2020/2013(INI) 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
Next event: Commission response to text adopted in plenary 2021/07/09 more...
Lead committee dossier:
Next event: Commission response to text adopted in plenary 2021/07/09 more...
- End of procedure in Parliament 2021/01/21
- Results of vote in Parliament 2021/01/20
- Decision by Parliament 2021/01/20
- Committee report tabled for plenary 2021/01/04
- Vote in committee 2020/12/10
- Committee opinion 2020/11/23
Progress: Procedure completed
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead | JURI |
LEBRETON Gilles ( ID)
|
RADEV Emil ( EPP),
ROS SEMPERE Marcos ( S&D),
MELCHIOR Karen ( Renew),
LAGODINSKY Sergey ( Verts/ALE),
DZHAMBAZKI Angel ( ECR),
MAUREL Emmanuel ( GUE/NGL)
|
| Committee Opinion | TRAN |
KOVAŘÍK Ondřej ( Renew)
|
Angel DZHAMBAZKI ( ECR),
Kateřina KONEČNÁ ( GUE/NGL),
Tilly METZ ( Verts/ALE),
Henna VIRKKUNEN ( PPE),
Josianne CUTAJAR ( S&D),
Roman HAIDER ( ID)
|
| Committee Opinion | LIBE |
JAKI Patryk ( ECR)
|
Emil RADEV ( PPE),
Clare DALY ( GUE/NGL),
Sergey LAGODINSKY ( Verts/ALE),
Peter KOFOD ( ID),
Dragoş TUDORACHE ( RE),
Klára DOBREV ( S&D)
|
| Committee Opinion | IMCO |
SCHWAB Andreas ( EPP)
|
Martin SCHIRDEWAN ( GUE/NGL),
Virginie JORON ( ID),
Svenja HAHN ( RE),
Leszek MILLER ( S&D),
David CORMAND ( Verts/ALE),
Dominik TARCZYŃSKI ( ECR)
|
| Committee Opinion | AFCO | ||
| Committee Opinion | AFET |
PAET Urmas ( Renew)
|
Anna FOTYGA ( ECR),
Lukas MANDL ( PPE),
Juozas OLEKAS ( S&D),
Özlem DEMIREL ( GUE/NGL),
Markéta GREGOROVÁ ( Verts/ALE),
Anna BONFRISCO ( ID)
|
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Subjects
Events
2021/07/09
EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2021/01/21
EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2021/01/20
EP - Results of vote in Parliament
Documents
2021/01/20
EP - Decision by Parliament
Details
The European Parliament adopted by 364 votes to 274, with 52 abstentions, a resolution on artificial intelligence (AI): questions of interpretation and application of international law in so far as the Union is affected in the areas of civil and military uses and of state authority outside the scope of criminal justice.
EU framework on AI and guiding principles
Parliament called for the adoption of a common European legal framework with harmonised definitions and common ethical principles, including for the use of AI for military purposes. AI for defence purposes should be accountable, fair, traceable, reliable and governable. In all cases, technologies should be developed in a safe and technically rigorous manner.
Moreover, AI is a scientific advance which should not undermine the law but should, on the contrary, always be governed by it. Under no circumstances should AI, robotics and related technologies violate fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.
Members recalled that AI cannot replace the human being in the judicial process when it comes to making judgements or any final decision. Thus, when using evidence emanating from technologies using AI, judicial authorities should be obliged to give reasons for their decisions.
International law and military uses of artificial intelligence
Parliament stressed that the use of AI is an opportunity to enhance the security of the European Union and its citizens and that it is essential for the Union to adopt a coherent approach in the forthcoming debates on this subject at international level. It invited the EU to take the lead and play an active role, together with the United Nations and the international community, in promoting a global framework governing the use of AI for military and other purposes, ensuring that such use respects the strict limits set by international law and international humanitarian law.
Parliament stressed that AI used in a military and a civil context must be subject to meaningful human control, so that at all times a human has the means to correct, halt or disable it in the event of unforeseen behaviour, accidental intervention, cyber-attacks or interference by third parties with AI-based technology or where third parties acquire such technology.
Autonomous decision-making should not absolve humans from responsibility, and that people must always have ultimate responsibility for decision-making processes so that the human responsible for the decision can be identified.
Lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS)
Members recalled that Parliament called for the drafting and urgent adoption of a common position on lethal autonomous weapon systems, preventing the development, production and the use of LAWS capable of attack without meaningful human control, as well as the initiation of effective negotiations for their prohibition. It insisted on the need for an EU-wide strategy against LAWS and a ban on so-called ‘killer robots’.
The use of lethal autonomous weapon systems raises fundamental ethical and legal questions about the ability of humans to control these systems. Such systems should meet a minimum set of requirements and be used as a last resort. They should only be considered lawful if they are subject to strict human control.
