TECHNICAL AND LEGAL DEFINITIONS AS A BASIS OF MODERN DIGITAL LAW AND DIGITAL JURISDICTION: A MODEL ALGORITHM OF AI DESIGN TECHNICAL AND LEGAL NORMS

Oleksii Kostenko; Nataliya Onishchenko; Dmytro Zhuravlov

doi:10.69635/mssl.2026.2.2.41

Authors

Oleksii Kostenko Ph.D., Associate Professor, State Scientific Institution «Institute of Information, Security and Law of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine», Ukraine Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2131-0281
Nataliya Onishchenko D.Sc. (Law), Professor, Academician of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, Deputy Director of the Institute of State and Law named after V.M. Koretsky National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Honored Lawyer of Ukraine, Ukraine Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1671-2139
Dmytro Zhuravlov D.Sc. (Law), Professor, Office of the President of Ukraine, Honored Lawyer of Ukraine, Ukraine Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2205-6828

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.69635/mssl.2026.2.2.41

Keywords:

AI, Information Law, Digital Transformation, Technical and Legal Definitions, Technical and Legal Norms, Digital Law, Digital Jurisdiction, Artificial Intelligence, Digital Code

Abstract

The rapid convergence of artificial intelligence, data management, digital identity, blockchain infrastructures, smart contracts, digital twins, immersive environments, and Metaverse/Web 4.0 platforms has revealed the structural insufficiency of the classical legal conceptual apparatus. The traditional legal definition mostly stabilizes the meaning of the term within the normative text, while digital law requires definitions that can simultaneously reflect technological functionality, algorithmic implications, interoperability requirements, evidence, responsibility and jurisdictional linkage. The article aims to substantiate technical and legal definitions as initial modules for the design of technical and legal norms (TLN) — a new type of normative construction of modern information law. The research methodology combines doctrinal analysis, comparative legal method, legal and linguistic analysis, legal semiotics, system-structural method, normative modeling and AI-assisted legal modeling under mandatory human control. The article shows that modern digital regulatory acts, including the EU AI Act, GDPR, Digital Services Act, Data Act, eIDAS 2.0, Cyber Resilience Act, and MiCA, are already built around complex technical and legal definitions that define the boundaries of rights, obligations, risks, compliance, responsibility, and jurisdiction. The scientific novelty lies in the proposed ten-stage algorithm for designing a TLN with the use of AI and the mandatory participation of a human expert.

Highlights:
1) Technical and legal definitions are infrastructural elements of digital law;
2) Technical and legal norms transform technological phenomena into rights, obligations, guarantees and mechanisms of responsibility;
3) AI can support legal modeling, but does not replace a human expert;
4) Modern EU digital legislation demonstrates the growing importance of technical and legal definitions;
5) A ten-stage algorithm for designing the TLN as a new type of normative construction of information law is proposed.

References

Provalinsky, D. (2024). Uncertainty of the Legal Categoral Apparatus in the Field of Legal Regulation of Digital Legal Relations. Rossijskoe pravosudie. https://doi.org/10.37399/issn2072-909x.2025.1.5-16.

Ennan, R. (2024). Digitalization of Law and formation of Digital Law. Uzhhorod National University Herald. Series: Law. https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2024.83.1.29.

Turner, B., & Wiber, M. (2022). Legal Pluralism and Science and Technology Studies: Exploring Sources of the Legal Pluriverse. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 48, 457 - 474. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211069659.

Dogaru, L. (2025). DISCUSSION ON LEGAL NORMATIVITY AND LEGAL LANGUAGE. Curentul Juridic/Juridical Current. https://doi.org/10.62838/cjjc-2024-0038.

Veronese, A. (2025). Cultural and legal hybridism: in search of a new legal theory for the regulation of informational phenomena. UNIO – EU Law Journal. https://doi.org/10.21814/unio.11.1.6634.

Whalen, R. (2022). Defining legal technology and its implications. Int. J. Law Inf. Technol., 30, 47-67. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaac005.

Sunyaev, A., Benlian, A., Pfeiffer, J., Jussupow, E., Thiebes, S., Maedche, A., & Gawlitza, J. (2025). High-Risk Artificial Intelligence. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 67, 981 - 994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-025-00942-6.

Kaltheuner, F., & Bietti, E. (2018). Data is power: Towards additional guidance on profiling and automated decision-making in the GDPR. , 2. https://doi.org/10.21039/irpandp.v2i2.45.

Simeonova, I. (2025). HOW GDPR TREATS AUTOMATED DECISION-MAKING. Journal Scientific and Applied Research. https://doi.org/10.46687/jsar.v28i1.435.

