scholarly journals Conformity Assessments and Post-market Monitoring: A Guide to the Role of Auditing in the Proposed European AI Regulation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jakob Mökander ◽  
Maria Axente ◽  
Federico Casolari ◽  
Luciano Floridi
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Market Monitoring ◽  
Post Market ◽  
Regulatory Approach ◽  
Enforcement Mechanisms ◽  
Point Of Reference

AbstractThe proposed European Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) is the first attempt to elaborate a general legal framework for AI carried out by any major global economy. As such, the AIA is likely to become a point of reference in the larger discourse on how AI systems can (and should) be regulated. In this article, we describe and discuss the two primary enforcement mechanisms proposed in the AIA: the conformity assessments that providers of high-risk AI systems are expected to conduct, and the post-market monitoring plans that providers must establish to document the performance of high-risk AI systems throughout their lifetimes. We argue that the AIA can be interpreted as a proposal to establish a Europe-wide ecosystem for conducting AI auditing, albeit in other words. Our analysis offers two main contributions. First, by describing the enforcement mechanisms included in the AIA in terminology borrowed from existing literature on AI auditing, we help providers of AI systems understand how they can prove adherence to the requirements set out in the AIA in practice. Second, by examining the AIA from an auditing perspective, we seek to provide transferable lessons from previous research about how to refine further the regulatory approach outlined in the AIA. We conclude by highlighting seven aspects of the AIA where amendments (or simply clarifications) would be helpful. These include, above all, the need to translate vague concepts into verifiable criteria and to strengthen the institutional safeguards concerning conformity assessments based on internal checks.

scholarly journals Category Theory as Interpretation Law Model in Artificial Intelligence Era

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-47
Author(s):  
Lambrini Seremeti ◽  
◽  
Ioannis Kougias ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Category Theory ◽  
Practical Importance ◽  
Social Activity ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Social Activities ◽  
The Core ◽  
Everyday Activities ◽  
Micro Level

Nowadays, artificial intelligence entities operate autonomously and they actively participate in everyday social activities. At a macro-perspective, they play the role of mediator between people and their actions, as components of the fundamental structure of every social activity. At a micro-perspective, they can be considered as fixed critical points whose hypostasis is not subject to established legal framework. A key point is that embedding artificial intelligence entities in everyday activities may maximize legal uncertainty both at the macro and micro-level, as well as at the interim phase, i.e., the switch between the two levels. In this paper, we adapt a well-known concept from Category Theory, namely that of the pushout, in order to approximate the core interpretation legal framework of such activities, by considering each level as an open system. The purpose of using Systems Theory in combination with Category Theory is to introduce a mathematical approach to uniquely interpret complex legal social activities and to show that this novel area of artificially enhanced activities is of prime and practical importance and significance to law and computer science practitioners.

scholarly journals Fundamental Rights as the Cornerstone of Schengen

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 508-534
Author(s):  
Tineke Strik
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Current Response ◽  
Member States ◽  
Full Compliance ◽  
Enforcement Mechanisms ◽  
Eu Commission ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Although the Schengen Border Code (SBC) explicitly obliges Member States to apply the Schengen rules in full compliance with the fundamental rights, Member States’ adherence to this obligation can be questioned in light of recurrent and reliable reports about fundamental rights violations at the EU’s external borders. This contribution will examine why, apart from the deficiencies in the SCHE-VAL mechanism, the current response towards fundamental rights violations at the border is ineffective. First, it will analyse the legal framework, including the implementing rules, to see if additional guidance is needed. Second, the enforcement mechanisms will be examined: how are violations being addressed at the national level, and how does the EU Commission perceive and fulfills its role regarding enforcement of compliance? As the Commission has often referred to the monitoring mechanism as proposed in the draft Screening Regulation, the contribution will examine to what extent this New Pact file will help to resolve the current impunity. Finally, the article will analyse the role of Frontex regarding human rights violations by Member States. What is their responsibility, how do they perform it, and who is enforcing compliance by Frontex?

scholarly journals A Sandbox Approach to Regulating High-Risk Artificial Intelligence Applications

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-29
Author(s):  
Jon Truby ◽  
Rafael Dean Brown ◽  
Imad Antoine Ibrahim ◽  
Oriol Caudevilla Parellada
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
European Union ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
The Other ◽  
Safe Space ◽  
Chilling Effect ◽  
Regulatory Approach ◽  
The One

Abstract This paper argues for a sandbox approach to regulating artificial intelligence (AI) to complement a strict liability regime. The authors argue that sandbox regulation is an appropriate complement to a strict liability approach, given the need to maintain a balance between a regulatory approach that aims to protect people and society on the one hand and to foster innovation due to the constant and rapid developments in the AI field on the other. The authors analyse the benefits of sandbox regulation when used as a supplement to a strict liability regime, which by itself creates a chilling effect on AI innovation, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. The authors propose a regulatory safe space in the AI sector through sandbox regulation, an idea already embraced by European Union regulators and where AI products and services can be tested within safeguards.

