Title (same as in your application form)
Accountable Authority: Simplifying judicial review for community-scale accountability of delegated decision-making
Team member names
Rob Knight
Chris Wray
Short summary of your improvement idea
Radically simplify common law judicial review to provide communities and organizations with a protocol for non-experts to challenge decisions and hold accountable those with executive roles or other decision-making power on the basis of formal/procedural constraints, thereby driving development of the corresponding decision-making protocol to mitigate the risk of successful challenge.
FAQ
What is the existing target protocol you are hoping to improve or enhance? Eg: hand-washing, traffic system, connector standards, carbon trading.
How executive decision-makers are held accountable in England by judicial review (a special legal protocol by which individuals can challenge the decisions of governmental/public bodies) and the corresponding decision-making protocol that government adopts to mitigate the risk of challenge.
What is the core idea or insight about potential improvement you want to pursue?
Future network states/Coordi-Nations or other networked community-scale organizations will face the same need as nation states to hold those with executive roles accountable for their decisions and to ensure fair procedures to deal with diverse conflicting interests, and yet they will lack the nation-scale institutional infrastructure of a judicial system. While mechanisms for accountability that are fundamentally aggregative and stakeholder-based and therefore political (tokenholders, shareholders or voters acting to replace or overrule those in decision-making roles) can be partially effective, such protocols can be too strong (substituting a different policy rather than correcting procedural defects that undermine legitimacy) and are inherently poor at defending minority interests.
Our research hypothesis is that an English law judicial protocol developed since the medieval period to hold monarchs and governments accountable can be radically simplified while preserving its core insight that procedural constraints drive improvement in decision-making without requiring judges or third parties to substitute their own substantive decisions. A protocol by which individuals or groups can challenge decisions on procedural grounds can drive improvement of a protocol for decision-making that encodes procedural constraints on decisions, as decision-makers try to mitigate the risk of successful challenge of their decisions. Since the grounds for challenge are procedural, members of a community or organisation (e.g. a sortition-based panel) can determine a challenge without requiring judicial or other domain-specific expertise. Technology can partially automate decision-making and challenge protocols by guiding correct workflow and securely recording evidence of compliance.
What is your discovery methodology for investigating the current state of the target protocol? Eg: field observation, expert interviews, historical data analysis, failure event analysis
Review of case law and commentary to show the historical development of common law judicial review and the corresponding evolution of government decision-making protocol to mitigate against successful challenge of officials’ decisions.
In what form will you prototype your improvement idea? Eg: Code, reference design implementation, draft proposal shared with experts for feedback, A/B test of ideas with a test audience, prototype hardware, etc.
A written constitutional community governance framework to (i) share with scholars of constitutional law and blockchain governance for feedback, and (ii) adopt as governance framework for a place-based community; together with (iii) appropriate software to support community decision-makers and members in making and challenging decisions in accordance with protocol.
How will you field-test your improvement idea? Eg: run a restricted pilot at an event, simulation, workshop, etc.
Challenges to decisions that arise in the community will be documented. In addition, a series of workshops including mock challenges will be arranged to review and document the processes and outcomes.
Who will be able to judge the quality of your output? Ideally name a few suitable judges.
Prof. Julia Black at LSE, Eric Alston at CU Boulder, and Morshed Mannan at EUI have offered to give feedback on a draft constitutional governance framework based on these ideas.
How will you publish and evangelize your improvement idea? Eg: Submit proposal to a standards body, publish open-source code, produce and release a software development kit etc.
Open-sourced code and publicly-licensed constitutional governance framework; documentation of real/mock challenges and workshop proceedings.
What is the success vision for your idea?
Partially automated, constitutional governance frameworks become widely adopted by communities and organizations in an increasingly privately-ordered, networked future.