Digital Innovation, Legal Reform, and Social Justice: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Law, Technology, and Human Rights
Keywords:
Digital Governance; Legal Reform, Social Justice, Human Rights, Algorithmic AccountabilityAbstract
Digital innovation has become a transformative force reshaping legal systems, governance structures, and the realization of human rights across the globe. Technologies such as artificial intelligence, digital platforms, algorithmic governance, and big data have accelerated legal reform while simultaneously generating new risks of inequality, surveillance, and unaccountable power. This article examines the intersection of digital innovation, legal reform, and social justice through an interdisciplinary legal framework that integrates doctrinal analysis with human rights theory, political economy, and ethical inquiry. Using a qualitative normative methodology based on secondary legal and scholarly sources, the study analyzes how contemporary legal reforms respond to digital transformation and whether they effectively protect human dignity, equality, and accountability. The findings reveal that while digital technologies expand access to information and justice for some groups, they simultaneously intensify structural exclusion, algorithmic discrimination, labor precarity, and transnational regulatory fragmentation. The study further demonstrates that law alone is insufficient to regulate digital power without ethical grounding, social policy integration, and global legal coordination. It concludes that without a justice-centered regulatory approach, digital reform risks producing technocratic authoritarianism rather than inclusive legal modernization. The article ultimately argues for a human rights–anchored, interdisciplinary model of digital governance that places social justice, accountability, and human dignity at the core of future legal reform.
References
Rico, P. (2024). AI and Data Governance: A Legal Framework for Algorithmic Accountability and Human Rights. — This study examines how AI and big data reshape governance and stresses the need for legal frameworks to protect human rights amid technological transformation.
Onțanu, E. A. (2025). Digital technology and procedural justice: Towards a more accessible and efficient justice system. Tilburg Law Review. https://doi.org/10.5334/tilr.422
United Nations Development Programme. (2023). The impact of digital technology on human rights in Europe and Central Asia: Trends and challenges related to data protection, artificial intelligence and other digital technology issues. Istanbul: UNDP Regional Hub.
Guenduez, A. A., & others. (2025). Digital ethics: Global trends and divergent paths. Journal of Digital Governance & Ethics. — This paper analyses the growing variety of “digital ethics” policies worldwide and argues for multidisciplinary legal–ethical governance rather than purely technical or market-driven reforms.
Lendvai, G. F., & Gosztonyi, G. (2025). Algorithmic Bias as a Core Legal Dilemma in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Conceptual Basis and the Current State of Regulation. Laws, 14(3), 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws14030041
Multazam, M. T., & Widiarto. (2023). Digitalization of the legal system: Opportunities and challenges. Rechtsidee.
Veale, M., & Borgesius, F. Z. (2023). Demystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Computer Law & Security Review, 47, 105756.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105756
De Gregorio, G. (2024). The rise of digital constitutionalism in the era of artificial intelligence. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 22(1), 1–25.
https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moae004
Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679
Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). Data colonialism: Rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Television & New Media, 20(4), 336–349.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476418796632
Lessig, L. (2006). Code: Version 2.0. New York, NY: Basic Books.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780465039142.001.0001
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76–99.
https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx005
Bradford, A. (2020). The Brussels effect. Northwestern University Law Review, 114(1), 1–67.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2770634
Auda, J. (2019). Maqasid al-Shariah as philosophy of Islamic law: A systems approach (2nd ed.). London: International Institute of Islamic Thought.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3239436
Zuboff, S. (2019). Surveillance capitalism and the challenge of collective action. New Labor Forum, 28(1), 10–29.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1095796018819461
Yeung, K. (2018). Algorithmic regulation: A critical interrogation. Regulation & Governance, 12(4), 505–523.
https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12158
Ranchordás, S., & Evas, T. (2024). Designing human rights impact assessments for artificial intelligence. Computer Law & Security Review, 52, 105836.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 International Journal of Law and Social Science (IJLSS)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
