scholarly journals European Artificial Intelligence Act: Should Russia Implement the Same?

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 403-422
Author(s):  
A. Zh. Stepanyan
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
European Union ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Video Content ◽  
Market Surveillance ◽  
Market Operation ◽  
Recognition Systems ◽  
High Level ◽  
Oriented Approach

The proposal for a European Union Regulation establishing harmonized rules for artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) is under consideration. The structure and features of the proposal of this regulatory legal act of the integrational organization are analyzed. EU AI Act scope is analyzed and shown as wider than the current Russian one. The act will contain harmonized rules for placing into market, operation and use of AI systems; bans on certain artificial intelligence methods; special requirements for AI systems with high level of risk and obligations of operators of such systems, harmonized transparency rules for AI systems designed for interaction with individuals, emotion recognition systems and biometric categorization systems, AI systems used to creating or managing images, audio or video content; market surveillance and supervision rules. The provisions of the Act, the features of the proposed institutions and norms, including extraterritoriality (as for GDPR before that raised many questions), risk-oriented approach (which is based both on self-certification and definite criteria for high-risk systems), object, scope, definitions are considered. The possible key concerns based on case-law to undermine possible discrimination are expressed. The author expresses conclusions about the advisability of (non) application of these institutions or rules in Russia.

scholarly journals The European Union Artificial Intelligence Act: the first look at the project

2021 ◽  
pp. 93-98
Author(s):  
A. G. Stepanian
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
European Union ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Codes Of Conduct ◽  
Video Content ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Market Surveillance ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Recognition Systems

The proposal of European Union Regulation establishing harmonized rules for artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) is under consideration. The structure and features of the draft of this regulatory legal act of the integration organization are analyzed. Thus, the act will contain harmonized rules for the commissioning, operation and use of AI systems; bans on certain artificial intelligence methods; special requirements for high-risk AI systems and the obligations of the operators of such systems, harmonized transparency rules for AI systems intended for interaction with individuals, emotion recognition systems and biometric categorization systems, AI systems used to create images, audio or video content, or managing them; market surveillance and supervision rules. The article discusses other provisions of the Act, the features of the proposed institutions (In particular, the European Council on Artificial Intelligence should be created) and norms, including extraterritoriality, risk-based approach, object, scope, definitions, punishment for violations of provisions. The possibility of voluntarily complying with codes of conduct for some AI systems is highlighted. Conclusions are drawn about the advisability of (non) application of these institutions or rules in the Russian Federation.

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 Towards a European AI liability system

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 317-324
Author(s):  
Réka Pusztahelyi
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
European Union ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Intelligent Systems ◽  
Focal Point ◽  
Management Approach ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Artificial Intelligent ◽  
The Eu

This essay deals with certain civil liability implications of artificial intelligent systems in the light of the recent steps taken by the European Union. In order to create not only an ethical but also a lawful AI, the EU strives to lay down the framework of the future common liability rules for damages and harms caused by any application of AI technology. The Commission’s new Proposal (Artificial Intelligence Act, AIA) reflects on an innovative approach to the regulation which can tackle with the special features of the AI systems, lays down rules according to the risk management approach and the class-of-application-by-class-of-application approach. In this essay, the strict-based liability for high-risk AI systems and the concept of the frontend and backend operators are in the focal point.

scholarly journals CORRUPTION: A PROBLEM IN ROMANIAN PUBLIC PROCUREMENT

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-83
Author(s):  
Ionel Preda ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
High Risk ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Frequency Of Occurrence ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Contract Costs ◽  
High Level ◽  
Very High

Even though the relevance of corruption is very high in all fields of activity, the specialized literature in the field of public procurement has paid very little or even no attention to this crucial phenomenon. The field of public procurement presents a high risk of corruption, the evidence being the large number of high-level corruption cases in several Member States of the European Union. The study presents the specialized literature related to corruption in public procurement in the European Union and United States of America, analyzes the level of corruption in public procurement in Romania, the causes that generate corruption and the main measures to combat it. The article also presents the results of a survey realized among the purchasers from Romania which addresses the main elements of corruption in the field of public procurement. The survey analyzes issues related to corruption in public procurement in Romania, such as: level of corruption, control over corruption, frequency of occurrence of corruption acts, procurement procedures most prone to corruption, characteristics of the procurement procedures that favors the occurrence of corruption, most widespread way of manifesting corruption, most important consequence of corruption, percentage of increasing contract costs due to corruption, most effective anti-corruption measure.

