After months of deliberations and mounting fears that the EU’s mission to regulate AI would have to be aborted, the highly anticipated AI Act is finally there – at least almost. Although the developments have attracted much discussion on the appropriateness of adopting a risk-based approach and concerns for the sufficient protection of fundamental rights as well as the stifling of technological innovation, it remains to be seen what the actual effects of this landmark regulation will be. At the same time, it is important to recognize that the AI Act does not enter an empty regulatory space but instead a regulatory environment which comprises existing actors and their capacities. Consequently, new dynamics could arise between existing actors and those newly introduced by the AI Act.

More specifically, in applying the notion of the regulatory space devised by Hancher and Moran, it is recognized that law as well as policy and regulatory processes are of plural nature – regulatory norms which influence the mechanisms and results of regulation are produced and negotiated in various sites by different actors using their specific resources. Regulation thus encompasses a multitude of relations between large actors who fulfill social and economic tasks. These actors range from government bodies, such as departments, ministries, and agencies, to large companies, trade unions, NGOs, and interest groups. The AI Act, as a new regulatory instrument of AI, should therefore not be considered in isolation, but in its interplay with these existing mechanisms and actors.

Hence, this article provides an ex ante evaluation of the EU AI Act to sketch out the new regulatory landscape of AI regulation, and poses the question of which dynamics are to be expected with the AI Act entering the regulatory space. The methodology employed for this inquiry comprises the combination of regulation of technology literature with the notion of regulatory space to build a novel theoretical framework. This will be complemented with a legal analysis of the AI Act by mapping out its scope, as well as the actors involved and their legal competencies.

The aim is to provide a comprehensive understanding of how the AI Act fits into existing dynamics and to shed light on power structures at play within the regulatory space. Importantly, this will be done by considering not only legal competencies introduced by the AI Act but also extra-legal capacities, such as organizational capacities, expertise, or financial capital, which can equip different actors with comparably powerful positions. As a result, this article contributes to existing literature by presenting a new lens that combines legal considerations with insights from public administration to gain a more accurate view of the power dynamics and actors involved in the regulatory space.

This paper focuses on smart cities’ benefits and challenges and the lack of legal framework surrounding them. The last century saw major urbanisation. The United Nations estimate that by 2050, around 70% of the world’s population will live in cities; according to the European Commission, the figure is as high as 85%. This calls for smart solutions to address the specific challenges posed by ever-expanding cities. After all, in big cities there is excessive noise, environmental pollution, crime, etc. Smart cities can be the solution to provide a happy and healthy living environment for everyone in the city. Smart cities use technological gadgets to manage and govern the city. In this way, they improve the quality of life of their residents and established businesses. Smart cities thus enable governments to deliver better public services. Smart technologies are built into all areas of life: city government, education, healthcare, public safety, real estate, (public) transport, utilities, etc.

But smart cities are not all sunshine and rainbows, they bring about some risks. There is no overarching legal framework regarding smart cities, cities using smart technologies find themselves in a legal grey area. While several components of smart projects are subject to specific legal provisions, they are widespread and form a fragmented landscape. Data is currently a very precious commodity; smart cities collect a plethora of data from their citizens. Smart cities should thus commit to cyber security. Furthermore, not everyone is equally tech savvy, smart cities should pay close attention to e-inclusion. Besides, smart systems are fallible; they make mistakes, some more disastrous than others. Finally, it is not just a democratically elected government that is involved with smart cities, they call on private companies to shape smart solutions. This can create a democratic deficit.

This research approaches smart cities from a legal perspective, but uses public administration and political science literature to offset the lack of legal analysis. The first part approaches smart cities from a (legal) historical perspective, focusing on its applications worldwide and the benefits it brings to public services (1.). The second part adopts an evaluative approach, centering on the (legal) risks that governments must take into account before going all in on smart cities. Smart solutions are governed by their respective legal regulations, leading to fragmentation and legal uncertainty. The absence of a dedicated legal framework compels cities to rely on overarching legal principles and existing legislation (such as: the AI-act at the European level), which do not adequately address the complexities of smart cities (2.). The final part raises the normative question regarding how to deal with the risks and the role that law should undertake in addressing them. Is there a necessity to harmonise the fragmented legal environment concerning smart cities? What features should a legal structure possess to guarantee that the advantages of smart cities surpass their drawbacks? (3.). The paper adopts a theoretical stance and employs the black letter analysis method. It does illustrate e-governance by employing practical examples where possible.

This empirical study meticulously examines the implementation of remote participation mechanisms in Ukraine's judicial proceedings amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing armed conflict, drawing on in-depth interviews with legal professionals. The author explores the impact of remote participation on the right to a fair trial and judicial efficiency, advocating for its judicious expansion across various contexts. The study elucidates the need for reforming Ukraine's network of local courts and underscores remote participation's role in enhancing access to justice while ensuring procedural fairness. By highlighting the interplay between remote justice, efficiency, and fundamental human rights, it contributes to e-justice discourse and aligns with the conference theme of Teaching Digital Governance. Ultimately, the study advocates for the integration of remote participation to foster a more equitable and efficient judicial system in Ukraine and beyond, in adherence to European human rights principles.

The present study addresses the impact of algorithmic decision-making in public administration. Following some brief clarifications on terminology, it analyses several examples of its application in public administration and discusses the issue of automated administrative acts. It then examines whether algorithmic decision-making conforms to the fundamental principles of administrative law and moves on to propose certain revised fundamental principles to be applied when implementing algorithmic decision-making in public administration before drawing its concluding remarks.

AI-assisted teams engaging in decision-making in high-stakes and high-risks environments (i.e. naturalistic) face multiple challenges: they often lack direct feedback regarding the correctness of their decisions (Bruce & George, 2014; Straus et al., 2011), suffer from the Common Knowledge Effect (CKE) that privileges commonly held information (Stasser & Stewart, 1992; Straus et al., 2011) and face biases when utilizing AI advice (e.g. Mahmud et al., 2022). These findings show that the extent to which teams are able to utilize AI generated advice for their decision-making is dependent upon a multitude of organizational, cultural and social factors (e.g. Meijer et al., 2021; Morrison et al., 2023). Moreover, the complexity of AI system influences their useability for decision-makers (Burrell, 2016; Jiang et al., 2022; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2019; Mahmud et al., 2022). Much of the research however has been studied in laboratory settings (Mahmud et al., 2022), instead of a more naturalistic setting with actual decision-makers. This study addresses this gap by studying the extent to which teams in a naturalistic setting are able to utilize complex and uncertain AI systems and asking. “to what extent do uncertainties in AI systems affect their use for team decision-making?”. Specifically, the research tests whether a lack of verification possibilities leads to complex AI systems not being utilized by teams in a naturalistic setting, and thereby limiting the extent to which AI systems may be effectively employed in such settings. This is done with focus groups in a public organization in the field of security in the Netherlands that is engaged in high-stakes decision-making with little possibilities for verification. About 5 focus groups with around 35 professional decision-makers will be conducted between May and September 2024, utilizing fictionalized, but highly realistic AI cases. It is expected that in cases with increased complexity, lower intended utilization will be observed due to difficulties in understanding, even if the AI system discussed offers additional benefits.