Activities of Marcos ROS SEMPERE 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
Amendments (57)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
- having regard to the OECD Council Recommendation on Artificial Intelligence adopted on 22 May 2019,
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 b (new)
Citation 8 b (new)
- having regard to the European ethical Charter on the use of Artificial Intelligence in judicial systems and their environment adopted by the Council of Europe Working Group on Quality of Justice (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL) in December 2018,
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 15 a (new)
Citation 15 a (new)
- - having regard to the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs,
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas AI, robotics and related technologies are liable to have awith the potential to directly impact on all aspects of peoin societies, including basic social and economic principle's lives in societand values, are being developed very quickly;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. Whereas a common framework within the Union must cover all situations,such as the development, deployment and use of AI, robotics and related technologies,in which the Union´s principles and values must be reflected.
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
A b. Whereas Parliament has repeatedly called for the elaboration and urgent adoption of a common position on lethal autonomous weapons systems, an international ban on the development, production and the use of autonomous lethal weapons systems capable of attack without significant human control, as well as the initiation of effective negotiations for their prohibition;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the Union and its Member States have a particular responsibility to make sure that theseAI, robotics and related technologies, contribute to the well-being and general interest of their citizens;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
B b. Whereas European citizens could benefit from an appropriate, efficient, transparent and coherent regulatory approach at Union level that defines sufficiently clear conditions for companies to develop applications and plan their business models, while ensuring that the Union and its Member States retain control over the regulations to be established, so that they are not forced to adopt or accept standards set by others;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas this particular responsibility implies a need to examine questions of interpretation and application of international law in so far as the EU is affected in the areas of civil and military uses of suchAI, robotics and related technologies and questions of state authority vis-à-vis such technologies outside the scope of criminal justice;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. Whereas it is essential to provide an appropriate and comprehensive legal framework on the ethical aspect related to these technologies as well as on the liability, transparency and accountability (in particular for AI, robotics and related technologies considered to be high risk), that reflect the intrinsically European and universal humanist values, to be applicable to the entire value chain in the development, implementation and uses of IA; whereas that this ethical framework must apply to the development (including research and innovation), deployment and use of IA, in full respect of Union law and the values set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. ‘AI-system’ means a system that is either software-based or embedded in hardware devices, and that displays behaviour simulating intelligence by, inter alia, collecting and processing data, analysing and interpreting its environment, and by taking action, with some degree of autonomy, to achieve specific goals. 'autonomous’ means an AI-system that operates by interpreting certain input and by using a set of pre- determined instructions, without being limited to such instructions, despite the system’s behaviour being constrained by and targeted at fulfilling the goal it was given and other relevant design choices made by its developer;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that all military uses of AI mustAI used in a military and a civil context have to be subject to human control, so that, in particular, a human has the opportunityat all times the means to correct or halt them at anyll times, and to disable them in the event of unforeseen behaviour;at all times when AI used in a military and a civil context have effects on the welfare and general interest of citizens.
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Considers that the respect for international public law, in particular humanitarian law, which applies unequivocally to all weapons systems and their operators, is a fundamental requirement with which Member States must comply, especially when it comes to protecting the civilian population or taking precautionary measures in the event of an attack such as military and cyberwarfare;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Highlights that artificial intelligence and related technologies can also play a part in irregular or unconventional warfare; suggests that research, development, and use of AI in such areas be subject to the same conditions as where it is used in conventional conflicts;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Urges the EU to take the lead and assume an active role in promoting a global AI regulatory framework
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Calls on the United Nations and the international community at large to make every effort to ensure that the application of AI, robotics and related technologies in military matters and the use of AI-based systems by the military remain within the strict limits set by international law and international humanitarian law;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2 d. Calls on the AI research community to integrate this principle into all the aforementioned AI-based systems intended for use in war; considers that no authority may establish any exception to those principles or certify such system;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 e (new)
Paragraph 2 e (new)
2 e. Considers that the development and AI used in a military context in armed conflict has to respect the Martens clause and must never breach or be permitted to breach the dictates of public conscience and humanity, considers that ability to be used in compliance with international humanitarian law is the minimum standard for the admissibility of an AI-based system in a war context;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that their decision- making process must be auditable, explainable, traceable, so that the human decision-maker can be identified and held responsible where necessaryaccountable;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Stresses that during the use of AI in a military context, Member States, parties to a conflict and individuals must at all times comply with their obligations under applicable international law and take responsibility for actions resulting from the use of such systems and that under all circumstances must the anticipated, accidental or undesirable actions and effects of AI-based systems be considered to be the responsibility of Member States, parties to a conflict and individuals;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Highlights the importance of taking into account the risks related to accidental intervention, to manipulation, proliferation,cyber-attacks or interference and acquisition by third parties of AI- based technology, at any time;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3 c. Reiterates that regulatory efforts are supported by meaningful certification and surveillance schemes, as well as clear auditability, explainability, accountability, and traceability mechanisms, so that the regulatory framework does not become outdated by technological developments.
