The limits of technical concretization of legal principles in artificial intelligence regulation

Introduction. The relevance of the study is determined by the tension between the abstract valuebased content of legal principles and the need to establish verifiable requirements for artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The extent to which the content of a principle may be translated into technical parameters without replacing it with a predetermined rule remains an open question in legal theory.

Purpose. To determine the procedure and limits of the technical concretization of legal principles in AI regulation.

Theoretical basis. The methodology combines formal legal, comparative legal, systemic structural and formal logical methods.

Results. The study distinguishes between substantive principles protecting individual rights and values and safeguard principles ensuring the verifiability and contestability of algorithmic decisions. Technical concretization is defined as the legally mediated translation of particular normative projections of a principle into requirements for the data, procedures and outputs of an AI system. Articles 3 and 64 of the Russian Labour Code are used to identify gaps between the prohibition of discrimination and its technical and procedural enforcement in algorithmic recruitment. A typology of the results of concretization according to their degree of technical formalizability is proposed. Structural-logical, axiological and epistemic-technological limits are identified. Statistical disparity between groups is shown to constitute not proof of discrimination but grounds for a rebuttable presumption and a duty to disclose selection criteria. An institutional mechanism is proposed that includes shifting the burden of proof, adversarial examination of expert evidence and model maps for selecting fairness metrics. The article specifies which elements may be tested within experimental legal regimes and which require amendments to labour and procedural legislation.

Conclusions. Technical concretization can cover only particular normative projections of a principle, while the final legal assessment of competing values in legally significant decisions requires meaningful human oversight.

1. Khabrieva TYa. Law facing the challenges of digital reality. Journal of Russian Law. 2018;(9):5–16. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.12737/art_2018_9_1. EDN: YXUYFV.

2. Alferova E.V., Skurko E.V. International and national features of legal regulation of artificial intelligence: the experience of Russia, China and India. RUDN Journal of Law. 2026;30(2):215–232. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.22363/2313-2337-2026-30-2-215-232. EDN: DBTINJ.

3. Khabrieva T.Ya., Chernogor N.N. Law in the digital reality. Journal of Russian Law. 2018;(1):85–102. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.12737/art_2018_1_7. EDN: YKWEZL.

4. Guk P.A. Interpretation and concretization of norms and principles of law by judicial bodies. University Proceedings. Volga Region. Social Sciences. 2020;(4):32–40. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21685/2072-3016-2020-4-4. EDN: HWHZJU.

5. Terekhina E.A. On the concretization of principles and norms of law by judicial bodies. University Proceedings. Volga Region. Social Sciences. 2022;(3):157–168. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21685/2072-3016-2022-3-15. EDN: UJCFNG.

6. Matuzov N.I., Malko A.V. Theory of State and Law: textbook. 5th ed. Moscow: Delo RANEPA Publishing House; 2022. 528 p. (In Russ.). ISBN: 978-5-85006-370-2.

7. Konovalov A.V. Principles of Law: monograph. Moscow: Norma; 2022. 792 p. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.12737/1816288. ISBN: 978-5-00156-195-8.

8. Shatkovskaya T.V. Legal limits of digital transformation: search for new solutions. Law and State: The Theory and Practice. 2021;(3):170–173. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.47643/1815-1337_2021_3_170. EDN: HXLMMM.

9. Kharitonova Yu.S., Savina V.S. Artificial Intelligence: a Civil Law Concept of Regulation: monograph. Moscow: Yustitsinform; 2025. 332 p. (In Russ.). ISBN: 978-5-7205-2195-0.

10. Ovchinnikov A.I., editor. Concepts, Principles and Directions of Legal Regulation of Safe Artificial Intelligence and Digital Technologies: monograph. Moscow: Prospekt; 2026. 280 p. (In Russ.). ISBN: 978-5- 392-45572-0.

11. Garbuk S.V. Trust model for artificial intelligence application systems. Lomonosov Public Administration Journal. Series 21. 2024;21(4):151–169. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.55959/MSU2073-2643-21-2024-4-151-169. EDN: AQMSEC.

12. Kondrashov P.E., Petrunin Yu.Yu., Popova S.S. Regulation of the development and application of artificial intelligence: problems and development trends. Lomonosov Public Administration Journal. Series 21. 2025;22(1):3–19. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.55959/MSU2073-2643-22-2025-1-3-19. EDN: YNLBUI.

13. Zorkin V.D. Providentia, or on the law of the future in the era of digitalization. State and Law. 2020;(6):7–19. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31857/S013207690009932-7. EDN: PPSVUC.

14. Talapina E.V. Data processing by means of artificial intelligence and risks of discrimination. Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics. 2022;15(1):4–27. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17323/2072-8166.2022.1.4.27. EDN: PWEPSJ.

15. Talapina E.V. Transparency of artificial intelligence algorithms. Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics. 2025;18(3):4–27. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17323/2072-8166.2025.3.4.27. EDN: RGQHJV.

16. Lessig L. Code: Version 2.0. New York: Basic Books; 2006. 410 p. ISBN: 978-0-465-03914-2.

17. Hildebrandt M. Smart Technologies and the End(s) of Law: Novel Entanglements of Law and Technology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2015. 304 p. DOI: 10.4337/9781849808774. ISBN: 978-1-84980-876-7.

18. Kähler L. The influence of normative reasons on the formation of legal concepts. Proceedings of the Institute of State and Law of the RAS. 2020;15(3):62–91. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.35427/2073-4522-2020- 15-3-kahler. EDN: ZMKJWG.

19. Kleinberg J., Mullainathan S., Raghavan M. Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. In: 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2017). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs). Vol. 67. Dagstuhl: Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik; 2017. p. 43:1–43:23. DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2017.43.

20. Chouldechova A. Fair prediction with disparate impact: a study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big Data. 2017;5(2):153–163. DOI: 10.1089/big.2016.0047.

21. Wachter S., Mittelstadt B., Russell C. Why fairness cannot be automated: bridging the gap between EU non-discrimination law and AI. Computer Law & Security Review. 2021;41:105567. DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105567.

22. Selbst A.D., Boyd D., Friedler S.A., Venkatasubramanian S., Vertesi J. Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. New York: ACM; 2019. p. 59–68. DOI: 10.1145/3287560.3287598.

23. Mitchell M., Wu S., Zaldivar A., Barnes P., Vasserman L., Hutchinson B., et al. Model cards for model reporting. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. New York: ACM; 2019. p. 220–229. DOI: 10.1145/3287560.3287596.

24. Gebru T., Morgenstern J., Vecchione B., Vaughan J.W., Wallach H., Daumé H., et al. Datasheets for datasets. Communications of the ACM. 2021;64(12):86–92. DOI: 10.1145/3458723.

25. Raji I.D., Smart A., White R.N., Mitchell M., Gebru T., Hutchinson B., et al. Closing the AI accountability gap: defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. New York: ACM; 2020. p. 33–44. DOI: 10.1145/3351095.3372873.

26. Green B. The flaws of policies requiring human oversight of government algorithms. Computer Law & Security Review. 2022;45:105681. DOI: 10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105681.

27. Cobbe J., Lee M.S.A., Singh J. Reviewable automated decision-making: a framework for accountable algorithmic systems. In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. New York: ACM; 2021. p. 598–609. DOI: 10.1145/3442188.