Introduction
The shift of the social lifeworld from state-centric and bureaucratic structures to platform-based and algorithmic architectures represents one of the most significant theoretical and institutional transformations in contemporary public law. A direct consequence of this shift is the reconfiguration of the concept and function of “public order,” historically one of the foundational notions in public law. In traditional legal frameworks, public order was grounded in explicit rules, state authority, public interest, and the normative regulation of social behavior. In contrast, the platform era has transferred the logic of order to computational mechanisms, digital architectures, and recommendation algorithms. What was once the product of legislative intent and human decision-making is now generated and guided by transnational, data-driven, and opaque platforms.
This study addresses the central question: How is “public order” redefined under these conditions, and how should Iran’s legal system reproduce legitimacy, accountability, and human dignity in response to the rise of platform-mediated and algorithmic governance?
The research is structured according to three principal lines of inquiry: First, a historical-conceptual analysis of public order in the Shi’a jurisprudential and constitutional tradition of Iran, demonstrating that the concept has primarily functioned as protective, security-oriented, and authority-centered, with limited linkage to modern public policy. Second, a conceptual examination of digital public order in contemporary scholarship, drawing on theories such as “law as code,” “network society,” and “surveillance capitalism,” which illustrate that in the platform era, order is infrastructural and computational rather than purely normative. Third, a comparative analysis of policy-making and regulation in the European Union and Germany, considered leading models, with a comparison to Iran, which currently lacks the institutional, legislative, and regulatory frameworks required to address automated decision-making.
Methodology
This research employs an analytical-comparative methodology grounded in document analysis. Data were sourced from European Union legislation and practices, German regulatory documents (including Federal Data Protection Commissioner guidelines and Constitutional Court rulings), Iranian legal instruments (Smart Government Roadmap, National Artificial Intelligence Strategy, Supreme Council of Cyberspace resolutions), and theoretical literature on digital governance. The study’s theoretical framework is based on the concept of “infrastructural public order,” emphasizing that in the contemporary era, order is established not at the level of individual behavior but at the level of code architecture, platform design, and algorithmic decision-making logic.
Findings and Discussion
The analysis identifies three intertwined layers of public order in the platform transformation era:

Normative layer: Core values such as human dignity, digital justice, transparency, and the right to explanation replace traditional concepts of moral security and administrative order.
Institutional layer: Governments must transition from centralized, reactive governance to participatory, data-driven, and multi-level governance. Experiences in the European Union and Germany demonstrate that independent regulatory agencies, ethics councils, algorithmic audits, and effective judicial oversight are essential for achieving digital public order.
Technological-architectural layer: Order is generated through code, user interface design, machine learning models, and algorithmic logic. This layer is the most consequential in platform public order, as it profoundly influences social behavior and public decision-making while remaining the least transparent and accountable.

Comparative analysis shows that the European Union has elevated public order from a security- and discipline-centered model to one that is dignity-oriented and infrastructural by institutionalizing principles such as the “right to explanation,” “right to erasure,” algorithmic audits, risk management, and multi-level governance. In Germany, the Constitutional Court, citing the principle of human dignity, has recognized the necessity of a “human-in-the-loop” as a condition of digital public order. Regulatory bodies such as the Federal Network Agency and the Data Protection Commissioner provide important models for ex-ante oversight, impact assessment, and algorithmic transparency.
In contrast, Iran’s legal system is conceptually, institutionally, and legislatively underdeveloped. Administrative decisions remain primarily based on the “human will of competent authorities,” although many critical decisions (e.g., subsidies, ranking, resource allocation, and qualification assessments) are effectively executed through automated systems. No legal distinction exists between human, semi-automated, and fully automated decisions. Independent regulatory institutions for algorithmic governance are absent, and digital policy-making is dispersed across numerous agencies. Furthermore, no comprehensive law defines dignity-centered criteria, algorithmic transparency, rights of appeal, or technical auditing. This has produced a form of “non-accountable cyber bureaucracy,” in which intelligent decisions are executed without legal identity or effective remedies.
Redefining public order in Iran should be based on three principles: digital human dignity as the foundation of modern public law; algorithmic accountability and transparency as a condition of legitimacy; and the establishment of new institutional mechanisms for the regulation of platforms, data, and artificial intelligence. The Shi’a governmental jurisprudential tradition offers normative resources for embedding principles such as justice, the prohibition of oppression, trustworthiness, and system preservation into a dignity-centered framework for algorithmic governance.
Conclusion
This study argues that transitioning to a digital government era is impossible without redefining “digital public order.” In this era, public order is not merely a tool for safeguarding security but a framework for regulating the human-algorithm relationship. Policy-making in Iran must move away from security-centered reactions toward a proactive, dignity-centered, participatory, and infrastructural model of public order. This transformation requires the enactment of comprehensive algorithmic governance legislation, the establishment of an independent regulatory body, amendments to the Administrative Justice Act to encompass algorithmic decisions, and the design of legal mechanisms ensuring explainability, appealability, and auditability. Only under these conditions can Iran’s digital government operate in a legitimate, accountable, just, and public law-compliant manner.