Project Title: Proportionality and Automated Decision-Making: A Comparative Legal Analysis
1. Research Question
This article examines if courts are strict enough how courts calibrate proportionality review when public authorities rely on automated decision systems.
2. Significance
The issue is important because automated systems can affect benefits, licensing, migration, and other administrative outcomes. The revised framing separates doctrinal significance from policy implications.
3. Legal Framework
The analysis distinguishes statutory duties, constitutional principles, procedural fairness, and relevant judicial review standards rather than treating them as interchangeable sources of authority.
4. Methodology
The study uses a comparative doctrinal method, identifying the jurisdictions, case-selection criteria, and analytical categories applied to the selected decisions.
5. Case Law Analysis
Authorities are organised by issue so that factual background, legal test, reasoning, and outcome can be compared consistently across the discussion.
6. Conclusion
The conclusion now separates the paper's doctrinal finding from recommendations for future research and institutional practice.