HUQUQIY SOHADA KRAUDSORSINGNI HUQUQIY TARTIBGA SOLISH: TALABLAR TAHLILI VA AQSH MODELI
Keywords:
kraudsorsing, huquqiy tartibga solish, AQSh huquqi, Casetext, Regulations.gov, huquqiy ishtirokAbstract
Ushbu maqolada AQSh tajribasi asosida huquqiy sohada kraudsorsing jarayonlari, ularning huquqiy tartibga solinishi va amaliy natijalari tahlil qilinadi. Tadqiqot sifatli huquqiy tahlil (qualitative legal analysis) metodologiyasiga asoslanib, “Administrative Procedure Act”, “Model Rules of Professional Conduct” hamda “Work for Hire” konsepsiyasi kabi me’yorlar doirasida olib borildi. Natijalar shuni ko‘rsatadiki, AQShda kraudsorsing huquqiy ishtirokni kengaytirish, adolatga kirishni osonlashtirish va davlat boshqaruvida shaffoflikni oshirishning samarali vositasiga aylangan. “Casetext”, “Regulations.gov”, “Peer-to-Patent” va “CrowdJustice” kabi platformalar orqali fuqarolar qonun loyihalarini muhokama qilishda, sud amaliyotini tahlil qilishda va ijtimoiy ahamiyatga ega ishlarni qo‘llab-quvvatlashda faol ishtirok etadi. Tadqiqot yakunida O‘zbekiston uchun AQSh tajribasini moslashtirish bo‘yicha tavsiyalar berilgan — jumladan, huquqiy kraudsorsingni normativ asosga kiritish, raqamli huquqiy savodxonlikni oshirish va ochiq muhokama tizimini yaratish zarurligi asoslab beriladi.
References
1. Alqahtani, B. A., Hossain, M. S., & Muhammad, G. (2017). Legal and ethical issues of crowdsourcing. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 15(3), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-02-2017-0013.
2. American Bar Association. (2020). Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association. Retrieved from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/.
3. Casetext. (n.d.). Casetext: Legal research evolved. Retrieved October 30, 2025, from https://casetext.com.
4. CrowdJustice. (n.d.). Funding public interest litigation. Retrieved October 30, 2025, from https://www.crowdjustice.com.
5. Newcombe, P. (2016). Crowdsourcing legal research: The opportunities and challenges. The Law Teacher, 50(3), 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2016.1172551.
6. Peer-to-Patent. (n.d.). Peer-to-Patent: Opening the patent examination process to the community. United States Patent and Trademark Office. Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/patents/peer-to-patent .
7. Regulations.gov. (n.d.). Your voice in federal decision-making. United States Government. Retrieved from https://www.regulations.gov.
8. U.S. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559 (1946)
9. U.S. Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1966).
10. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (2015). Peer-to-Patent pilot evaluation report. Washington, D.C.: USPTO.
11. Work Made for Hire Doctrine, 17 U.S.C. § 101 (1976).
12. Brabham, D. C. (2013). Crowdsourcing. MIT Press.
13. Estellés-Arolas, E., & González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, F. (2012). Towards an integrated crowdsourcing definition. Journal of Information Science, 38(2), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551512437638.
14. Howe, J. (2008). Crowdsourcing: Why the power of the crowd is driving the future of business. New York, NY: Crown Business.
15. Schweik, C. M., & English, R. (2012). Internet success: A study of open-source software commons. MIT Press.
16. United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (2020). Crowdfunding regulations and compliance guide. Washington, D.C.: SEC. Retrieved from https://www.sec.gov.
