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 El sesgo de la máquina en la toma de decisiones en el proceso penal.

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 54-71
Author(s):  
Raquel Borges Blázquez
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
The Other ◽  
Human Being ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Ethical Problems ◽  
Intelligent Machines ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Toma De Decisiones ◽  
Legal Thinking ◽  
The One

Artificial intelligence has countless advantages in our lives. On the one hand, computer’s capacity to store and connect data is far superior to human capacity. On the other hand, its “intelligence” also involves deep ethical problems that the law must respond to. I say “intelligence” because nowadays machines are not intelligent. Machines only use the data that a human being has previously offered as true. The truth is relative and the data will have the same biases and prejudices as the human who programs the machine. In other words, machines will be racist, sexist and classist if their programmers are. Furthermore, we are facing a new problem: the difficulty to understand the algorithm of those who apply the law.This situation forces us to rethink the criminal process, including artificial intelligence and spinning very thinly indicating how, when, why and under what assumptions we can make use of artificial intelligence and, above all, who is going to program it. At the end of the day, as Silvia Barona indicates, perhaps the question should be: who is going to control global legal thinking?

scholarly journals Artificial intelligence and copyright

2021 ◽  
pp. 15-22
Author(s):  
Daryna Prylypko
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Computer Program ◽  
Key Words ◽  
Automatic Generation ◽  
The Other ◽  
International Level ◽  
Human Agent ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
The One ◽  
Justice Practice

Key words: copyright, work, artificial intelligence, computer program In the article, the problemsof legislation of Ukraine regarding the issues of copyright on works created due to artificialintelligence were analyzed. Particularly, who is the owner of copyright ofworks created due to artificial intelligence. On the one hand, it could be a developer ofa computer program, from the other hand, it could be a client or an employer. Because,it could happen that there is a situation when robots created something newand original, e.g., how it happened with the project “New Rembrandt”. In this case,computers created a unique portrait of Rembrandt. And here is a question, where isin this portrait original and intellectual works of developers of these computers andprograms. In the contrast, this portrait could be created without people who developedspecial machines, programs, and computers. The article’s author proposes to addinto Ukrainian legislation with following norm: the owner of the copyright createddue to artificial intelligence should be a natural person who uses artificial intelligencefor these purposes within the official relationship or on the basis of a contract. In caseof automatic generation of such work by artificial intelligence, the owner of copyrightshould be the developer.Also, another question arises, particularly, who will be responsible for the damagecaused by the artificial intelligence. As an example, of the solution for this issue Resolution2015/2103 (INL) was given, where is mentioned that human agent could be responsiblefor the caused damage. Because, it is not always a developer is responsiblefor the damage.Also, the legislation and justice practice of foreign countries was explored. Theways of overcoming mentioned problems in legislation of Ukraine were proposed.Such as changing our legislation and giving the exact explanation in who is the ownerof copyright on works created due to artificial intelligence and in which cases this personcould become an owner of the copyright. However, probably, these issues shouldbe resolved at international level regarding globalization.

Of Apples and Mangoes

2018 ◽  
pp. 3-20
Author(s):  
Philipp Dann ◽  
Maxim Bönnemann ◽  
Tanja Herklotz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal System ◽  
The Other ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The One

Discussing several methods of comparative legal research and emphasizing upon the point that the two or more systems to be compared should not either be so similar that there is nothing for the one to learn from the other, nor should they be so dissimilar that there is no relationship whatsoever between them. Following this principle, this chapter finds that there is enough similarity as well as dissimilarity between the Indian legal system and the legal system of the European Union. Acknowledging that fact, the chapter then proceeds to compare some of the aspects of European and Indian legal systems from which both of them may benefit.

The EU after Brexit

2020 ◽  
pp. 83-109
Author(s):  
Federico Fabbrini
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fiscal Federalism ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
New Horizons ◽  
The One ◽  
Unanimous Approval ◽  
Amendment Procedure ◽  
The Eu

This chapter focuses on the European Union after Brexit and articulates the case for constitutional reforms. Reforms are necessary to address the substantive and institutional shortcomings that patently emerged in the context of Europe’s old and new crises. Moreover, reforms will be compelled by the exigencies of the post-Covid-19 EU recovery, which pushes the EU towards new horizons in terms of fiscal federalism and democratic governance. As a result, the chapter considers both obstacles and opportunities to reform the EU and make it more effective and legitimate. On the one hand, it underlines the difficulties connected to the EU treaty amendment procedure, owing to the requirement of unanimous approval of any treaty change, and the consequential problem of the veto. On the other hand, it emphasizes the increasing practice by Member States to use intergovernmental agreements outside the EU legal order and stresses that these have set new rules on their entry into force which overcome state veto, suggesting that this is now a precedent to consider.

Euro-Centrism vs. International Thinking

2006 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 12-14
Author(s):  
Stefan Fersterer
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Identity ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Familiar Environment ◽  
The One ◽  
European Citizen

If European people are asked to answer the question, “Which of your different identities has the highest rank in your personal sense: the local, the national or the European?”, a high percentage rate would definitely still report to the two former and only a minority would define themselves primarily as an European citizen. This is no surprise. On the one hand, one defines its identity through that origin, with which he or she has the strongest relation. On the other hand it is extremely difficult for a huge and often aloof entity like the European Union to develop a common European identity that evokes those impressions and sentiments that people combine with their familiar environment.

