From deliberative practice to algorithmic theatre
Generative AI and the risk of performative compliance in environmental due diligence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2836Keywords:
algorithmic theatre, deliberative systems, environmental due diligence, public participation, disaster law, symbolic compliance, generative AIAbstract
Generative AI is usually defended in the language of efficiency. Environmental due diligence, however, rests on documents machines can now draft, submit and summarise. This article proposes algorithmic theatre as an explanatory model of a risk in which compliance artefacts keep their legal form and authority while the deliberation they record thins or disappears. Using Dryzek’s criteria of authenticity, inclusiveness and consequentiality, it reads three episodes as plausibility probes (AI pilots under the National Environmental Policy Act, fabricated public comments and false data in carbon credit verification) and specifies three hypothesised mechanisms: de-skilling, decoupling and legitimacy transfer. A comparison of the United States, the European Union and Pakistan suggests that exposure depends less on a jurisdiction’s wealth than on whether its law attends to the provenance of compliance information, and is greatest where participatory infrastructure is already weak. Safeguards follow, including a draft provision for the disasters convention now under negotiation.
Downloads
Metrics
Global Statistics ℹ️
|
43
Views
|
11
Downloads
|
|
54
Total
|
|
References
Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), 2021. Recommendation 2021-1: Managing mass, computer-generated, and falsely attributed comments. Federal Register [online], 86, 36075. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-07-08/pdf/2021-14597.pdf
Arif, M. I. U., Mahsud, M. I., and Imran, S., 2026. From environmental governance to climate citizenship: Rethinking state authority, climate vulnerability and conflict dynamics in Pakistan. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 16(3), 1394-1419. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2556 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2556
Balla, S. J., et al., 2022. Lost in the flood?: Agency responsiveness to mass comment campaigns in administrative rulemaking. Regulation & Governance [online], 16(1), 293-308. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12318 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12318
Baudrillard, J., 1994. Simulacra and simulation. Trans.: S. F. Glaser. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9904
Beckers, A., and Teubner, G., 2023. Responsibility for algorithmic misconduct: Unity or fragmentation of liability regimes? Yale Journal of Law & Technology [online], 25(Special Issue), 76. Available at: https://yjolt.org/node/1069
Bender, E. M., et al., 2021. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency [online]. New York: ACM, 610-623. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
Berde, É., et al., 2025. GDP per capita and human capital investment in five countries after exhaustion of the first demographic dividend. Regional Statistics [online], 15(5), 908-929. Available at: https://doi.org/10.15196/RS150504 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15196/RS150504
Bovens, M., 2007. Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal [online], 13(4), 447-468. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x
Burrell, J., 2016. How the machine “thinks”: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society [online], 3(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512
Buzan, B., Wæver, O., and de Wilde, J., 1998. Security: A new framework for analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781685853808
Citron, D. K., 2008. Technological due process. Washington University Law Review, 85(6), 1249-1313.
Coglianese, C., and Lehr, D., 2017. Regulating by robot: Administrative decision making in the machine-learning era. Georgetown Law Journal, 105(5), 1147-1223.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), 2024. CFTC charges former CEO of carbon credit project developer with fraud involving voluntary carbon credits [online]. 2 October. Press release 8994-24. Available at: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8994-24
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 2025a. Removal of National Environmental Policy Act implementing regulations (interim final rule). Federal Register, 90, 10610.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 2025b. Permitting technology action plan [online]. 30 May. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/05/trump-administration-launches-permitting-technology-action-plan
Crawford, K., ed., 2021. Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence [online]. New Haven: Yale University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300252392 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300252392
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), 2025. Government-built Humphrey AI tool reviews responses to consultation for first time in bid to save millions [online]. Press release, 14 May. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-built-humphrey-ai-tool-reviews-responses-to-consultation-for-first-time-in-bid-to-save-millions
Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU. Official Journal of the European Union, L 26, 1-21; L 124, 1-18.
Dryzek, J. S., 2009. Democratization as deliberative capacity building. Comparative Political Studies [online], 42(11), 1379-1402. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414009332129 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414009332129
Dryzek, J. S., and Niemeyer, S., 2008. Discursive representation. American Political Science Review [online], 102(4), 481-493. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055408080325 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055408080325
Edelman, L. B., 1992. Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology [online], 97(6), 1531-1576. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/229939 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/229939
Galaz, V., Metzler, H., Daume, S., Olsson, A., Lindström, B., and Marklund, A., 2023. AI could create a perfect storm of climate misinformation [online]. arXiv:2306.12807. Available at: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.12807
George, A. L., and Bennett, A., 2005. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Glucker, A. N., et al., 2013. Public participation in environmental impact assessment: Why, who and how? Environmental Impact Assessment Review [online], 43, 104-111. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.06.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.06.003
Goffman, E., 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.
