliminated through legal regulation of technology directly relates to the compatibility of completely digital administrative behavior system to artificial intelligence. Therefore, although the requirement of legitimacy does not prestipulate the way of exercising power, it still has defects in the level of legitimacy only in terms of the normative construction of “general recognition + special authorization” in procedural law when implementing administrative acts completely digitally.
From the conclusion of comparative law
From the conclusion of comparative law, it is obvious that in the absence of specific legal authorization norm, the only administrative policy or normative document as the system basis can not meet the test of legitimacy standard. Therefore, in order to reasonably demarcate the institutional boundary of completely digital administrative behavior and ensure that the application of digital technology is in the effective control of the requirements of power legitimacy, it is necessary to draw lessons from the experience of comparative law, and clarify the strengthening methods and specific paths of our current system practice legitimacy level in the normative level.
Fourth, the strengthening mode and obtaining path of the legitimacy of the complete digital administrative behavior system
(1) Confirmation of the legitimacy of “system – function” at the constitutional level
As mentioned above, in terms of justification, in addition to the double test criteria of “organization-personnel” and “entity-content” as principles, the specific operation of state administrative power can also obtain justification from “system-function” through direct authorization at the level of constitutional norms. Therefore, an ideal state is: Provided that the system authorization of complete digital administrative behavior can be accurately implemented in our Constitution, and the object and technical characteristics of the concrete digital decisions are reflected in the standard content, the problem of the legitimacy defect of current administrative spontaneous system practice can be solved.
However, in the text of our Constitution
However, in the text of our Constitution, there is no general recognition of the digitization implementation of the administrative power directly, nor is there the authorization for the technical automatic implementation of a specific kind of administrative power content. Article 2, paragraph 3, and Article 27, paragraph 1 are the main provisions of the Constitution that are directly related to the mode of administration. The former is the general requirement of the legitimacy of the exercise of state power, while the latter is the regulation of the principle of the efficiency of the activities of state organs. Although, within the meaning of Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Constitution, the diversification of the means and forms by which the people administer the affairs of the State does not predispose the exercise of state power to a fixed manner.
However, the openness of the content of this regulation only gives legislators the right to choose the organization and way of exercising the specific distribution of state power in a general sense. Neither from the purpose of the norm nor its systematic relationship in the norms of the Constitution, it cannot be the basis of a particular way of exercising power. Moreover, the main normative significance of Article 2, paragraph 3, is to reveal the legitimate requirements for the exercise of state power to backtrack to the people in terms of organization and content through the emphasis on the subject status of “people” power. The norm itself, as a requirement for the legitimacy of power, is obviously not suitable to be used as the normative basis for justifying the content and mode of specific power.
As for the confirmation of the principle of administrative effectiveness in Article 27 (1) of the Constitution
As for the confirmation of the principle of administrative effectiveness in Article 27 (1) of the Constitution, can the fully digital administrative act system be given sufficient legitimacy directly from the function based on the compatibility of the digitalized administrative goal orientation and its normative content? It is also difficult to get a positive answer from the normative construction of the validation efficiency principle. Article 27 (1) is a general requirement for all state organs, that is, not only the executive organs, but all organs of state power, including the legislature and the judiciary, have the obligation to improve their working methods and enhance the efficiency of their work. Therefore, the abstractness of the subject regulation is not enough to constitute the special authorization for the operation of the executive power.
At the same time, the specific requirement of the efficiency principle in the Constitution is to “continuously improve the quality and efficiency of the work”.
The essence of this principle is to focus on the experience and lessons of the construction of state institutions after the founding of the People’s Republic of China, so as to solve the long-term inefficiency problems in the work of state institutions. Even from the Angle of “end – means” adaptation, the efficiency principle is regarded as the objective requirement for the improvement of administrative mode under the background of orderly interaction between national administrative tasks and social development, and the goal of administrative activities, its normative content is only the general and continuous obligation of state administrative organs. Therefore, the application of a specific form of administration, such as the digital administration discussed here, cannot be directly based on Article 27 of the Constitution. Similarly, the efficiency provisions in the Constitution cannot constitute the special authorization for the complete digital implementation of administrative acts from the level of “system – function”.
