CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 59Digitalization, Law, and RegulationDigital Transformation in LawLegal and Policy Issues

Agents of Change: How the Law ‘Copes’ with Technological Change

Open access
Bennett Moses, Lyria·2011·Griffith Law Review
DOI 10.1080/10383441.2011.10854720
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The difficulty of adapting legal frameworks to changing circumstances is often represented by images of ‘law’ losing a race. Such visions are commonly raised in scholarship concerned with particular problems that arise in applying existing legal rules to new situations, particularly situations involving new technologies. The dilemmas encountered in adapting legal frameworks to technological change rarely persist indefinitely, however. While no institution or methodology is exclusively concerned with changing the law in response to technological change, parliamentary committees, government departments, royal commissions, law reform organisations, technology assessment agencies, ethics bodies, courts, the Productivity Commission and an array of individuals and ad hoc bodies have all been sources of adjustment at various points in history. The diverse array of organisations represents a multiplicity of disciplinary perspectives and evolving methodologies. Each one focuses on part of the story of the mutual adjustment between technology, society and law. This article represents an initial attempt to survey the landscape in order to understand better how Australia has dealt with both technological ‘crises’ and the more mundane process of ensuring that legal rules operate sensibly and predictably in an evolving technological environment. From this, the article will explore briefly the gaps in Australia’s current mechanisms for ensuring law ‘keeps up’ with technology.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10383441.2011.10854720

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The governance using ethics guidelines is highly dependent on recent insights from critical AI studies about societal challenges relating to fairness, accountability, and transparency.

    “The governance using ethics guidelines is highly dependent on recent insights from critical AI studies about the societal challenges relating to fairness, accountability, and transparency.16”

    From On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines (2020) · cites this paper as [16]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bennett Moses, L.
Venue
Griffith Law Review
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2011-01
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
763-794
ISSN
  • 1038-3441 (ISSN-L)
  • 1839-4205
DOI
10.1080/10383441.2011.10854720
OpenAlex
W3125579468
Cited by
59
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4
FWCI
21.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Griffith Law Review (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Digital Transformation in Law
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal and Policy Issues
Keywords
law and technology, legal reform, technological change, technology assessment, Productivity Commission, parliamentary committees, royal commission, law and society, Australia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review