Haider, J., et al., 2024. GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features, spread, and implications for preempting evidence manipulation. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review [online], 5(5). Available at: https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-156 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-156
Hilgartner, S., 2000. Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama. Stanford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503618220
International Law Association (ILA), 2016. Study group on due diligence in international law: Second report [online]. D. French, Chair; T. Stephens, Rapporteur. Available at: https://www.ila-hq.org/en/study-groups
International Law Commission (ILC), 2001. Draft articles on prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities, with commentaries. Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2001 [online], Vol. II, Part Two. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/guide/9_7.shtml
International Law Commission (ILC), 2016. Draft articles on the protection of persons in the event of disasters, with commentaries. Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2016, Vol. II, Part Two.
Krawiec, K. D., 2003. Cosmetic compliance and the failure of negotiated governance. Washington University Law Quarterly, 81(2), 487-544. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.448221
Kreps, S., and Kriner, D. L., 2024. The potential impact of emerging technologies on democratic representation: Evidence from a field experiment. New Media & Society [online], 26(12), 6918-6937. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231160526 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231160526
Krieger, H., Peters, A., and Kreuzer, L., eds., 2020. Due diligence in the international legal order [online]. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198869900.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198869900.001.0001
Kroll, J. A., et al., 2017. Accountable algorithms. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 165(3), 633-705.
Mahajan, S., 2026. Participatory provenance as representational auditing for AI-mediated public consultation [online]. arXiv:2604.20711. Available at: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.20711
Mansbridge, J., et al., 2012. A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In: J. Parkinson and J. Mansbridge, eds., Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale [online]. Cambridge University Press, 1-26. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139178914.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139178914.002
Meyer, J. W., and Rowan, B., 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology [online], 83(2), 340-363. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/226550 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication (MoITT), 2025. National Artificial Intelligence Policy 2025. [online]. Islamabad: Government of Pakistan. Available at: https://www.moitt.gov.pk/SiteImage/Misc/files/National%20AI%20Policy.pdf
Nadeem, O., and Fischer, T. B., 2011. An evaluation framework for effective public participation in EIA in Pakistan. Environmental Impact Assessment Review [online], 31(1), 36-47. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.003
Nadeem, O., and Hameed, R., 2008. Evaluation of environmental impact assessment system in Pakistan. Environmental Impact Assessment Review [online], 28(8), 562-571. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2008.02.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2008.02.003
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §4332, as amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, Pub. L. No. 118-5, §321.
New York State Office of the Attorney General (OAG), 2021a. Attorney General James issues report detailing millions of fake comments, revealing secret campaign to influence FCC’s 2017 repeal of net neutrality rules [online]. Press release, 6 May. Available at: https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2021/attorney-general-james-issues-report-detailing-millions-fake-comments-revealing
New York State Office of the Attorney General (OAG), 2021b. Fake comments: How U.S. companies & partisans hack democracy to undermine your voice. New York: Office of the New York State Attorney General.
Nixon, R., 2011. Slow violence and the environmentalism of the poor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674061194
Ollino, A., 2022. Due diligence obligations in international law [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053082 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009053082
Paine, J., 2026. Due diligence, obligations to cooperate and to regulate private actors: Insights from three climate change advisory opinions. Environmental Policy and Law [online], 56(1-2), 18-29. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/18785395251394330 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/18785395251394330
Pakistan Environmental Protection Act 1997 (PEPA) (Act No. XXXIV of 1997) [online]. Available at: https://elaw.org/wp-content/uploads/archive/Law-PEPA-1997.pdf
Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (Pakistan EPA), 2000. Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (Review of IEE and EIA) regulations, 2000. Islamabad: Government of Pakistan.
Pasquale, F., 2015. The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information [online]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Available at: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674970847
Power, M., 1997. The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford University Press.
Raji, I. D., et al., 2020. Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency [online]. New York: ACM, 33-44. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union [online], L, 2024/1689. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj
Rouvroy, A., and Berns, T., 2013. Algorithmic governmentality and prospects of emancipation: Disparateness as a precondition for individuation through relationships? Réseaux [online], 177(1), 163-196. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3917/res.177.0163 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/res.177.0163
Saren, T., 2025. Using AI in NEPA review: Legal challenges and judicial scrutiny. Environmental Law Reporter [online], 55(6), 10596. Available at: https://www.elr.info/node/331794
Schmidt, V. A., 2013. Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: Input, output and “throughput”. Political Studies [online], 61(1), 2-22. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00962.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00962.x
Suchman, M. C., 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review [online], 20(3), 571-610. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
Tian, X., and Shi, D., 2025. Facilitating or inhibiting: A study on the impact of artificial intelligence on corporate greenwashing. Sustainability [online], 17(5), 2154. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052154 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052154
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), 2024. Protection of persons in the event of disasters. UN Doc A/RES/79/128, 4 December.
United Nations Office of Legal Affairs (UN OLA), 2026. United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters: Background [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/pped/bg.shtml
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., and Russell, C., 2018. Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31(2), 841-887. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3063289
Wardle, C., and Derakhshan, H., 2017. Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making [online]. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/information-disorder
Weiss, M., 2019. Deepfake bot submissions to federal public comment websites cannot be distinguished from human submissions. Technology Science [online], 2019121801. Available at: https://techscience.org/a/2019121801/
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ibrar Ahmad, Aftab Haider, Zhang Hui
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence and it regulates how others can use your work. Further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
