Publications initiated by the UWr team as deliverable of the JMN

Aleksandra Maatsch (Jean Monnet Chair in political science at University of Wrocław, aleksandra.maatsch@uwr.edu.pl)

There is a substantial body of literature on the use of various digital measures by parliaments and their impact on parliamentary powers and roles. Additionally, a growing number of studies focus on the application of digital tools by parliaments during emergency periods, such as the Covid-19 pandemic. While the digitalisation of parliaments before and during the Covid-19 crisis has received significant academic attention, the post-crisis period remains underexplored. As a result, there is more systematic knowledge about how parliaments employ digital measures during emergencies than in post-crisis contexts. This article aims to map and compare the use of digital tools by national parliaments in selected EU member states (Austria, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia) across three time periods: before, during, and after the Covid-19 crisis. It addresses the following questions: Does the application of digital tools differ between the period of crisis and “normality”? Is there a shift towards the development of long-term digital infrastructure that strengthens democratic resilience? To what extent do national parliaments converge or diverge in their digitalisation practices? The empirical analysis employs qualitative content analysis and draws on legislative reforms of national parliamentary rules of procedure in the aforementioned states and periods. The findings indicate that national parliaments’ practices largely converged during the crisis (characterized by increased digitalisation), while the post-crisis period has been marked by divergence. This suggests that digitalisation is still not universally recognized by parliaments as a necessary component of strengthening democratic resilience in the aftermath of crises.

Adam Bull (House of Lords, bulla@parliament.uk) and Julie Smith (House of Lords & Professor of European Politics at Cambridge University, jes42@cam.ac.uk)

Westminster prides itself on being the ‘mother of parliaments’, with centuries of democratic history and the embedded practices that have evolved alongside the elected House of Commons and the unelected House of Lords. Convention plays a major role in the UK’s parliamentary practices and before the Covid-19 pandemic most parliamentary activity took place in person, with little attention paid to an increasingly digitalized world. Facilities for online meetings were limited and there were few incentives for members to be digitally literate. The pandemic and associated lockdowns marked a remarkable shift in behaviour as hybrid sittings were permitted, allowing the vast majority of members to participate in debates, questions and committees via Zoom or MS Teams. Most MPs gave their party whips a proxy to vote for them during those strange times but the House of Lords developed an app to allow peers to vote remotely, an innovation that worked remarkably well. The end of the pandemic saw a return something like ‘business as usual’ but some aspects of enforced digitalisation persisted and were augmented by the use of rapidly evolving generative AI. Members of Parliament may be resistant to adopting new technologies but AI tools can prove invaluable in drafting legislative amendments, writing briefings and other key parliamentary tasks. This article, written by a peer and a legislative advisor who offer insiders’ perspectives on these remarkable changes, will explore how the two chambers of the British Parliament have adapted to emergent AI technologies before considering their ethical and democratic implications.

Ylenia Maria Citino (research fellow in public law at Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna and Contracted Professor at LUISS Guido Carli, ycitino@luiss.it)

This paper explores the idea of constitutional optimization of technologies precisely concerning the lawmaking function. By this, I intend the limitations that the builder of a software shall insert when developing an application that is meant to be used in a parliamentary context. These limitations shall consider the special constitutional nature of parliaments and constitutional scholarship shall be in the frontline to develop a coherent framework of adapted principles. To fully harness the opportunities for modernization and enhanced governance that AI offers to parliaments, it is crucial to be aware of constitutional boundaries that must be placed to counter any possible irresponsible use of technologies.

The paper intends to explore the constitutional optimization of technologies in the legislative process taking into account the distinctiveness of three selected legal orders.

After analysing the key technological advancements in parliamentary processes, it makes an overview of the impact of digitalization on the constitutional role of Parliaments. Then, it delves into the iterative process of constitutional optimization, which involves a gradual path of reform needed to tailoring technological solutions to the unique requirements of parliamentary contexts. Finally, it covers the comparative assessment between Hungary, Finland and Italy, investigating how the three constitutional systems are accommodating, or resisting, digital changes.

As I argue in this paper, constitutional optimization is crucial for maximizing the potential of technological innovations in legislative processes, but the adoption of new technologies is not a panacea that can solve all constitutional problems affecting Parliaments.