(2) The reinforcement of the legitimacy level with the help of the special law
Although the openness of our Constitution in the way of administrative activities indicates that the requirement of the legitimacy of power does not oppose the complete digitalization of administrative acts, the constitutional norms themselves are not enough to directly give full legitimacy to the current practice of completely digitalized administrative acts from the Angle of “system-function”. Therefore, it is still necessary to return to the construction of specific administrative legal norms to solve the problem of the legitimacy of the system practice under the current legal foundation “empty state”.
According to the conclusion of the comparative law observation, the automatic implementation of the entity content of executive power in a fully digital manner is not unrestricted. The key to judge whether the administrative act implemented in full digital mode has sufficient legitimacy level in terms of the content of power is not the generalized system confirmation at the level of procedural law, but the content of the corresponding substantive law norms, and whether the digital technology process can truthfully deliver the specific requirements of the content of power carried by the substantive law.
Therefore, the corresponding authorization specification is not just a simple endorsement of administrative innovation practice in form. The construction of specific specification content needs to be based on the full consideration of “content category” and “technical premise”. The former focuses on the normative object, requiring the content of the substantive law to be suitable for the automatic technical process of “translation” into digitalization, while the latter focuses on the technical application, emphasizing the controllability of legal provisions on the digital technology adopted.
Digital compatibility of standard content
Under the digital administrative mode, the premise of automatic application of the digitization of substantive law is the normative content in the form of natural language, which can be expressed through the code of formal language. Considering the possible contradiction between the ideographic complexity of natural text and the programming accuracy of formalized code, not all substantive law content can cross this “semantic threshold”. Therefore, in the construction process of specifications, whether through the establishment of new specific specifications or the authorization of existing entity specifications into the scope of digital automatic implementation, the corresponding entity specification content should have the compatibility of digital automatic implementation.
But this does not require legislators to actually act as programmers
But this does not require legislators to actually act as programmers, making comprehensive provisions on how to concretely translate substantive law provisions into digital code or directly elevate specific code into law. On the one hand, the limitations of legislators’ abilities make it objectively impossible to prescribe specific details of coding; On the other hand, the principle of administration according to law embodied in Article 5 of the Constitution does not require the absolute dependence of the executive on legislation.
Under the division of labor between legislation and administration, the legislative power needs to give proper respect to the forming space of the executive power to realize its function. Even if the executive power is automatically exercised in a digital way, it is not suitable to put all the technical code process under the pre-regulation of the legislator, otherwise it will confuse the division of labor between the legislative power and the executive power. The actual choice of which technical subject, which algorithm to use for specific programming, and the corresponding technical equipment to be put into use, as long as there is no prohibitions of legal reservation, are essentially a category of administrative autonomy.
The digital compatibility of the code is actually from the perspective of law implementation
The digital compatibility of the code is actually from the perspective of law implementation, focusing on ensuring the accuracy of the code “translation” substantive law, and putting forward the requirements for the content construction of the code to be suitable or convenient for the realization of this “translation” process. Its purpose is to ensure that the content of the specific norms constraining the exercise of executive power is faithfully transmitted through the digital code process, so that the automatic technical conclusions follow the requirements of the legitimacy of power back to the will of the people. Considering the characteristics of pre-set implementation mechanism and uninvolved implementation process under complete digitalization, relevant authorization specifications need both semantic clarity of text and case homogeneity of object. To ensure that its content can be accurately expressed through the pre-digitized code process, and obtain the possibility of repeated application between individual cases.
Specifically, in the form and content of the specification construction, it should meet the following requirements:
First, in order to facilitate the conversion between natural language and formal language,
First, in order to facilitate the conversion between natural language and formal language, the canonical syntactic structure should be clear and explicit. Compared with the conditional syntactic structure, the general purpose authorization and the norms that leave a large margin for judgment for the administrative subject, or the norms that have open results and rely on the further concrefication of the investigative power in the administrative subject case, are difficult to be accurately transmitted through the pre-code setting, or difficult to fully cover the legislative requirements for the exercise of power.
Second, on the basis of clear syntax
Second, on the basis of clear syntax, the content of the norm should avoid the value judgment of the case. From the legislative purpose of fully automated administrative acts in Germany, this administrative mode reform is mainly aimed at substantial decisions repeatedly made in the practice of administrative management with consistent content and conditions. For example, the most typical and the first to obtain the system practice of automatic tax decision, its facts only involve objectified content standards and calculation methods. As for the complex value judgment stipulation, although the current digital technology is not unable to convert the complex judgment process into the form of automated code, such as the application of decision planning algorithm commonly used in the field of automatic driving.