Standardy należytego uzasadnienia w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
The Right

The core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice through delivering judgments and other decisions. The crucial role for its acceptance and legitimization by not only lawyers, but also individulas (parties) and the hole society plays judicial reasoning. It should reflect on judge’s independence within the exercise of his office and show also judicial self-restraint or activism. The axiology and the standards of proper judicial reasoning are anchored both in constitutional and supranational law and case-law. Polish Constitutional Tribunal derives a duty to give reasoning from the right to a fair trial – right to be heard and bring own submissions before the court (Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution), the right to appeal against judgments and decisions made at first stage (Article 78), the rule of two stages of the court proceedings (Article 176) and rule of law clause (Article 2), that comprises inter alia right to due process of law and the rule of legitimate expactation / the protection of trust (Vertrauensschutz). European Court of Human Rights derives this duty to give reasons from the guarantees of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of European Convention of Human Rights. In its case-law the ECtHR, taking into account the margin of appreciation concept, formulated a number of positive and negative requirements, that should be met in case of proper reasoning. The obligation for courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions is also anchored in European Union law. European Court of Justice derives this duty from the right to fair trial enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Standards of the courts reasoning developed by Polish constitutional court an the European courts (ECJ and ECtHR) are in fact convergent and coherent. National judges should take them into consideration in every case, to legitimize its outcome and enhance justice delivery.

Legal Maxims: Summaries and Extracts from Selected Case Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sébastien Brisard ◽  
Guglielmo Cantillo ◽  
Ramona Grimberger ◽  
Victoria Hanley-Emilsson ◽  
Rebeka Hevesi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Vice President ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Grand Chamber

Council of the European Union v. European Commission, Case C-409/13, Grand Chamber, Judgment, 14 April 2015European Commission v. Vanbreda Risk & Benefits, Case C‑35/15 P(R), Order of the Vice-President of the Court, 23 April 2015Geoffrey Léger v. Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé et des Droits des femmes, Établissement français du sang...

Europe

2020 ◽  
pp. 649-666
Author(s):  
Andrea Renda
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Digital Technology ◽  
Policy Framework ◽  
Expert Group ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Ethical Implications ◽  
Strong Focus ◽  
Ethics Guidelines ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
High Level

This chapter assesses Europe’s efforts in developing a full-fledged strategy on the human and ethical implications of artificial intelligence (AI). The strong focus on ethics in the European Union’s AI strategy should be seen in the context of an overall strategy that aims at protecting citizens and civil society from abuses of digital technology but also as part of a competitiveness-oriented strategy aimed at raising the standards for access to Europe’s wealthy Single Market. In this context, one of the most peculiar steps in the European Union’s strategy was the creation of an independent High-Level Expert Group on AI (AI HLEG), accompanied by the launch of an AI Alliance, which quickly attracted several hundred participants. The AI HLEG, a multistakeholder group including fifty-two experts, was tasked with the definition of Ethics Guidelines as well as with the formulation of “Policy and Investment Recommendations.” With the advice of the AI HLEG, the European Commission put forward ethical guidelines for Trustworthy AI—which are now paving the way for a comprehensive, risk-based policy framework.

Property

2020 ◽  
pp. 276-292
Author(s):  
J. E. Penner
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Making Sense ◽  
The Social ◽  
Bundle Of Rights ◽  
High Level

This chapter discusses property law. It considers the idea that property had a “nominalist” ontology, and it was in danger of “disintegration” as a working legal category for that very reason. Nominalism about property has had a significant impact in U.S. case law. The concern here, however, is whether it is a helpful stance to take as a theorist of property. The chapter argues that it is not. There are indeed “high” level abstractions about property which one cannot plausibly do without if one is to understand property rights and property law doctrine. Moreover, the “bundle of rights” (BOR) challenge does not assist one in making sense of these abstractions. The chapter then looks at the conceptual failure of BOR and the New Private Law as it relates to property. BOR is generally regarded as being underpinned by what might be called the Hohfeld-Honoré synthesis. The synthesis rests upon a fairly serious mistake, which is that while the Hohfeldian examination of jural norms is analytic if it is anything, Honor’s elaboration of the incidents making up ownership is anything but—it is functional. This means that Honoré describes the situation of the owner not principally in terms of his Hohfeldian powers, duties, and rights vis-à-vis others, but in terms of the social or economic advantages that an owner has by virtue of his position, and the terms and limitations of those advantages.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document