Naudts, L., Helberger, N., Veale, M., & Sax, M. (2025). A Right to Constructive Optimization: A Public Interest Approach to Recommender Systems in the Digital Services Act. Journal of Consumer Policy, 48, 269 - 296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-025-09586-1.

Messmer, A., & Degeling, M. (2023). Auditing Recommender Systems - Putting the DSA into practice with a risk-scenario-based approach. ArXiv, abs/2302.04556. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2302.04556.

Fabbri, M. (2023). Self-determination through explanation: an ethical perspective on the implementation of the transparency requirements for recommender systems set by the Digital Services Act of the European Union. Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. https://doi.org/10.1145/3600211.3604717.

Solarova, S., Mesarcík, M., Pecher, B., & Srba, I. (2026). Beyond the Checkbox: Strengthening DSA Compliance Through Social Media Algorithmic Auditing. Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3791774.

Fabbri, M., & Boratto, L. (2025). Auditing Recommender Systems for User Empowerment in Very Large Online Platforms under the Digital Services Act. Proceedings of the Nineteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3705328.3748074.

Söderlund, K., Engström, E., Haresamudram, K., Larsson, S., & Strimling, P. (2024). Regulating high-reach AI: On transparency directions in the Digital Services Act. Internet Policy Rev., 13. https://doi.org/10.14763/2024.1.1746.

Van Roijen, D. (2024). The European Digital Identity Wallet: A Healthcare Perspective. Blockchain in Healthcare Today, 7. https://doi.org/10.30953/bhty.v7.344.

Fernández, R. (2024). Regulatory options for integrating zero-knowledge proofs into the European Digital Identity Wallet. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 39, 303 - 326. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2024.2398915.

Lepore, C., Laborde, R., & Eynard, J. (2024). Aligning eIDAS and Trust Over IP: A Mapping Approach. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security. https://doi.org/10.1145/3664476.3670919.

Macan, S. (2021). Legal Acceptability of the Security Level of the Electronic Identification System. Yearbook of the Faculty of Legal Sciences - APEIRON . https://doi.org/10.7251/gfp2111186m.

Marco, G., Marino, F., & Maria, A. (2024). Bridging eIDAS 2.0 Legal Requirements and Technical Solutions. , 18-30.

Chiara, P. (2022). The Cyber Resilience Act: the EU Commission’s proposal for a horizontal regulation on cybersecurity for products with digital elements. International Cybersecurity Law Review, 3, 255-272. https://doi.org/10.1365/s43439-022-00067-6.

Kamara, I. (2024). European cybersecurity standardisation: a tale of two solitudes in view of Europe’s cyber resilience. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 37, 1441 - 1460. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2024.2349626.

Ruohonen, J., Hjerppe, K., & Kang, E. (2025). A Mapping Analysis of Requirements Between the CRA and the GDPR. 2025 IEEE 33rd International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW), 215-222. https://doi.org/10.1109/rew66121.2025.00034.

Simola, J., Takala, A., Lehkonen, R., Frantti, T., & Savola, R. (2024). Impact of Cyber Security Operations on Hardware Requirements for Stable and Workable Industrial Environments. International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security. https://doi.org/10.34190/iccws.19.1.2003.

Zetzsche, D., Annunziata, F., Arner, D., & Buckley, R. (2020). The Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation (MiCA) and the EU digital finance strategy. Capital Markets Law Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3725395.

Hobza, M., & Vondráčková, A. (2021). Crypto-Asset Services under the Draft MiCA Regulation. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3984355.

Habibulloh, M. (2025). Digital Governance And The Right To Privacy: A Comparative Analysis Of AI Regulation In Southeast Asia And The European Union. Journal of Law, Policy and Global Development. https://doi.org/10.71305/jlpgd.v1i1.333.

Kostenko, O. (2025). Digital Jurisdiction. Metaverse Science, Society and Law, 1(2). DOI: 10.69635/mssl.2025.1.2.23

Lessig, L. (1999). Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. Basic Books.

Kostenko, O., Dniprov, O., Zhuravlov, D., et al. (2025). A New Paradigm of Metaverse Philosophy: From Anthropocentrism to Metasubjectivity. Philosophies, 10(6), 117.

Kostenko, O., & Zhuravlov, D. (2025). Reconceptualizing jurisdiction and legal identity in the Metaverse: Elements of a digital code architecture. Metaverse Science, Society and Law, 1(1). DOI: 10.69635/mssl.2025.1.1.13.

Kostenko, O. (2025). AI Law Model for Ethical Legislation: Strategic Recommendations for the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence. SciFormat Publishing Inc. DOI: 10.69635/978-1-0690482-5-7.