However, the normative content of value judgment is intended to emphasize the case-oriented exercise of administrative power, so it is difficult to set the measurement standard in advance. Therefore, to completely generate administrative decisions based on value balance by digital means may not only cause legitimacy problems at the individual level, but also aggravate legitimacy defects at the institutional level. After all, in the context of trade-offs that focus on individual differences, pre-code Settings are hard to escape criticism that the exercise of power is improperly limited.
Third, standardize the typed construction of factual content to avoid the use of uncertain legal concepts.
Under the current technical conditions, no matter what kind of specific technology is used to implement the fully digitized administrative act, the codified translation of the substantive law content needs to be based on the established standards. As repeatedly emphasized above, the accurate translation and transmission of the code to the content of the entity norm is the premise for the complete digital administrative act to obtain the legitimacy of the case and the legitimacy of the system.
Therefore, on the contrary, from the perspective of digital conformity of the specification, the specification that can give legitimacy to the content of the full digital mode should also cooperate with the establishment of standards in the code process in its construction, that is, the provision of fact content in the authorization specification itself can be classified according to specific objective standards. At the same time, the typing of factual premises should not be based on uncertain legal concepts concretised according to subjective standards, otherwise the content standards preset through code will lose the objectivity that can be repeatedly applied in practice, and thus lead to the acquisition of automatically implemented executive power content is not an accurate reflection of the requirements of the norms.
Controllability of digital technology
In the case that the substantive law meets the digital compatibility, although the selection of specific technical schemes and code compilation essentially belong to the category of autonomous decision of administrative execution power, it does not mean the technological monopoly of administrative subject. The openness of technology application in administrative activities stipulated in the Constitution does not mean the technological autonomy of administrative subjects in completely digital administrative acts.
Although it is not appropriate to touch specific technical details in legislation, such as the specific algorithm compilation of formal language code, as the carrier of the exercise of the content of administrative power, the actual technology pattern should at least fulfill the requirements of the transmission of the legitimacy of the content of power in function. Therefore, in order to ensure the realization of this function, necessary provisions should be made on the controllability of the selected technical patterns at the standard level.
Under the current classification of limited and non-limited technology
Under the current classification of limited and non-limited technology, the focus of contradiction is on the application of artificial intelligence according to the requirement of controllable technology. Although the New Generation of artificial Intelligence Development Plan emphasizes the inevitable trend of artificial intelligence intervening in administrative management practice and administrative decision-making process from a policy-oriented perspective. However, combined with the observation of comparative law, when the unknowable risk of the “black box” process of artificial intelligence is not eliminated at the normative level, the fully digital administrative act realized based on it is always faced with the risk of insufficient content legitimacy level. At present, the regulation of “black box” effect mainly follows the two basic principles of transparency and responsibility proposed from the perspective of technical design, and on this basis realizes the application of AI with equal emphasis on fairness, reliability, participation and rights protection.
In terms of specific regulation approaches, it basically focuses on the compiling process of artificial intelligence algorithm and the time dimension before, during and after the work.
Firstly, taking the protection of civil rights as the starting point, by injecting algorithmic ethical requirements into the design of artificial intelligence technology and imposing consequences and responsibilities, the value pursuit of fairness, justice, openness and transparency pursued by the legal system is transformed into algorithm design ethics and corresponding algorithm standards, and implemented in the actual preparation process. Secondly, the participation mechanism of the algorithm compilation process is expanded, and the concept of “due process” which restricts human activities is introduced into the algorithm compilation and implementation process, so as to ensure that the rights and interests of the affected subjects can be fully considered by the algorithm compiler. Thirdly, the understanding of algorithm content and the control of algorithm conclusion can be sought by disclosing algorithm content, establishing algorithm filing system and entrusting individual algorithm interpretation request.
Although the regulation approach of algorithms is becoming more and more systematic
Although the regulation approach of algorithms is becoming more and more systematic, in terms of the specific mechanism and effect, it is not so much to standardize the implementation of algorithms and realize the internal self-discipline of the technical process, but to constrain the compilation body of algorithms and put forward the external behavioral rules of algorithm design. Under the guidance of the principle of transparency, although the above regulation methods cover the whole process from algorithm design to implementation from different angles, it is not possible to essentially unlock the algorithm “black box” and build a reproducible and predictable AI process. The unintelligibility of AI self-learning process does not disappear with the disclosure of formalized algorithms. Similarly, whether preset ethical rules are fully implemented in AI decision-making cannot be determined simply through the setting and interpretation of algorithmic standards.
