Activities of Emil RADEV related to 2020/2013(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on artificial intelligence: questions of interpretation and application of international law in so far as the EU is affected in the areas of civil and military uses and of state authority outside the scope of criminal justice
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on Artificial intelligence: questions of interpretation and application of international law in so far as the EU is affected in the areas of civil and military uses and of state authority outside the scope of criminal justice
Amendments (10)
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
paragraph 1
paragraph 1
1. SeUnderlines the great potential offered by the use and the development of artificial intelligence as an opportunity for more rapid economic development in the EUto enhance the security of our continent and citizens, as well as for more rapid economic development in the EU; Draws attention to the fact that many Member States use artificial intelligence in the military field and underlines the importance for the EU to play an important and adequate role in the future international discussions on this topics;
Amendment 30 #
2. Stresses that the use, creation and management of artificial intelligence must respect the fundamental rights, values and freedoms expressed in the EU Treaties, in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and in the idea underpinning the creation of the European Union; welcomstresses the publication of the Commission's White Paper on Aneed of safeguarding and promote the principles such as democracy, the rule of law, principle of non-discrimination, diverse and independent media etc, while developing, deploying and using artificial Iintelligence and encourages deeper research into the use of Artificial Intelligence by state authorities, robotics and related technologies: welcomes the publication of the Commission's White Paper on Artificial Intelligence, however notes that the Commission doesn’t include the use of the AI for military purposes into it; stresses that the European Union must contribute to the creation of an international legal framework for the use of AI, especially in the context of building the strategic advantage that AI can offer: in order to do this the EU needs a common framework that is dealing with all the aspects of the AI use including among others the military aspects;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
paragraph 2 a (new)
paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Recalls that our allies within a national, NATO or EU framework are themselves in the process of integrating AI into their military systems. Believes that the interoperability with our allies must be preserved by means of common standards, which are essential for the conduct of operations in coalition. Apart from that, AI cooperation should beset in a European framework, which is the only relevant framework for truly generating powerful synergies, as proposed by the EU’s AI strategy;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
paragraph 2 b (new)
paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Stresses the importance of taking into account all aspects of AI, including the military ones, in addressing legal and ethical issues in the European framework on AI;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
paragraph 2 c (new)
paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Underlines the importance to have an action at European level in order to help fostering much needed investment, data infrastructure, research and common ethical norms; encourages deeper research into the use of Artificial Intelligence by state authorities;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
paragraph 3
paragraph 3
3. Notes that artificial intelligence has great potential in the fight against crime, such as money laundering, terrorist financing, online terrorist content and cybercrime; considers that, in each of these cases, there must be certainty that itsthe use of AI does not lead to the unjustified deletion or blocking of legal content and thus to the censorship of or discrimination against views expressed online; notes that AI based cyber security systems can provide effective security standards and help develop better prevention and recovery strategies;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
paragraph 4
paragraph 4
4. Stresses that all operations undertaken by artificial intelligence must always remain under human supervision and have the possibility for humans if necessary to take over the control at any moment especially in the use of the AI for military purposes; Recalls that humans must always bear ultimate responsibility for decision-making that involves risks to the achievement of public interest objectives; stresses that artificial intelligence in the justice system should be used to improve the analysis and collection of data and the protection of victims, but that it is no substitute for human beings in terms of sentencing or decision-making;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
paragraph 4 a (new)
paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Recalls the importance of governance, transparency, impartiality, accountability, fairness and intellectual integrity principles in the use of AI in criminal justice;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion
paragraph 4 b (new)
paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Recalls that the principle of proportionality needs to be respected and that questions of causality and liability need to be clarified to determine the extent to which the State as an actor in public international law, but also in exercising its own authority, can actually transfer that authority to systems based on AI, which have a certain autonomy;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion
paragraph 4 c (new)
paragraph 4 c (new)
4 c. Urges the Member States to assess the risks related to AI-driven technologies before automating activities connected with the exercise of State authority, especially in the area of justice; calls on the Member States to consider the need to provide for safeguards such as supervision by a qualified professional and rules on professional ethics;