UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

Dual erosion of equality and remedy in algorithmic decision systems

Identification

Clé publique

radar:r-dff5dfa9edc0d6d5c69b477ca47ade7e

Auteurs

Bhavya Johari

Année déclarée

2026

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

article

Première détection

2026-11-14T02:04:53.418211+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-14T02:04:53.418211+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Institutions déclarées par la source

O. P. Jindal Global University

Pays d’affiliation déclarés

IN

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

This article develops a dual erosion framework demonstrating how Artificial Intelligence systems simultaneously undermine equality rights through discriminatory outcomes and obstruct effective remedies through opacity. Through comparative case synthesis spanning criminal justice algorithms in the United States and Canada, welfare eligibility systems in the European Union (EU) and India, credit scoring in Germany, employment screening, and content moderation, the analysis reveals that equality risk and remedy risk operate interdependently rather than in parallel. Biased algorithmic outputs become unreviewable due to opacity, while opacity enables bias to persist undetected. The article examines regulatory responses under the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, the Digital Services Act, and the revised Santa Clara Principles, proposing concrete implementation frameworks that include discovery protocols reconciling trade secrets with due process, burden-shifting standards adapted from employment discrimination law, risk-tiered due diligence requirements, independent audit mechanisms, and participatory governance models. These findings advance algorithmic accountability scholarship by providing adjudicable standards for courts and regulators, while demonstrating that comprehensive governance requires integrated approaches that address both equality and remedy dimensions.

Identifiants

OPENALEX

https://openalex.org/W7130361762

DOI

10.1007/s44163-026-01040-6

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

article

Types déclarés par les sources

article

Éditeurs

Springer Nature

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAlex · Document 1

• Document · https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-026-01040-6

Statut documentaire

Pertinence à examiner

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.