The Book · Chapter 19 of 28
Chapter 19The Definition, Scope and Structure of JUS.automica
Where should the legal-effect threshold be drawn for systems that shape attention or access without formally issuing a legal decision?
The chapter develops
The field definition and the legal-effect threshold (the legally consequential computational action), with the twenty-one doctrines of the book located and mapped.
Summary
When does a ranking, omission or access barrier become a jurisprudential concern even though no formal decision has been issued? This chapter defines JUS.automica around the continuity of legal authority through computational systems and proposes the legally consequential computational action as its threshold. It distinguishes direct, decisional, infrastructural and institutional effects, with scrutiny graded by consequence and uncertainty triggering examination rather than presumed illegality. The chapter maps the field's subjects, analytical levels, six domains and twenty-one doctrines, placing jurisprudence before method, research programme and application. It engages adjacent traditions, including technological due process, legal protection by design and digisprudence, and confronts objections of redundancy, excessive breadth and human-centredness. Its claim is one of organised inquiry across the whole authority chain; priority over neighbouring accounts remains to be established, and its general questions require legally plural, jurisdiction-specific answers.
- legally consequential computational action
- material influence
- infrastructural legal effect
- lifecycle legality
- institutional competence
- normative plurality
- continuity of authority
- jurisprudential scope
The chapter text
The text of this chapter is read in the Codex, by members and owners of the Book. Membership opens every published chapter; the Book gives you all twenty-eight for good.