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Reiterates that theyAI used in a military context must always be consistent with international humanitarian and Human Rights laws, in particular the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, notably as regards the protection of injured, sick and shipwrecked persons, the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilians;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Insists that they must always be consistent with the principle of proportionadistinction, proportionality, precaution, accountability, attributability, traceability, reliability, trustworthiness, transparency and explicability, which makes the legality of a military action conditional on a balance between the objective pursued and the means used, and that the assessment of proportionality must be made, or expressly approved, by a human being;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that the previous paragraphs concern all military uses of AI, whatever they may be, including those involving the processing of information for military purposes, military logistics, ‘collaborative combat’ and real-time support for decision-making, as well as defensive systems and all weapons that use AI, including lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS);
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Stress the need for predictability and reliability of the IA-enabled, as well as resilience and the system ability to detect possible changes in circumstances and operational environment.
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recalls that LAWS are weapons capable of identifying a target and deciding to attack it without human interventionthe term "lethal autonomous weapons systems" (LAWS) refers to weapons systems without meaningful human control over the critical functions of selection and attacking individual targets, and that the level of threat they pose requires that their use have to be subject to specific prohibitions and legal safeguards;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Insists on the need for an EU-wide strategy against lethal autonomous systems and a ban on so-called "killer robots".
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8 b. Emphasizes that the AI used in a military context, must meet a minimum set of requirements, namely: be able to distinguish between combatants and non- combatants, combatants on the battlefield, recognize when a combatant surrenders or is hors de combat, not to have indiscriminate effects, not to cause unnecessary suffering to people, not being biased or trained on data and comply with the principles of international humanitarian law, proportionality in the use of force and precaution before intervention;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8 c. Considers that the use of lethal autonomous weapon systems raises fundamental ethical and legal questions about the control capacity that humans can exercise over these systems; and requires that AI-based technology can´t make autonomous decisions involving legal principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that LAWS are lawfulcan be authorized only if subject to control sufficiently strict to enable a human to take over command at anya strict human control to enable a human to have the control all times, and that systems without any human control (‘human out of the loop’) musthave to be banned;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Highlight that meaningful human intervention and supervision are essential in the process of making lethal decisions, since human beings are still responsible when deciding between life and death;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 73 #
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Recalls that Parliament’s resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics asked the Commission to consider the designation of a European Agency for Artificial Intelligence, the mandate of which would cover common standards, certification and monitoring frameworks, as well as strong bilateral cooperation with NATO when it comes to the deployment, development and us of AI in the military field;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Calls on the Commission to support the research, development, deployment and use of AI in preserving peace, and preventing conflicts;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 4
Subheading 4
State authority: examples from the areas of health and justice and responsibility in all its applications
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses that Member States must ensure that the possession of highly sophisticated AI technologies by powerful private groups does not result in the authority of the state being challenged, let alone usurped, by a private authority;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Considers it essential, where an AI system is used to interact with people in public services, especially in the fields of justice and health care, that users arthat users should have the right and be informed that they may ask to deal with a professional and that the request will be granted without undue delay;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Takes the view that persons who have been the subject of a decision taken by a public authority based solely or largely onon, or influenced by the output from an AI system should be informed thereof and should receive the information referred to in the preceding paragraph without delay;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Notes that artificial intelligence is playing an increasingly fundamental role in areas such as public health, care, in particular through algorithms to assist diagnosis, robot- assisted surgery, smart prostheses, personalised treatments based on the three-dimensional modelling of an individual patient’s body, social robots to help elderly people, digital therapies designed to improve the independence of some mentally ill people, predictive medicine and epidemic response softwareulture, transport, agriculture, etc... in particular through algorithms, computer software and the data used or produced by them, that may be applied while using IA;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21 a. Insists that all uses of AI in the public sphere, respect the protection of citizens' personal data and prevent the uncontrolled dissemination of those data; also urges respect for the equality of citizens, in terms of accessibility and effective access to public services and the preservation of the relationship between administration and citizen;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls, therefore, for requests that the public musto be informed of all suchny uses of AI in the field of justice and for thosepublic civil uses and that such uses do not to leadgive rise to discrimination resulting from the programming and to upholdhat the right of every individualany person to have access to a judgepublic official be respected, as well as the right of every judgeany public official to departviate from the solution suggested by the AI wheren he or she considerdeems it necessary in the light of the particulars of a casedetails of the matter in question;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23 a. Requests, therefore, that all these uses in the public and administrative sphere constitute information in the public domain and avoid generating discrimination due to programming biases;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24 a. Considers that AI technologies and network systems should aim towards legal certainty for citizens; therefore underlines that the conflict of laws and of jurisdictions rules should continue to apply, while taking into account the citizen interest as well the need to reduce the risk of forum shopping; further highlights that the efforts to fight unjustified geo-blocking should be pursued;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Stresses that the circulation of autonomous vehicles in the European area(technology considered high risk) in Europe, which is liable to give rise to a particularly high number of disputes under international private law, must be the subject of specific European rules stipulating the legal regime applicable in the event of transboundary damage;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Recalls that AI is a scientific advance which must not undermine the law, but must on the contrary always be governed by it — in the European Union by the law emanating from its institutions and its Member States — and that under no circumstances must the power of algorithms lead toAI, robotics and related technologies contravene democracy and, the rule of law being flouted, a principle which has guided the drafting of this reportand the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;