Following its meteoric rise in both use and relevance, AI has come to exist in the forefront of public consciousness. While much of the discussion has centered around the ways in which AI could potentially revolutionize a number of industries such as medicine and cybersecurity, there are also significant concerns about AI producing inappropriate and illegal outputs following increased reliance on its use.
Naturally, the central issue with anything that advances as quickly as AI has is the matter of its regulation, which in itself provides no shortage of obstacles. For much of its existence, AI was largely a self-regulating industry. Now, however, governments and policymakers across the world have taken on the challenge of regulating AI in a way that seeks to both maximize its benefits and mitigate its risks.
Most recently, on May 17, 2024, the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law opened the first ever international legally-binding treaty on AI for signature. The Framework Convention was signed by Andorra, Georgia, Iceland, Norway, the Republic of Moldova, San Marino, the United Kingdom, Israel, the United States, and the European Union. The landmark agreement introduced a risk-based governance approach aimed at establishing a regulatory framework that ensures the ethical use of AI technologies while at the same time encouraging technological progress and innovation. It is set to go into effect “on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three months after the date on which five signatories, including at least three Council of Europe member states, have ratified it.”
The Framework Convention tackles the use of AI in both public and private sectors. Although not intended to be exhaustive, the Preamble of the Explanatory Report sets out the basic aim of the Framework, in which drafters sought “to ensure that the potential of artificial intelligence technologies to promote human prosperity, individual and societal wellbeing and to make our world more productive, innovative and secure, is harnessed in a responsible manner that respects, protects and fulfills the shared values of the Parties and is respectful of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.” The treaty is intentionally left vague enough to leave room for the speed of innovation that has become characteristic of AI.
Among the Framework Convention’s provisions, Articles 7 through 13 outline the foundational principles and issues underlying the treaty: human dignity and autonomy, transparency and oversight, accountability and responsibility, equity and non-discrimination, privacy and data protection, reliability, and safe innovation. The initial response to the treaty has largely been positive, with a number of professionals lauding the treaty’s attempt at striking a balance between innovation and ethics. Dr. Angella Ndaka states “in the era when the politics of ‘mattering’ permeate AI governance, the voices of those who live in the margins get more muted, while their rights get tramped on. The Council of Europe’s AI Treaty is a milestone achievement to enable AI governance that centers on the rights and freedoms of underserved and underrepresented communities and groups.”
One of the more pressing concerns of those negatively impacted by AI is a seeming lack of recourse. The treaty addresses issues including social surveillance, which disproportionately affects minority groups, or deepfake videos infiltrating private and political spheres. In fact, Article IV explicitly addresses remedies. Parties to the treaty not only have to take accountability for any adverse impacts of AI use, but must also ensure the availability of “legal remedies for victims of human rights violations related to the use of AI systems and procedural safeguards, including notifying any persons interacting with AI systems that they are interacting with such systems.”
The Framework Convention, on its surface, is undoubtedly a step in the right direction with the admirable goal of establishing “as a matter of priority, a globally applicable legal framework.” However, it is still in its nascent stages. What is left to see is the Framework Convention in practice.