Angelo Schillizzi (PhD student in EU and national law, University of Ferrara, angelo.schillizzi@unife.it)

This paper explores the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into legislative procedures, with a specific focus on the legal frameworks governing the acquisition and regulation of AI tools through contractual instruments. While national parliaments across Europe increasingly engage with AI to enhance legislative quality and coherence—especially in multi-level legal systems—insufficient attention has been given to the legal mechanisms by which such technologies are procured and regulated. Taking Italy as a starting point, where both regional initiatives (such as Emilia-Romagna’s SAVIA project) and national studies are already underway, the analysis highlights the structural dependency of parliaments on external providers for algorithmic solutions. Given the scarcity of ready-made tools and the self-regulatory autonomy of parliaments—including in procurement matters—contractual models become crucial. Drawing on the experiences of Italy, Spain, and France, this paper identifies suitable procurement frameworks, examines the regulatory potential of contractual clauses, and addresses jurisdictional questions regarding dispute resolution. In doing so, it contributes to the broader discussion on how AI may support legislative functions without compromising institutional autonomy or democratic safeguards.

Alberto Atelli (teaching assistant in constitutional law at LUISS Guido Carli in Rome, aatelli@luiss.it) and Michail Kokkaliaris (PhD student at Humbolt University, mikekokkal@gmail.com)

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into parliamentary functions poses fundamental questions about the future of representative democracy. This paper presents a comparative analysis of how the Greek and Italian parliaments are approaching the regulation and use of AI within their legislative and oversight roles. While both systems recognise the strategic importance of AI, their institutional responses vary significantly in scope, method, and constitutional sensitivity. Anchored in the framework of numeric constitutionalism, the analysis focuses on how algorithmic tools are introduced into procedural rules and parliamentary practices, and whether such integration aligns with core democratic principles such as transparency, accountability, and parliamentary autonomy. The study draws on legal sources, parliamentary documents, and emerging use cases, and situates national developments within broader European regulatory trends, including the EU Artificial Intelligence Act and the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on AI and Human Rights. The comparison highlights both the opportunities and the risks of algorithmic innovation in legislative environments—ranging from epistemic asymmetry and automation bias to the potential erosion of institutional deliberation. Ultimately, it argues that parliaments must not merely adapt to technological innovation, but actively shape its normative boundaries, ensuring that AI serves as a tool for democratic strengthening rather than institutional displacement.

Anna Pacześniak (professor of political science at the University of Wroclaw, anna.paczesniak@uwr.edu.pl)

One of the main functions of each parliament is representation. The European Parliament, acting as the only European Union institution with direct democratic legitimacy, has the ambition to represent a broad spectrum of political and cultural views. The EP’s democratic legitimacy does not derive only from direct universal suffrage held every five years, but it is also based on extensive consultation mechanisms with the public: NGOs, lobbyists, experts, think tanks, religious associations and churches, trade unions, etc. The consultation process is institutionalised and routinised. Its practical dimension is sometimes criticised for not being inclusive of new actors and limiting consultation tools such as public hearings, workshops, seminars, to representatives of the same profiled institutions and bodies.

The aim of this article is to analyse the practical aspects of the EP’s representative function, with a particular focus on external consultation processes in the digital age. We examine whether digitalisation, by expanding the possibilities for interaction between the EP as an institution, MEPs and individual or organised citizens, increases citizen involvement, transparency and accessibility or whether it exacerbates existing inequalities, exclusivity and polarisation, particularly in terms of citizens’ access to technology and digital skills. Much depends on the objective that the EP intends to achieve: whether it is the empowerment of citizens or the need to better reach out to them with top-down information, which may ultimately bring electoral benefits to political parties or individual MEPs in the next European elections.

George Mikros (Professor in Digital Humanities at Hamad Bin Khalifa University in Doha, Qatar, GMikros@hbku.edu.qa) and Fotios Fitsilis (Hellenic Parliament, fitsilisf@parliament.gr)

This paper examines the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in the lawmaking process. Building on previous research on AI applications in the parliamentary workspace, we extend our analysis beyond legislatures to include executive-branch stakeholders. Our methodology analyzes 11 in-depth interviews with European Commission experts regarding their experiences with the Legislation Editing Open Software (LEOS) system, employing computational stylistics and natural language processing techniques to identify user needs. Results indicate that AI can enhance data-driven decision-making through improved access to legislative data, semantic search tools and (semi-)automated drafting capabilities. Context-aware tools were identified as crucial for quality assurance and legislative coherence, while interoperability emerged as a significant requirement across jurisdictions. These insights provide a solid framework for designing user-centric AI tools to modernize lawmaking and enhance transparency. The described approach ensures alignment with both technical advancement and practical governance needs.