Papers concerned with who may act, how machine authority is bounded, what evidence proves mandate and how affected parties challenge or reverse consequential actions.
Membership is generated from controlled domain and topic rules, so future reviews appear automatically when their metadata matches this collection.
Separating autonomous execution from independent enforcement makes organizational authority more testable, but verifiable Law, approvals, and effects do not themselves establish the legitimacy of the sovereign organization or provide external redress.
Digital constitutionalism changes who can govern platform conduct, but the legitimacy of expanded protective powers depends on enforceable limits, reviewable moderation decisions, and remedies for both unlawful content and wrongful suppression.
An automated public decision is accountable only when public institutions can independently examine its conditions of production and compel its correction, not merely explain its output.
Proactive government does not remove administrative power when it removes citizen-facing steps; it shifts that power into less visible back-office coordination, so every reduction in friction should be matched by stronger traceability, contestability, and accountable authority.
Permission can establish that an agent may invoke a capability, but institutional authority requires a governed state that binds purpose, delegation, evidence, policy, obligations, and continuity to the action the institution is prepared to own.
Formal rules do not govern by themselves: administrative outcomes are produced through the interaction of structural relations, cultural expectations, and reflexive agency over time, so governance analysis must identify the mechanisms that reproduce or transform those arrangements rather than infer effectiveness from institutional design alone.
Local compliance is not a compositional property: when institutional outcomes emerge from coupled agents, governance must attach observability, revocable authority, containment, and accountability to the population and workflow, not only to each component.
The legitimate boundary of AI public-health surveillance is not the point at which prediction becomes technically possible, but the point at which institutions can no longer justify, constrain, contest, and retire the resulting power over people.
Ethical discourse can weaken governance when institutions use it to project responsibility outward, secure legitimacy, and manage public acceptance without surrendering discretion or creating enforceable constraints.
Keeping a human judge formally in charge does not by itself preserve judicial legitimacy; a governable judicial-AI regime must also make algorithmic influence, institutional operators, override incentives, and avenues for contestation independently auditable.
Cryptographic identity, scoped delegation, policy checks, signed commitments, and tamper-evident logs can make agent interactions more answerable, but they do not make an issuer legitimate or a recorded commitment substantively correct.
A verified permission record becomes dependable execution authority only when current validation, grant consumption and the protected effect share an enforceable boundary whose policy owners remain accountable.
A traceable permission chain can document how an agent acted without establishing that the public institution had legitimate authority to delegate the action.
Independent enforcement can constrain an agent's actions, but accountable delegation also requires evidence that the enforced scope was legitimately granted and a remedy for people harmed by its exercise.
Authority checks must govern the next action before an agent crosses a boundary, while leaving the competence and legitimacy of the authorizing institution open to challenge.