scholarly journals The Role of Unfree Labour in Capitalist Development: Spain and Its Empire, Nineteenth to the Twenty-First Centuries

2016 ◽  
Vol 61 (S24) ◽  
pp. 187-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Mendiola
Keyword(s):  
Global Economy ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Capitalist Development ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
Labour Shortage ◽  
Colonial Empire ◽  
History Of ◽  
Forced Labour

AbstractThis article contributes to the debate on the persistence of forced labour within capitalist development. It focuses on Spain, which has been deeply rooted in the global economy, firstly as a colonial metropolis, and later as part of the European Union. In the first place, I analyse the different modalities of unfree labour that are included in the taxonomy established by the Global Collaboratory on the History of Labour Relations, taking into account the different political regimes in which they are inserted. Therefore, the legal framework regarding unfree labour is analysed for four different political contexts: liberal revolution with colonial empire (1812–1874); liberal parliamentarism with colonial empire (1874–1936); civil war and fascist dictatorship, with decolonization (1936–1975); and parliamentary democracy within globalization (1975–2014). The article goes on to deal with the importance of the main economic reasons driving the demand for forced labour: relative labour shortage and the search for increasing profits. In the conclusion, and taking the Spanish case as a basis, I suggest a series of challenges for furthering the global debate on the role of forced labour under capitalism.

scholarly journals Promouvoir l’accessibilité à l’aide de la loi: un appel à une réforme législative au Québec

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Mélanie Bénard
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Full Inclusion ◽  
National Assembly ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legislative Reform ◽  
Disability Law ◽  
Enforcement Mechanisms ◽  
Participation Sociale

Cet article traite de l’évolution des lois à l’égard des personnes handicapées au Québec. Il démontre les lacunes importantes du cadre législatif actuel, illustrant ainsi la nécessité d’une réforme législative pour assurer le droit à l’égalité des personnes handicapées. En 1978, l’Assemblée nationale adopta la Loi assurant l’exercice des droits des personnes handicapées, loi fort avant-gardiste pour l’époque. Cette loi créa l’Office des personnes handicapées du Québec (l’OPHQ) et comprenait plusieurs dispositions visant l’amélioration de l’accessibilité des services et des lieux publiques. La loi de 1978 fut amendée en 2004 pour modifier les obligations du secteur public et pour redéfinir le rôle de l’OPHQ. Malgré ses amendements, la loi québécoise manque du mordant. Contrairement aux cadres législatifs dans d’autres juridictions, la loi québécoise s’applique seulement au secteur public et elle ne contient aucune mesure efficace de mise en œuvre. En conséquence, d’innombrables obstacles continuent à limiter l’inclusion et la participation sociale des personnes handicapées au Québec. This article traces the evolution of Quebec’s disability legislation. Pointing out important gaps in the current legal framework, it demonstrates the need for legislative reform to ensure the full inclusion of people with disabilities in Quebec society. In 1978, the National Assembly adopted the Act to secure handicapped persons in the exercise of their rights. This cutting-edge law contained several measures aimed at improving the accessibility of public services and spaces. It also created a government Disability Office, the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec (OPHQ). This law was amended in 2004 to redefine the role of the OPHQ and to modify the obligations of the public sector. Despite these amendments, Quebec’s disability legislation lacks teeth. Unlike laws in other jurisdictions, Quebec’s disability law only applies to the public sector and it lacks strong enforcement mechanisms. As a result, Quebecers with disabilities continue to face countless barriers in exercising their right to equality. 

scholarly journals The European Commission’s Proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act—A Critical Assessment by Members of the Robotics and AI Law Society (RAILS)

J ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 589-603
Author(s):  
Martin Ebers ◽  
Veronica R. S. Hoch ◽  
Frank Rosenkranz ◽  
Hannah Ruschemeier ◽  
Björn Steinrötter
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
High Risk ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Critical Assessment ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Proposed Regulation ◽  
Preemptive Effect ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

On 21 April 2021, the European Commission presented its long-awaited proposal for a Regulation “laying down harmonized rules on Artificial Intelligence”, the so-called “Artificial Intelligence Act” (AIA). This article takes a critical look at the proposed regulation. After an introduction (1), the paper analyzes the unclear preemptive effect of the AIA and EU competences (2), the scope of application (3), the prohibited uses of Artificial Intelligence (AI) (4), the provisions on high-risk AI systems (5), the obligations of providers and users (6), the requirements for AI systems with limited risks (7), the enforcement system (8), the relationship of the AIA with the existing legal framework (9), and the regulatory gaps (10). The last section draws some final conclusions (11).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document