<![CDATA[Background: The evolution of algorithmic governance has created an operational gap regarding the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to decision-making systems. This gap does not reflect a structural inadequacy of the ICCPR; rather, it highlights the need to translate the treaty’s guarantee specifically regarding privacy (Article 17), freedom of expression (Article 19), effective remedy (Article 2(3)), and fair procedure (Article 14) into international legal standards for algorithmic governance. Methodology: This research employs a normative legal method with doctrinal and prescriptive approaches, examining ICCPR obligations through comparative case studies of Robodebt (Australia), SyRI (the Netherlands), and Indonesian practices (DTKS, IKD, and SSCASN). Objectives: This study analyzes the application of ICCPR guarantees within algorithmic governance to develop a doctrinal operational framework for the digital legal order, aiming to ensure the effectiveness of these guarantees through doctrinal expansion and interpretive adaptation. FindingsResearch indicates that the primary issue lies not in any normative inadequacy of the ICCPR, but rather in the absence of concrete procedural and institutional standards for its implementation within an algorithmic context. Domestic algorithmic systems give rise to compliance failures regarding transparency, explainability, contestability, and effective remedy. Meanwhile, the governance of cross-border platforms introduces jurisdictional complexities under Article 2(1), potentially revealing protection gaps between a state's territory and the jurisdiction where a platform is incorporated. Novelty: This research introduces a digital legal order as a framework for prescriptive harmonization based on functional jurisdiction, shared responsibility, and algorithmic due process. Its contribution lies in operationalizing ICCPR obligations into applicable international standards—encompassing the designation of authority, individual explanation, meaningful contestation, substantive review, auditability, and reasoned redress—thereby advancing the doctrinal development of international human rights law in response to digital transformation]]>
