Regulation of algorithmic discrimination in international law: structural assessment and effectiveness of individual legal remedies from a human rights perspective

Introduction. Due to rapid technological development, artificial intelligence systems (AI) are increasingly used in various social and legal domains, such as recruitment, judicial decisions, and credit scoring. Although these technologies may appear neutral, the data they rely on and their learning processes often replicate and reinforce pre-existing structural biases, resulting in both direct and indirect discrimination against certain social groups.

Purpose. To analyze the issue of algorithmic discrimination arising in the decision-making processes of AI systems from the perspective of international law and human rights.

Theoretical Basis. The article explores the legal and technical dimensions of algorithmic discrimination. Legally, such discrimination does not align with traditional concepts, as the focus shifts from “intent” to “impact.” This complicates legal assessment and the burden of proof. Technically, many algorithms function as “black boxes,” meaning their decision-making processes are opaque, making legal intervention more difficult.

Results and Conclusions. It is argued that the current international human rights framework – including instruments such as the ICCPR and ICERD – is insufficient to address this issue. These normative gaps are due not only to technical complexity but also to weak state compliance and the absence of specific legal standards.

Individual legal protection mechanisms – such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), UN Treaty Bodies, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights – are currently ill-equipped to respond effectively due to limited technological expertise and procedural barriers.

The article highlights the European Union’s relatively advanced approach through instruments like the AI Act and GDPR, while pointing out the significant gaps that remain in the United States and Global South countries. The article concludes with recommendations, including strengthening the international legal framework, aligning national legislation, establishing specialized institutions, and mandating algorithmic impact assessment.

1. Ma, Z. (2024, February). The Inadequacy of the Current International Human Rights Regime for Algorithm Discrimination. Michigan Journal of International Law. https://www.mjilonline.org/theinadequacy-of-the-current-international-human-rights-regime-for-algorithm-discrimination/

2. Wójcik, M. A. (2022). Algorithmic Discrimination in Health Care: An EU Law Perspective. Health and Human Rights, 24(1), 93–103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9212826/

3. Xenidis, R. (2023). When computers say no: towards a legal response to algorithmic discrimination in Europe. In: Research Handbook on Law and Technology. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781803921327/chapter14.xml

4. Chen, X. (2024). Algorithmic proxy discrimination and its regulations. Computer Law & Security Review. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0267364924000876

5. Ma, Z. (2024, February). The Inadequacy of the Current International Human Rights Regime for Algorithm Discrimination. Michigan Journal of International Law. https://www.mjilonline.org/theinadequacy-of-the-current-international-human-rights-regime-for-algorithm-discrimination/

6. Bains, C. (2024, September 13). The legal doctrine that will be key to preventing AI discrimination. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-legal-doctrine-that-will-bekey-to-preventing-aidiscrimination/

7. Falletti, E. (n.d.). Algorithmic Discrimination and Privacy Protection. Law Journal. https://www.lawjournal.digital/jour/article/view/185

8. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Russell, C. (2020). Why Fairness Cannot Be Automated: Bridging the Gap Between EU Non-Discrimination Law and AI. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3547922

9. UNESCO. (n.d.). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved from https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/recommendation-ethics

10. OHCHR. (2021). The right to privacy in the digital age (focus on artificial intelligence), A/HRC/48/31. https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2021/right-privacy-digitalage-report-2021

11. OHCHR. (2023). Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. https://docs.un.org/en/A/78/36

12. European Court of Human Rights. (n.d.). Lopez Ribalda and Others v. Spain. Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-197467

13. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. (2025, April 22). Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights: our contributions to.... https://www.tedic.org/en/ai_iachr2025/

14. European Parliament. (2025, February 26). Algorithmic discrimination under the AI Act and the GDPR. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_ATA(2025)769509

15. Employment Law Watch. (2024, August 22). Employers beware: AI-based workplace discrimination laws are coming to the U.S. https://www.employmentlawwatch.com/2024/08/articles/employmentus/employers-beware-aibased-workplace-discrimination-laws-are-coming-to-the-u-s/

16. Institute for Global Change. (2025, February 6). How Leaders in the Global South Can Devise AI Regulation That Enables Innovation. https://institute.global/insights/tech-anddigitalisation/how-leadersin-the-global-south-can-devise-ai-regulation-that-enables-innovation

17. Working Party 29. (n.d.). Guidelines on Automated individual decision-making and Profiling for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679. https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/612112/en

18. European Commission. (2021, April 21). Proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonised rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). https://eurlex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021PC0206

19. Falletti, E. (n.d.). Algorithmic Discrimination and Privacy Protection. Law Journal. https://www.lawjournal.digital/jour/article/view/185

20. International Ombuds Association. (n.d.). Organizational Ombuds and Artificial Intelligence. https://www.ombudsassociation.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&year=2024&month=05&day=15&id=300:organiznationalombuds-and-artificial-intelligence

21. Council of Europe. (n.d.). CAHAI - Ad hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence. https://www.coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence/cahai

22. Access Now. (n.d.). Algorithmic Impact Assessments. https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2020/06/Algorithmic-Impact-AssessmentsAccess-Now.pdf

23. Big Brother Watch and Others v. UK, App. Nos. 58170/13, 62322/14, 24960/15, ECHR 2021

24. EU GDPR, Article 22 and Recital 71.

25. Bathaee, Y. (2018). The Artificial Intelligence Black Box and the Failure of Intent and Causation. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31(2), 889-931.

26. Metikoš, L., & Ausloos, J. (2025). The Right to an Explanation in Practice: Insights from Case Law for the GDPR and the AI Act. Law, Innovation and Technology.

27. UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). (2020). General Recommendation No. 36 on preventing and combating racial profiling by law enforcement officials. (CERD/C/GC/36).

28. UN Human Rights Committee (HRC). (2020). General Comment No. 37 on the right to peaceful assembly (Article 21). (CCPR/C/GC/37).

29. Balcerzak, M. (2024). Implications of the United Nations human rights standards for the development of artificial intelligence. In: Artificial Intelligence and International Human Rights Law (pp. 147- 168). Edward Elgar Publishing.

30. Rodrigues, R. (2020). Legal and human rights issues of AI: Gaps, challenges and vulnerabilities. Journal of Responsible Technology, 4, 100005.

31. Smuha, N. A. (2021). Beyond a human rights-based approach to AI governance: Promise, pitfalls, plea. Philosophy & Technology, 34, 151-177.

32. UN OHCHR. (2021). The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age. (A/HRC/48/31).

33. Chesterman, S. (2020). Artificial intelligence and the limits of legal personality. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 69(4), 833-852.

34. Felder, R. M. (2021). Coming to terms with the black box problem: how to justify AI systems in health care. Hastings Center Report, 51(3), 34-42.

35. Turner, J. (2018). Legal personality for AI. In: Robot Rules: Regulating Artificial Intelligence (pp. 69- 82). Springer.

36. OECD. (2022). OECD Framework for the Classification of AI Systems. OECD Publishing.

37. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS). (2020). Algorithmic Impact Assessment. Government of Canada.

38. Ada Lovelace Institute. (2022). Algorithmic impact assessment: user guide.