Advanced Journal of Management, Humanity and Social Science

Abstract The legal analysis of the attack on the vessel Dena transcends the mere description of a naval military incident; rather, it constitutes a test for assessing the relationship between hard law and soft law in the regulation of armed maritime conflicts. The central question is whether the qualification of a vessel as a "military objective" alone can serve as a basis for the lawfulness of an attack and preclude the international responsibility of the attacking State. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology and relying on the distinction between the law governing the resort to force and the law governing conduct in armed conflict, this article demonstrates that the military character of a vessel is merely one element of assessment within the purview of international humanitarian law. It cannot substitute for the examination of the lawfulness of the resort to force per se, military necessity, proportionality, precautions in attack, respect for the rights of third States, and post-attack obligations towards the wounded and shipwrecked. The article concludes that in maritime armed conflicts, hard law and soft law do not stand in a relationship of opposition; rather, soft law particularly the San Remo Manual plays an interpretative, supplementary, and norm-generating role in the implementation of binding rules. From this perspective, even if the Dena were to be classified among military objectives, the lawfulness of the attack remains contingent upon the simultaneous satisfaction of multiple layers of legal requirements: the legality of the resort to force, compliance with the rules governing the conduct of military operations, respect for the rights of third States, and the fulfilment of humanitarian obligations following the attack.

Abstract The rise of algorithmic governance and data-driven decision-making represents a transformative shift in contemporary state administration, profoundly impacting democratic accountability. As governments increasingly integrate artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and big data analytics into policy formulation, public service delivery, and regulatory mechanisms, both opportunities and challenges emerge for traditional democratic practices. This study examines how algorithmic systems influence the three dimensions of democratic legitimacy: input, throughput, and output. Drawing on a comprehensive literature review and multi-dimensional analysis, five analytical frameworks are developed to explore the effects of algorithmic governance on citizen participation, procedural fairness, transparency, efficiency, and policy outcomes.

Findings indicate that algorithmic decision-making enhances operational efficiency, predictive capacity, and evidence-based policy interventions, enabling governments to respond more rapidly and effectively to complex societal challenges. Simultaneously, the reliance on automated systems introduces risks of bias, discrimination, opacity, and accountability gaps, which can undermine public trust and erode procedural and output legitimacy. Human-in-the-loop oversight, explainable AI (XAI), participatory design, algorithmic auditing, and multi-level governance emerge as critical strategies to reconcile technological efficiency with democratic norms.

The study highlights the dual character of algorithmic governance: while it offers substantial opportunities for efficiency and policy optimization, it necessitates deliberate institutional, ethical, and participatory safeguards to preserve democratic accountability. By integrating human judgment, transparency measures, ethical constraints, and citizen engagement into algorithmic systems, states can enhance legitimacy across all dimensions of governance. The research contributes to the growing discourse on digital-era public administration by providing a structured framework to assess both the transformative potential and normative implications of AI-driven governance, offering practical insights for policymakers seeking to balance innovation with democratic accountability in contemporary states.