Institutionalizing the "Assistive Principle": Constraining AI in Automated Administrative Enforcement Affecting Older Adults

Yichuan Jiang

doi:10.47297/wspelWSP2515-824407.20261001

PDF
Export
Share
Collection
Album

Institutionalizing the "Assistive Principle": Constraining AI in Automated Administrative Enforcement Affecting Older Adults

Volume 10, Issue 1

Views: 0 Downloads: 0

Institutionalizing the "Assistive Principle": Constraining AI in Automated Administrative Enforcement Affecting Older Adults
Institutionalizing the "Assistive Principle": Constraining AI in Automated Administrative Enforcement Affecting Older Adults
Xinjiang University of Finance and Economics, Urumqi, Xinjiang, 830000, China
Vol. 10, Issue 1, Pages: 37-41(2026)
Online First：04 August 2026，

Published：30 March 2026
DOI：10.47297/wspelWSP2515-824407.20261001
Accepted：

Scan QR Code

Jiang Yichuan.Institutionalizing the "Assistive Principle": Constraining AI in Automated Administrative Enforcement Affecting Older Adults[J].Elder Law,2026,10(01):37-41.
DOI：

Jiang Yichuan.Institutionalizing the "Assistive Principle": Constraining AI in Automated Administrative Enforcement Affecting Older Adults[J].Elder Law,2026,10(01):37-41. DOI： 10.47297/wspelWSP2515-824407.20261001.

摘要

Abstract

The rapid deployment of AI-driven automated administrative enforcement—spanning traffic monitoring

social welfare adjudication

and public health compliance—poses distinctive risks for older adults who face compounding barriers of digital illiteracy

cognitive decline

and diminished procedural agency. While existing scholarship has examined algorithmic governance and due process

it has largely overlooked the age-specific dimensions of automated enforcement. This article proposes an "assistive principle" requiring that AI systems in enforcement contexts affecting elderly populations function as assistive tools subordinate to human judgment rather than autonomous decision-makers. Drawing on comparative administrative law

the article constructs the principle around four institutional pillars: mandatory human-in-the-loop mechanisms

age-adaptive algorithmic design standards

enhanced procedural safeguards including meaningful explanation and accessible appeal

and comparative validation protocols. The article argues that institutionalizing this principle bridges the gap between digital administrative law and elder rights protection

offering a structured response to the legitimacy crisis of automated governance as it intersects with demographic aging.

关键词

Keywords

references

Calo R. , & Citron D . K . ( 2021 ). The automated administrative state: A crisis of legitimacy. Emory Law Journal , 70 ( 4 ), 797 – 845 .

Coglianese C . ( 2021 ). Administrative law in the automated state . Dædalus , 150 ( 3 ), 104 – 120 .

Coglianese C. , & Hefter K . ( 2022 ). From negative to positive algorithm rights . William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal , 30 ( 4 ), 883 – 924 .

Coglianese C. , & Lai A . ( 2022 ). Algorithm vs. algorithm . Duke Law Journal , 71 ( 6 ), 1281 – 1340 .

Crootof R. , Kaminski M. E. , & Price W. N. , II . ( 2023 ). Humans in the loop . Vanderbilt Law Review , 76 ( 2 ), 429 – 510 .

European Parliament & Council of the European Union . ( 2024 ). Regulation (EU) 2024 / 1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union, SeriesL.

Su Y . ( 2023 ). Technological due process in the digital age: Theoretical examination and institutional construction . Chinese Journal of Law , ( 1 ), 91 – 106 .

Tang A . ( 2025 ). The reconstruction of the due process principle in automated administration . Journal of Comparative Law , ( 5 ), 177 – 191 .

Williams R . ( 2022 ). Rethinking administrative law for algorithmic decision making . Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 42 ( 2 ), 468 – 497 .