Search

This document seeks to respond to the questions raised by the Australian Human Rights Commission and World Economic Forum in their ‘Artificial Intelligence: governance and leadership’ White Paper consultation. It draws upon some of the research conducted at the Allens Hub to make suggestions about if and how systems involving some component of artificial intelligence or automation should be regulated. It also seeks to create further clarity regarding the potential structure and functions of the proposed Responsible Innovation Organisation. We note that our research does not relate to all the questions asked in the White Paper consultation, and so we only set out answers in relation to those matters where our research may be relevant. We are otherwise grateful for the opportunity to present our views and hope this submission will help the Australian Human Rights Commission and World Economic Forum in their consideration.

The purpose of this submission is to address the list of questions posed by the Australian Human Rights Commissioner on the White Paper Artificial Intelligence: Governance and Leadership (2019). It is an interim submission, and a final submission will be made later. Some main points of the interim submission, stated in summary, are: 1) The main goals of government regulation in the area of artificial intelligence include: a. ‘Regulation’ must not be confused with economic enablement and stimulation. Both may be legitimate in relation to AI, but the same organisation must not be given responsibility for both, as they involve an inherent potential for conflict of interests. b. Attempts to ‘pick winners’ or to encourage governments to do so should be avoided. Focus on principles, not products. c. Encourage Australian input into the global development of standards for, ethics of, and treaties concerning, AI development and use. d. Legislate where necessary to prevent the most harmful uses of AI. e. It should be assumed that some regulation (possibly including co-regulation) will be necessary. f. The general objectives of the regulation of AI are primarily the protection of human rights and the protecting of competition. 2) There is no Australian policy-oriented organisation with a permanent high level of expertise in AI-related technologies, and certainly no such organisation which does not have potentially conflicting industry development objectives. 3) There would be value in Australia creating such a new policy-oriented organisation, with a limited life-span, but ‘Responsible Innovation Organisation’ (RIO) is a completely inappropriate title, as it suggests that the body has a role in promoting innovation (ie industry development), either by itself or as part of some larger economically-oriented organisation, which will inevitably dominate and distort its views. We should consider approaches taken by other national governments. 4) Many Australian organisations would find it valuable to have an Australian policy-oriented organisation recommending international standards for Australian adoption, or assisting in the developing of Australian standards. 5) Strictly econometric measures of the ‘business case’ for such policy-oriented organisations are not possible or desirable. 6) The desirable goals for such an organisation are set out in (i) above. a. It should primarily encourage and assist other Australian organisations to provide inputs into development of standards and ethics (internationally and in Australia), including by funding assistance where necessary. It should have the capacity to make such inputs itself, when needed. b. A board of part-time Commissioners, with one full-time Commissioner, is desirable. It should be a stand-alone organisation, as it would not fit comfortably within other organisations c. Public funding is more desirable, as the costs will be modest. Joint funding by industry prevents very grave risks of regulatory capture. d. It should provide an annual report to Parliament, and communicate its work between reports via a variety of Internet channels.

This working paper sets out key findings and recommendations based on the survey of organisations of people with disabilities in Ukraine. The survey was conducted in May - July 2021 and explored organisational perspectives on the impact of COVID-19 on people with disabilities in Ukraine (including internally displaced people with disabilities), and on the organisational activities and development. This survey was co-designed with the National Assembly of People with Disabilities of Ukraine as the first phase of a larger GCRF/AHRC funded research project to explore the impact of the pandemic on people with disabilities in Ukraine.DOI: https://doi.org/10.17869/enu.2022.2849863

Technology is at the core of credit reporting systems, which have evolved significantly over the past decade by adopting new technologies and business models. As disruptive technologies have been increasingly adopted around the globe, concerns have arisen over possible misuse or unethical use of these new technologies. These concerns inspired international institutions and national authorities to issue high-level principles and guidance documents on responsible technology use. While adopting new technologies benefits the credit reporting industry, unintended negative outcomes of these technologies from ethics and human rights perspectives must also be considered. The white paper begins with a brief introductory section, followed in section 2 with a discussion of technology use in credit reporting, with a special focus on the key disruptive technologies being increasingly adopted by the industry. Section 3 provides information on the scope, development, and high-level principles of several key technology frameworks, including the principles underlying their responsible use. Section 4 introduces ten principles to guide responsible use of technology in credit reporting activities. Section 5 discusses considerations for applying the principles. The section concludes with use cases illustrating the principles in action.

