14 Amendments of Giuliano PISAPIA related to 2020/2012(INL)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights that the security and defence policies of the European Union and its Member States are guided by the principles enshrined in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and those of the United Nations Charter, and by a common understanding of the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, of freedom, of democracy, of equality and of the rule of law; highlights that all defence- related efforts within the Union framework must respect these universal values whilst promoting peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that a Union framework regulating the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled systems in defence must respect all applicable legal regimes, in particular the international humanitarian law and the international human rights law, and be in compliance with Union law, principles and values; stresses that the EU should play a global role in leading the way towards a credible and binding AI regulatory agenda rooted in democratic values; calls on the Union to assess the inherent AI-related risks with regard to the application of Union law, and foresee necessary adjustment and enforcement where needed; underlines that emerging technologies not covered by international law should be judged by the principle of humanity and the dictates of public conscience; underlines that the ethics of AI-enabled systems in defence must be assessed from the point of view of Human rights, and notably human safety, health and security, freedom, privacy, integrity and dignity;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Emphasises that the geographical scope of such a framework should cover all the components of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies developed, deployed or used in the Union, including in cases where part of the technologies might be located outside the Union or not have a specific location;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights that, based on a human- centric approach, the Unionwhereby technology fully respects Human Rights and humans retain authority over automated decision- making systems, the Union needs a robust AI regulatory framework focused on security and defence, followsing a path of responsibility, of protecting our citizens, and of defending our values, that its policies aim at preserving peace, preventing conflicts and strengthening international security, whilst seizing the opportunities that those technologies offer;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines that the Union must be at the forefront of mastering those technologies by establishing well defined processes for their use, for understanding the related ethical aspects and for fostering an effective international regulatory framework that contains the inherent risks of these technologies and prevents use for malicious purposes; the Union working together with the Member States must determine the appropriate liability regimes applicable to innovations in AI and other immersive technologies in the field of security and defence thus establishing a legal basis for accountability and traceability mechanisms, those include in particular unintended harm to persons, be it material or immaterial, such as breach of fundamental rights;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that for any defence application of AI enabled systems, the Union should set technical and organisational standards to ensure their resilience against cyber-attacks and digital influence, as well as their compliance with the highest possible trustworthiness standards as regards the collection and exploitation of operational datareliability standards, active monitoring and supervision as regards the collection and exploitation of operational data; AI systems and applications intended to extract and synthesise data, and extrapolate results therefrom to inform decisions for matters relating to defence and national security, must be specific in scope and comply with the provisions set out in the current regulatory framework in terms of gathering and processing data; stresses that AI applications designed to process data for intelligence purposes in defence related activities should comply with data processing standards to avoid risks of unintended surveillance or infringement of individual rights; believes that for high-risk applications of AI-enabled technologies like facial recognition which lack a definitive regulatory framework at the EU level, the Union must ensure that their development and deployment is rightful, proportional and respects the rights of individuals; stresses the importance of monitoring competent national law enforcement authorities which develop and deploy AI-enabled systems and technologies to maintain public order so as to mitigate the disproportional risks of predictive policing;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Highlights the need to adopt clear safety and security provisions and requirements, with proper certifications, for AI-systems in defence, and carry ourt constant monitoring, regular tests and verifications across the entire life cycle; underlines the necessity of ensuring compliance with applicable standards and obtained certifications where AI modifies e.g. through machine learning the functionality and behaviour of systems in which it is integrated, in order to ensure full traceability of decisions made with involvement of AI;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresseds that all AI-systems in defence must have a concrete and well- defined domain of use and must be endowed withwhereby humans retain the abilitgency to detect and, disengage or diseactivate deployed systems should they move from their domain of use or engage in any escalatory or unintended action;
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Underlines that the entire responsibility for the decision to design, develop, deploy and use AI-systems must rest on human operators and, as there must be meaningful human control over any weapons system and human intent in the decision to use force; underlines that the human-in- the-loop principle must also be applied to the command and control of AI- enabled systems; stresses that AI-enabled systems must allow the military leadership to assume its full responsibility and exercise the necessary level of judgmentaccountability for the use of lethal force and exercise the necessary level of judgment, which cannot be endowed to machines as it must be based on distinction, proportionality and precaution, for taking lethal or large-scale destructive action bey means of such systems; recalls in this respect its position on a ban on the development, production and use of fully autonomous weapons systems enabling strikes to be carried out without meaningful human intervention;
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Stresses that the EU must take the lead in promoting the establishment of international norms regarding the ethical and legal parameters of the development and use of fully autonomous, semi- autonomous and remotely operated lethal weapons systems; Member States should develop national strategies for the definition, status and use of lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs) towards a comprehensive strategy on the EU level;
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Underlines that the Union must promote understanding of the military implications of AI, of robotics and of autonomy; considers that the Union needs to promote the acquisition of the necessary skills and knowledge on technology development processes and operational methods throughout the supply chain and over the full lifecycle of AI-enabled military capabilities;
Amendment 116 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Stresses the need to overcome the current fragmentation within the Union as regards national AI-related law, research, innovation and expertise in the area of AI, which puts in jeopardyendangers the functioning of the internal market and the objective to ensure trustworthyreliable and secure development of AI in Europe; in this respect welcomes the inclusion of AI- related projects under the European Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP); believes that the future European Defence Fund (EDF) and the Permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) also offer well adapted frameworks for future AI- related projects that would help to better streamline Union efforts in this field; stresses that AI-related projects should be synchronized with the wider EU civilian programmes devoted to AI; notes that in line with the European Commission’s White Paper on AI (COM2020/65final) excellence and testing centres concentrating on research and development of AI in the field of security and defence should be established with vigorous specifications underpinning the participation of and investment from private stakeholders;
Amendment 121 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Emphasises that the development of AI that respects fundamental rights and supports the public interest requires the strategic pooling and sharing of data in the EU between private and public entities, as well as the strengthening of an EU AI ecosystem, which involves public, private, and civil society stakeholders; calls on the European Commission to foster dialogue among Member States, researchers, academics, civil society actors and the private sector so as to have inclusive policymaking processes when it comes to defence-related AI regulations;
Amendment 133 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the European Commission and on the VP/HR to present, also as part of an overall approach, a sectoral AI strategy for defence-related activities within the Union framework, that ensures both respect for citizens’ rights and EU’s strategic interests that should propose a consistent regulatory approach spanning from the inception of AI-enabled systems to their military uses; calls on these regulatory efforts to be supported by meaningful monitoring schemes, so that normative frameworks are not outplaced by technological development and new methods of warfare; calls on the Council, the European Commission and on the VP/HR to enter in a structured dialogue with the European Parliament to that end.