Therefore, the current proposed algorithm regulation strategy actually starts from limited risk prediction and enhances the acceptability of AI conclusions by describing technical principles or conclusions
Therefore, the current proposed algorithm regulation strategy actually starts from limited risk prediction and enhances the acceptability of AI conclusions by describing technical principles or conclusions, rather than realizing the deductibility of conclusions by controlling the “input/output” process implemented by the algorithm. Different from the procedural transparency in traditional administrative procedures which is based on direct information communication between subjects, the method of algorithm disclosure cannot objectively realize the transparency of AI decision-making process.
This means that even if the fully digitized administrative behavior realized by artificial intelligence has the binding property according to the substantive law, the coincidence between the technical conclusion and the normative content cannot objectively prove that the algorithmic decision is the result of faithful application of the factual premise. Therefore, the contradiction between the uncontrollability of the decision-making process of artificial intelligence and the controllability of content transmission required by the legitimacy of power still cannot be reasonably solved through the regulation of algorithms.
To sum up, although the technological openness of administrative methods does not limit the intervention of artificial intelligence, even the national policy orientation encourages the use of it to improve the efficiency of administration. However, considering the limitations of the current regulation means of algorithms, the legitimacy defects of implementing administrative behaviors completely or relying on artificial intelligence cannot be corrected by specific technical governance norms. Therefore, for the consideration of controllable technology, it is necessary to strictly restrict the application of artificial intelligence when making administrative actions in a completely digital way.
(3) Embedding the path to obtain the legitimacy of administration according to law
As mentioned above, the acquisition of the legitimacy of the exercise of administrative power usually forms “one and two sides” together with the acquisition of the legitimacy of the exercise of administrative power. Under the digital reform of administrative mode, the dependence of the automatic implementation of administrative behavior “procedure + entity” on the normative form and content in the legitimacy certification also indicates that it is necessary to make up for the defects of legitimacy in the process of the application of substantive law from artificial decision to digital technology decision, from the level of administration by law, by regulating the application of digital administrative mode.
Considering that most of the existing laws and regulations restricting the administrative mode originated from the pre-digital period, scattered e-government provisions are no longer sufficient to respond to the application of digital technology. Therefore, in the context of the current spontaneous administrative practice, ensuring the implementation of fully digital administrative acts in a way that conforms to the power legitimacy test actually translates into the issue of embedding the legitimacy elements into the legal administrative requirements when legalizing the digital administrative reform.
Specifically, it is necessary to perfect the system and standard setting of completely digital administrative acts. On the one hand, considering the technical characteristics of no intervention, from the level of “entity – content”, the above “technical translatability” of the substantive law and the “technical controllable” of the digital way are generalized normative confirmation, so as to ensure the legitimacy level of the construction of the abstract system. On the other hand, considering the separation of digital code compilation and implementation, from the level of “organization-personnel”, the necessary pre-emptive obligations of administrative organs and procedural intervention mechanism should be strengthened to avoid legitimate risks in the implementation of specific systems.
Legal reservation of the scope of application
The experience from comparative law has shown that neither the freedom of choice enjoyed by administrative organs for the way of performing administrative acts in principle nor the generalized system confirmation in a general sense are sufficient to justify completely digital administrative acts in terms of content. In order to ensure the accuracy of the process of converting substantive law norms into formalized codes and avoid the process of technical translation becoming “secondary legislation” in a disguised way, so as to nullify the control power of substantive law on technical conclusions, not all authorized norms of administrative acts are suitable for digital automatic implementation mode.
As for which substantive law requirements match the digital technology process in form and content, they should be judged by legislation in essence, rather than left to the free choice of administrative organs in the implementation process. Therefore, the scope of an administrative act made entirely by digital means should follow the limits reserved by law. Unless expressly authorized by special law norms, administrative acts cannot be completely transferred to digital means.