This article sets out to explore the potential of the right to an effective remedy in Article 47 of the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘CFR’) in equipping the Union’s social acquis with credible remedies. Article 47 CFR is one of the most-litigated and important articles in the Charter. At the same time, however, it has received surprisingly little attention in the context of EU employment law. Discussion is structured as follows: section one explores the rise of the principle of effectiveness, from the early case law of the Court of Justice to the Charter’s entry into force in 2009. Section two sketches the powerful potential of Article 47 CFR, highlighting its utility both in tackling domestic obstacles to effective enforcement, and expanding the horizontal applicability of EU employment law. Section three briefly highlights some of the limitations litigants might encounter, including a general emphasis on broad regulatory discretion for Member States, and the difficult of crafting (positive) duties out of (negative) restraints. A concluding section turns to EU law more broadly, as well as the European Convention of Human Rights, for inspirations guiding the potential future development of Article 47 CFR. A Thematic Working Paper for the Annual Conference of the European Centre of Expertise (ECE) in the field of labour law, employment and labour market policies: The Charter of Fundamental Rights from an EU Labour Law Perspective

ispartof: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL AND REHABILITATION MEDICINE vol:58 issue:2 pages:159-160 ispartof: location:Italy status: published

This paper is based on work from the Global Research, Innovation, and Education on Assistive Technology (GREAT) Summit that was coordinated by WHO's Global Cooperation on Assistive Technology (GATE). The purpose of this paper is to describe the needs and opportunities embedded in the assistive product lifecycle as well as issues relating to the various stages of assistive product mobilization worldwide. The paper discusses assistive technology product terminology and the dangers of focusing on products outside the context and rolling out products without a plan. Additionally, the paper reviews concepts and issues around technology transfer, particularly in relation to meeting global needs and among countries with limited resources. Several opportunities are highlighted including technology advancement and the world nearing a state of readiness through a developing capacity of nations across the world to successfully adopt and support the assistive technology products and applications. The paper is optimistic about the future of assistive technology products reaching the people that can use it the most and the excitement across large and small nations in increasing their own capacities for implementing assistive technology. This is expressed as hope in future students as they innovate and in modern engineering that will enable assistive technology to pervade all corners of current and potential marketplaces. Importantly, the paper poses numerous topics where discussions are just superficially opened. The hope is that a set of sequels will follow to continue this critical dialog. Implications for Rehabilitation Successful assistive technology product interventions are complex and include much more than the simple selection of the right product. Assistive technology product use is highly context sensitive in terms of an individual user's environment. The development of assistive technology products is tricky as it must be contextually sensitive to the development environment and market as well. As a field we have much to study and develop around assistive technology product interventions from a global perspective.

This White Paper explores the legal dimensions of the European Union (EU)’s value-driven cybersecurity by investigating the notions of ‘value-driven’ and ‘cybersecurity’ from the perspective of EU law. It starts with a general overview of legal issues in current value-driven cybersecurity debates (Chapter 2), showing how values embedded within the framework of EU governing treaties have evolved during the integration process, and the important role they play in the cybersecurity regulation at EU level. Chapter 3 of the White Paper is devoted to the main critical challenges in this area: 1) the varied and sometimes unclear uses of the term ‘cybersecurity’, 2) the roles of stakeholders and the cooperation between them, and the 3) securitization of EU values and interests through cybersecurity rules. Chapter 4 points out and describes specific controversies concerning cybersecurity regulation in the EU. Ten disputed issues are given particular attention: 1) the functioning of human rights as drivers for EU regulation, 2) the regulation of risks to society through individual risk identification and proactive action, 3) the attribution of roles to different stakeholders, 4) how individuals are being awarded with more rights, 5) controllership of data, 6) copyright protection, 7) regulation of online content, 8) the use of encryption, 9) permissibility of massive and generalised surveillance of individuals and 10) counterterrorism measures. Chapter 5 summarises the main findings of the literature review. The White Paper recognises that legislative and policy measures within the cybersecurity domain challenge EU fundamental rights and principles, stemming from EU values. The White Paper concludes that with the constantly growing number of EU measures governing the cybersecurity domain, the embedment of EU values enshrined in the EU Charter within these measures take place both on an ex ante and an ex post basis.