Israel and the European Union

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Pardo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Political ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
History Of ◽  
The One ◽  
Integration Project ◽  
The Eu

Israeli-European Union (EU) relations have consisted of a number of conflicting trends that have resulted in the emergence of a highly problematic and volatile relationship: one characterized by a strong and ever-increasing network of economic, cultural, and personal ties, yet marked, at the political level, by disappointment, bitterness, and anger. On the one hand, Israel has displayed a genuine desire to strengthen its ties with the EU and to be included as part of the European integration project. On the other hand, Israelis are deeply suspicious of the Union’s policies and are untrusting of the Union’s intentions toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to the Middle East as a whole. As a result, Israel has been determined to minimize the EU’s role in the Middle East peace process (MEPP), and to deny it any direct involvement in the negotiations with the Palestinians. The article summarizes some key developments in Israeli-European Community (EC)/EU relations since 1957: the Israeli (re)turn to Europe in the late 1950s; EC-Israeli economic and trade relations; the 1980 Venice Declaration and the EC/EU involvement in the MEPP; EU-Israeli relations in a regional/Mediterranean context; the question of Israeli settlements’ products entering free of duty to the European Common Market; EU-Israeli relations in the age of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP); the failed attempt to upgrade EU-Israeli relations between the years 2007 and 2014; and the Union’s prohibition on EU funding to Israeli entities beyond the 1967 borders. By discussing the history of this uneasy relationship, the article further offers insights into how the EU is actually judged as a global-normative actor by Israelis.

‘But the Last Word Is Ours’: The Monopoly of Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Light of the Investment Court System

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 1187-1220
Author(s):  
Francisco de Abreu Duarte
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
General Framework ◽  
External Action ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This article develops the concept of the monopoly of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) through the analysis of the case study of the Investment Court System (ICS). By providing a general framework over the criteria that have been developed by the Court, the work sheds light on the controversial principle of autonomy of the European Union (EU) and its implications to the EU’s external action. The work intends to be both pragmatic and analytical. On the one hand, the criteria are extracted as operative tools from the jurisprudence of the CJEU and then used in the context of the validity of the ICS. This provides the reader with some definitive standards that can then be applied to future cases whenever a question concerning autonomy arises. On the other hand, the article questions the reasons behind the idea of the monopoly of jurisdiction of the CJEU, advancing a concept of autonomy of the EU as a claim for power and critiquing the legitimacy and coherence of its foundations. Both dimensions will hopefully help to provide some clarity over the meaning of autonomy and the monopoly of jurisdiction, while, at the same time, promoting a larger discussion on its impact on the external action of the EU.

scholarly journals The politics of embedding and the right to remain in post-Brexit Britain

Ethnicities ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 146879682091341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiina Sotkasiira ◽  
Anna Gawlewicz
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Union Membership ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Sense Of Security ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

The European Union membership referendum (i.e. the Brexit referendum) in the United Kingdom in 2016 triggered a process of introspection among non-British European Union citizens with respect to their right to remain in the United Kingdom, including their right to entry, permanent residence, and access to work and social welfare. Drawing on interview data collected from 42 European Union nationals, namely Finnish and Polish migrants living in Scotland, we explore how European Union migrants’ decision-making and strategies for extending their stay in the United Kingdom, or returning to their country of origin, are shaped by and, in turn, shape their belonging and ties to their current place of residence and across state borders. In particular, we draw on the concept of embedding, which is used in migration studies to explain migration trajectories and decision-making. Our key argument is that more attention needs to be paid to the socio-political context within which migrants negotiate their embedding. To this end, we employ the term ‘politics of embedding’ to highlight the ways in which the embedding of non-British European Union citizens has been politicized and hierarchically structured in the United Kingdom after the Brexit referendum. By illustrating how the context of Brexit has changed how people evaluate their social and other attachments, and how their embedding is differentiated into ‘ties that bind’ and ‘ties that count’, we contribute to the emerging work on migration and Brexit, and specifically to the debate on how the politicization of migration shapes the sense of security on the one hand, and belonging, on the other.

The European Union and translation studies

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 63-80
Author(s):  
Alice Leal
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Sense Of Self ◽  
Translation Studies ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Lingua Franca ◽  
Crucial Element ◽  
The One ◽  
Similar Dynamic ◽  
The Eu

The tension between unity versus multiplicity seems to be at the heart of the European Union (EU) and of translation studies (TS). Indeed, a significant parallel between the two is the use of English as a lingua franca (ELF). The EU appears to be torn between a notion of language as a crucial element of one’s identity on the one hand, and a predominantly instrumental, Lockean view of language, on the other. A similar dynamic appears to take place in TS, an area that is par excellence heterogeneous and in which the notion of difference plays a paramount role. Indeed, at times TS appears to be afflicted by a sense of self-consciousness regarding its lack of unity and homogeneity. According to some, the solution is to foster the standardisation of its methods and terminology. But would proposing standardised terminology in a standardised language for the area not inevitably entail repressing different approaches in different languages? The paper explores this question in the context of the use of English as a lingua franca, and proposes various ways out of the dilemma both for the EU and TS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document