In the setting of the specific scope of legal reservation
In the setting of the specific scope of legal reservation, according to the analysis from the perspective of “technical transmissibility” of substantive law, first of all, according to whether the authorized items conform to the pre-standardized setting, excluding only the items of purpositionally generalized authorization of administrative organs. Secondly, according to the authorization requirements can get technical language accurate transmission, excluding the need to combine the case situation to weigh the value of the matter.
Finally, in order to ensure the repeated application of the preset technical process in different cases, the situation that the uncertain legal concept needs to be concretized according to subjective standards is excluded, as well as the administrative discretion behavior is excluded in principle. Except in the case of making discretionary decisions only with the aid of objective fact criteria, the discretionary space of the administrative agency has been effectively “reduced to zero” by the constraint of the discretionary basis.
Constraints on the selection of technical patterns
Compared with the original contained in the framework of administration by law, the positive normative path of setting specific technical regulation requirements with the goal of protecting the rights and interests of administrative participants; After embedding the legitimacy elements, the restriction on the completely digital administrative behavior also needs to restrict the administrative organs from adopting digital technology that does not meet the requirement of “controllable technology” through negative normative path.
Although the non-restrictive artificial intelligence technology has a significant efficiency advantage in replacing human decision making, due to the limitations of the current algorithm governance means, the “entity-content” legitimacy transmission cannot be established between the authorization specification as the input side and the algorithm conclusion as the output side. Therefore, in view of the particularity of fully digital administrative behavior, it is necessary to set up special technical constraint rules under the principle of technological openness of administrative mode, so as to exclude the decision of the entity of administrative behavior from completely or in fact only relying on non-restrictive artificial intelligence decision making.
Pre-participation obligations of executive agencies
Although the legal reservation of scope and the restriction of technology selection ensure the legitimacy level of completely digital administrative acts from the level of institutional construction, considering that the digital mode involves complex technology design and operation, there is still a risk of the legitimacy of the technical process deviating from the original intention of authorization in the level of institutional implementation. Therefore, the path of obtaining legitimacy embedded in the legal administrative requirements also contains the requirement of preventing the legitimacy risk in the implementation of the system.
Under the condition of complete digitization, the making of administrative act actually includes two technical decision processes of “abstract” and “concrete”. Abstract decision is the process of pre-coding, while concrete decision is the process of compiling a code scheme to generate a specific action decision in a case. Limited by the human and technical conditions of the administrative organs, the actual task of abstract decision is usually the third party technical subject. Different from the simple government procurement relationship formed by traditional administrative organs purchasing office equipment and software from third-party private entities, this abstract decision process of code compilation actually constitutes the outsourcing of executive power exercise.
It directly determines whether formal technical language is the accurate transmission of substantive law content in system implementation and influences the legitimacy level of actual exercise of executive power in subsequent cases. In view of this, we should regulate this process to avoid the risk of transferring the legitimacy of the content of power by completely withdrawing the abstract technology decision into the autonomy of the private subject.
When substantive decisions are made digitally, the meaning elements contained in traditional administrative action decisions are usually advanced to the stage of technical preparation.
Therefore, in the selection of regulatory paths, it is possible to strengthen the participation obligation of administrative organs in the process of abstract technology decision from the perspective of administration by law, and prevent possible legitimate risks by improving the control power of “organization-personnel” level. In terms of the specific content of participation obligation, on the one hand, the actual participation and control mechanism of administrative organs in the process of technology preparation should be strengthened, including carefully selecting technical subjects, confirming technical standards, proposing specific technical objectives, participating in the demonstration and evaluation of technical schemes.
On the other hand, it adopts the legislative mode of Article 41 of the newly revised Administrative Punishment Law of the People’s Republic of China, and clarifies the functional inspection responsibilities of administrative organs for abstract technology decisions, including the examination and approval of the overall technology implementation process and the technology acceptance system for the simulation of practical application scenarios.
Risk warning and manual intervention mechanism in case implementation
In the case implementation of fully digitized administrative acts, the “concretization” of abstract technology decisions cannot eliminate the concerns of fit before and after transformation, that is, whether the preset technology process can offset the impact of differences between cases and be applied repeatedly, or how to deal with the technical deadlock situation that the case circumstances may exceed the preset conditions of abstract technology decisions.
