Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights: Four Realms of Discussion: Summary of Remarks

The term, Artificial Intelligence (AI), has changed since it was first coined by John MacCarthy in 1956. AI, believed to have been created with Kurt Gödel's unprovable computational statements in 1931, is now called deep learning or machine learning. AI is defined as a computer machine with the ability to make predictions about the future and solve complex tasks, using algorithms. The AI algorithms are enhanced and become effective with big data capturing the present and the past while still necessarily reflecting human biases into models and equations. AI is also capable of making choices like humans, mirroring human reasoning. AI can help robots to efficiently repeat the same labor intensive procedures in factories and can analyze historic and present data efficiently through deep learning, natural language processing, and anomaly detection. Thus, AI covers a spectrum of augmented intelligence relating to prediction, autonomous intelligence relating to decision making, automated intelligence for labor robots, and assisted intelligence for data analysis.

Remarks by Catherine Marchi-Uhel

The IIIM is different in that it is not a judicial entity. It cannot adjudicate crimes. It is not a court or tribunal. The IIIM has been referred to as having a “quasi-prosecutorial” function. It has been mandated by the General Assembly in 2016 to assist in the investigation and prosecution of core international crimes committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011.

On the Legality Under International Law of the Criminalization or Suppression of the Expression of Solidarity to Refugees

As Professor Jastram has noted, in and of itself, international refugee law is not explicit enough on the issue at hand. It is not clear enough in protecting persons who come in aid of, or show solidarity to, refugees or asylum-seekers. That does not mean, however, that no protections exist for them at all in other, if you like, sub-bodies of international law. This presentation focuses on the nature and character of those already existing international legal protections, as well as on any protection gaps that remain and recommendations on how they can be closed. It should be noted though that although the bulk of the presentation focuses on the relevant international legal protection arguments, this presentation begins with a short examination of the nature of the acts of criminalization and suppression at issue.

The Genesis of the Singapore Convention

Thank you to all of you for having me here. I am in very distinguished company today. What I would like to do is to provide an outline of the genesis of the Singapore Convention on Mediation (Convention), how we got here, and more importantly, how we see ourselves moving forward. It is important that, having achieved this significant milestone, we do not rest on our laurels. We need to take steps to ensure that mediation will be adopted and become mainstream in dispute resolution.

The Emergence of Climate Litigation in the Global South

Climate litigation in the Global South tends to be couched in rights-based clams including the right to life and a clean and healthy environment. Jolene Lin explained that this is in part due to the fact that many jurisdictions in the Global South have embedded environmental rights in their constitutions and, in some cases, courts have interpreted the right to life to include the right to a clean and healthy environment.

Opening Remarks by Saskia Bruines

Ladies and Gentlemen, as Deputy Mayor of The Hague, I am glad that this esteemed panel will discuss the promise of cities in relation to international law. As a representative of the international city of peace and justice, this subject is of course close to my heart.

Remarks by Penny Abeywardena

Janne thank you so much. First, it is a pleasure to be with this esteemed panel and I want to thank the American Society for International Law and the Municipality of The Hague for bringing us together today.

Remarks by Sean D. Murphy

Our conversation might begin by looking backward a bit. The human rights movement from 1945 onward has been one of the signature accomplishments of the field of international law, one that refocused our attention from a largely interstate system to a system where the individual moved in from the periphery to the center. Human rights champions point to numerous landmark treaties, numerous institutions, and the rise of NGOs as a critical vehicle for developing and monitoring human rights rules. Yet others look at the international human right system and still see the state as overly central, tolerating and paying lip service to human rights, but too easily discarding them when they prove to be inconvenient. The persistence of racism comes to mind. As a general matter, how would you assess the strengths and weaknesses of the system that was built essentially during your lifetime?

Remarks by Michael J. Camilleri

While it is true that Latin American multilateralism currently appears fragmented and paralyzed in many ways, the situation remains more positive with respect to democracy and human rights.