Neither has any other human-rights treaty received as much vitriolic bashing as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter), 1981, nor has there been a dearth of negativity about the treaty as a human-rights instrument. Such is the spate of pessimism about the African Charter and its system that it has repeatedly been referred to as “a paper tiger”, among other undignified labels. Beyond the endless lampooning of the treaty and its system as mere platitudes, have there been no opportunities for the civil society to strengthen the promise of this treaty and its system. To what extent has the civil society exploited such opportunities? Can there be a reconceptualization of the roles and attitudes of civil society that will galvanize the African regional human-rights system towards a veritable mechanism for more effective human rights protection? This article examines the contributions of civil society to the evolutionary processes, successes, and perceived weaknesses of the African regional human-rights system since 1981. Extrapolating from some landmark institutional, normative and jurisprudential developments within the African regional arrangement, this article identifies civil society as an inevitable, integral bearer of credit for the successes, and blame for the shortcomings of the aforementioned system. The overarching objective here is to canvass for a repositioning of civil society towards more effective praxis, and, to identify the trajectories for such engagement.

The South African Department of Health (DoH) released its White Paper for National Health Insurance (NHI) in December 2015 for public comment. The South African Society of Psychiatrists (SASOP) submitted a detailed response following discussion amongst both public and private sector members. This has been published as a pdf in the August 2016 edition of South African Psychiatry, available at www.southafricanpsychiatry.co.za. For the most part, our response was concerned with the proposed organisation of health services as they relate to mental health care. However, we also made comment on good governance within the health service and on human rights issues. In this respect, we responded as advocates for our patients, for the public good and for our profession. Essentially, we submitted a response as participants in the proposed transformation of the health system appropriate to our social contract with society.

Summary Introduction The term variations of sex development subsumes a large number of congenital conditions including chromosomal mosaics and variations of chromosomal, gonadal, and phenotypic sex. A situation of this nature may cause severe distress to both, parents and affected persons. One of the reasons for this is the binary form of gender classification in the society. In the past, because of a fear of possible stigmatization and an inability to cope with complex situations, it has been medical policy and practice for newborns to undergo early, mostly ‘feminizing’ elective surgery with the aim of achieving an outer genital appearance that is unambiguously male or female. Protests by advocacy groups for the most part as well as the results of outcome studies have shown that the development of affected persons may be very different to what has been expected and often does not result in the intended clear female or male gender identity as had been intended. It, therefore, seemed a matter of urgency to implement this new awareness as well as the ethical and personal human rights perspectives in the recommendations for the medical and psychosocial management of diverse sex development (DSD) in the future. Study design In 2012, an interdisciplinary group of German academics engaged in the field of DSD decided to work on a consensus paper for this topic. It involved the participation of all faculties and non-scientific groups dealing with DSD, in particular advocacy and service-user groups. In a structured consensus, process recommendations were developed based on scientific literature as well as personal experiences of clinicians and affected individuals. Results Finally, 37 recommendations were agreed on. The strength of consensus is reflected in the degree of agreement as expressed in percentages. Conclusion The introduction of the consensus paper reflects on the emerging paradigm shift and the necessity for a more open view of gender within society. The paper is intended to aid the performance of appropriate diagnostics in DSD-affected newborns and especially to help parents and affected persons cope with the biological and social consequences of DSD. With regard to medical or surgical therapy, it gives information about the most recent treatment trends.

The European Social Charter has recently received increased attention due to the evolution of its monitoring mechanism and the need to address a multitude of contemporary challenges to socio-economic rights. Although the treaty’s preamble has played a crucial role in the interpretation of substantive provisions and in shaping state obligations, little attention has been paid to the way in which the preamble has defined the fundamental lines of the ‘jurisprudence’ of the Charter’s monitoring body. The European Committee of Social Rights has deduced from the Charter’s preamble several important general principles for the protection of socio-economic rights, on which it grounds its interpretation. This article analyses these principles and evaluates their effects in the relevant practice. The findings suggest that the Charter’s preamble serves different purposes and performs multiple functions in international law, thus challenging the common assumption that human rights treaty preambles are empty phrases of a merely ceremonial nature.