The risk of technology inclusion from abstract to concrete is not only related to the legitimacy of whether the case decision conforms to the factual premise, but also to the legitimacy of whether the substantive law requirements of digital technology transmission can fully control the outcome of the case. Therefore, although the digital method excludes the actual participation of administrative organs in the case implementation, it is necessary to set up an early warning mechanism in administrative procedures and impose corresponding intervention obligations on administrative organs in order to avoid the legitimacy and legitimacy risks caused by the failure of technical presets to respond to the case situation.
To be specific, first, a risk identification system can be set up in the preset code program to identify and discover the situation that may deviate from the original design intention in time during the automatic implementation of the technical process.
For example, when Germany introduced completely automatic tax decision in the field of tax administration, it stipulated that administrative organs could set up a risk management system to timely filter out major risk situations requiring manual intervention investigation. Secondly, it stipulates the obligation of administrative organs to intervene manually under certain circumstances. If the risk identification system suggests that the case does not match the risk, or the administrative counterpart believes that there is a particularity of the case and clearly requires the manual method for fact investigation, the administrative organ shall promptly change the digital implementation method into the manual method for decision.
Third, give administrative organs the discretionary authority of manual intervention. As a safeguard mechanism to prevent legitimate risks, administrative organs should be given the discretion to actively intervene in the digital process except for the situation where administrative organs clearly have the obligation to intervene. The process of making an administrative decision through administrative procedure is actually a process that is driven by administrative organs and centered on the exercise of administrative investigation power. Even under the automatic implementation of digital methods, it does not mean that the administrative agencies fully abdicate the responsibility of the process. Therefore, the administrative organ has the obligation to supervise the process of making administrative acts by digital means. For the specific circumstances of a case that may deviate from the preset technical standards, it can decide whether to switch to manual implementation based on specific judgment.
Conclusion
As Harari warned darkly in A Brief History of the Future: “Once power is handed over from humans to algorithms, the issue of humanism may become obsolete.” In the face of the digital administrative reform driven by digital technology, which has widely shifted from instrumental auxiliary means to the implementation mode of legal system, the reduction of human factors in administrative activities also raises the concern of “machine governing man” from the perspective of state power operation. Although under the framework of the Constitution, administrative activities have the principle of technological openness, and the principle of administration according to law also respects the choice of administrative mode, the opening of technology does not mean the indulgence of technology.
As a carrier of the operation of administrative power, the technical selection and application of digital administrative mode should first conform to the test of the legitimacy of power under the “organization-personnel” and “entity-content” standards in the Constitution, so as to ensure that the digital process is continuously and effectively traced back to the people’s legitimacy transmission.
The legitimacy crisis of digital administration is prominently reflected in the process of realizing the complete automatic implementation of administrative acts in the digital way
The legitimacy crisis of digital administration is prominently reflected in the process of realizing the complete automatic implementation of administrative acts in the digital way, which spans from procedural link to entity decision. In particular, the problem of insufficient legitimacy level of completely digitized administrative behaviors in practice has become more apparent under the self-driven mode of Chinese administration. Through the empirical observation of the comparative method, it is necessary to correct the defects in the legitimacy of the current system construction, so as to realize the “technical translatability” of entity authorization and the “technical controllability” of digital way in the standard.
Therefore, to obtain the legitimacy of fully digital administrative acts, it is necessary to return to the Angle of administration by law and embed the legitimacy elements into the legitimacy requirements. On the one hand, the legitimacy level of abstract institutions is reinforced in the “entity-content” through legal reservation and technical constraints. On the other hand, by strengthening the procedure mechanism, we can avoid the legitimate risk in the concrete implementation in the aspect of “organization-personnel”.
本文由数字化转型网（www.szhzxw.cn）转载而成，来源于网络；编辑/翻译：数字化转型网宁檬树。
免责声明: 本网站(http://www.szhzxw.cn/)内容主要来自原创、合作媒体供稿和第三方投稿，凡在本网站出现的信息，均仅供参考。本网站将尽力确保所提供信息的准确性及可靠性，但不保证有关资料的准确性及可靠性，读者在使用前请进一步核实，并对任何自主决定的行为负责。本网站对有关资料所引致的错误、不确或遗漏，概不负任何法律责任。
本网站刊载的所有内容(包括但不仅限文字、图片、LOGO、音频、视频、软件、程序等) 版权归原作者所有。任何单位或个人认为本网站中的内容可能涉嫌侵犯其知识产权或存在不实内容时，请及时通知本站，予以删除。
