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.2836Palabras clave:
Teatro algorítmico, sistemas deliberativos, diligencia debida medioambiental, cumplimiento simbólico, participación ciudadana, derecho de catástrofes, IA generativaResumen
La IA generativa suele defenderse en términos de eficiencia. Sin embargo, la diligencia debida medioambiental se basa en documentos que las máquinas ya pueden redactar, presentar y resumir. Este artículo propone el «teatro algorítmico» como modelo explicativo de un riesgo en el que los artefactos de cumplimiento mantienen su forma jurídica y su autoridad, mientras que la deliberación que registran se diluye o desaparece. Utilizando los criterios de autenticidad, inclusividad y consecuencialidad de Dryzek, analiza tres episodios como pruebas de plausibilidad (proyectos piloto de IA en el marco de la Ley Nacional de Política Medioambiental, comentarios públicos falsificados y datos falsos en la verificación de créditos de carbono) y especifica tres mecanismos hipotéticos: la descalificación, el desacoplamiento y la transferencia de legitimidad. Una comparación entre Estados Unidos, la Unión Europea y Pakistán sugiere que la exposición depende menos de la riqueza de una jurisdicción que de si su legislación presta atención a la procedencia de la información sobre el cumplimiento, y es mayor allí donde la infraestructura participativa ya es débil. A continuación se presentan una serie de salvaguardias, incluida una propuesta de disposición para la convención sobre desastres que se está negociando actualmente.
Descargas
Metrics
Estadísticas globales ℹ️
|
43
Visualizaciones
|
11
Descargas
|
|
54
Total
|
|
Citas
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/
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 Ibrar Ahmad, Aftab Haider, Zhang Hui
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Los autores conservan el copyright de sus trabajos, que se publicarán en OSLS bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento NoComercial SinObraDerivada. Puede consultar más detalles en: http://es.creativecommons.org/licencia/. Si no está de acuerdo con esta licencia, por favor, póngase en contacto con nosotros.
El autor concede los permisos necesarios para difundir la información bibliográfica del artículo, incluyendo el resumen, y autorizar a otros, incluyendo las bases de datos bibliográficas, de índices y servicios de alerta de contenidos, a copiar y comunicar esta información.
Para más información sobre los permisos para distribuir su artículo en cada fase de la producción, por favor, lea nuestra Política de Autoarchivo y Divulgación (en inglés).
Las condiciones de copyright con el nombre de autores y co-autores, y la licencia Creative Commons se mostrarán en el artículo. Estas condiciones se deben aceptar como parte del proceso de envío de un artículo a la revista. Por favor, asegúrese de que todos los co-autores se mencionan correctamente, y que entienden y aceptan estos términos.