State authority: examples from civil areas, including health and justice
Parliament urged the Member States to assess the risks related to AI-driven technologies before automating activities connected with the exercise of state authority, such as the administration of justice. It invited the Commission to assess the consequences of a moratorium on the use of facial recognition systems until the technical standards can be considered fully fundamental rights-compliant and that there are strict safeguards against misuse.
Members expressed serious concerns about some highly intrusive social scoring applications that have been developed, as they seriously jeopardise respect for fundamental rights. They called for an explicit ban on the use of mass social scoring (for monitoring and rating citizens) by public authorities as a means of restricting citizens' rights.
Moreover, given that AI is called upon to play an increasingly fundamental role in health matters, in particular through diagnostic aid algorithms, robot-assisted surgery and intelligent prostheses, Parliament insisted that all uses of AI in public health matters should respect the protection of patients' personal data and avoid the uncontrolled dissemination of such data.
Transport
Members took note of the significant economic potential of AI applications in this area. They stressed the need to promote AI to foster the multimodality, interoperability and energy efficiency of all modes of transport, including in the field of military logistics.
They also stressed that the circulation of autonomous vehicles in the European Union, which is likely to lead to a particularly high number of disputes under international private law, should be the subject of specific European rules stipulating the legal regime applicable in the event of cross-border damage.
Documents
2021/01/04
EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Details
The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the report by Gilles LEBRETON (ID, FR) 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.
The report stressed the potentials and the risks offered by the development, deployment and use of artificial intelligence (AI) for security both within the EU and in its external relations.
EU framework on AI
European citizens could benefit from an appropriate, effective, transparent and coherent regulatory approach at EU level to ensure that EU and its Member States retain control over the regulations to be established in this area, so that they are not forced to adopt or accept standards set by others.
The report recalled that a common EU framework, with harmonised definitions and common ethical principles, must cover the development, deployment and use of AI, robotics and related technologies, and must ensure respect for human dignity and human rights. The EU and its Member States should have a particular responsibility to make sure that AI, robotics and related technologies – as they can be used cross borders – are human-centred, i.e. basically intended for use in the service of humanity and the common good.
This responsibility implies a need to examine questions of interpretation and application of international law related to the active participation of the EU in international negotiations, in so far as the EU is affected by the civil and military uses of this kind of AI, robotics and related technologies, and questions of state authority over such technologies lie outside the scope of criminal justice.
International law and military uses of artificial intelligence
The impressive advances in artificial intelligence (AI) pose a challenge for international law, both public and private, and more broadly for the authority of states. AI used in a military and a civil context must be subject to meaningful human control, so that at all times a human has the means to correct, halt or disable it in the event of unforeseen behaviour, accidental intervention, cyber-attacks or interference by third parties with AI-based technology or where third parties acquire such technology.
Lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS)
In this context, Members stressed that Parliament has called for the drafting and urgent adoption of a common position on lethal autonomous weapon systems, preventing the development, production and the use of LAWS capable of attack without meaningful human control, as well as the initiation of effective negotiations for their prohibition. The use of lethal autonomous weapon systems raises fundamental ethical and legal questions about the ability of humans to control these systems. Lethal autonomous weapon systems should only be used as a last resort and be deemed lawful only if subject to human control, since it must be humans that decide between life and death.
Fundamental rights
Members expressed serious concerns about some highly intrusive social scoring applications that have been developed, as they seriously endanger the respect of fundamental rights. They called for an explicit ban on the use of mass social scoring (for monitoring and rating of citizens) by public authorities as a way to restrict the rights of citizens.
Transport
Members took note of the significant economic potential of AI applications in this area. They stressed the need to promote AI to foster the multimodality, interoperability and energy efficiency of all modes of transport, including in the field of military logistics.
Judiciary
Judges use AI technologies more and more in decision-making and to speed up proceedings. However, safeguards need to be introduced to protect the interests of citizens. The report stated that AI cannot replace humans in the judicial process when it comes to passing sentence or taking a final decision of any kind, as such decisions must always be taken by a human and be strictly subject to human verification and due process. AI, robotics and related technologies should be developed in a secure and technically rigorous manner.
Documents
2020/12/10
EP - Vote in committee
2020/11/23
EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2020/09/15
EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2020/07/15
EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2020/07/14
EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2020/07/09
EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2020/07/07
EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2020/02/19
EP - JAKI Patryk (ECR) appointed as rapporteur in LIBE
2020/02/18
EP - SCHWAB Andreas (EPP) appointed as rapporteur in IMCO
2020/01/27
EP - LEBRETON Gilles (ID) appointed as rapporteur in JURI
2020/01/22
EP - PAET Urmas (Renew) appointed as rapporteur in AFET
2020/01/16
EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2020/01/16
EP - Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
2020/01/15
EP - KOVAŘÍK Ondřej (Renew) appointed as rapporteur in TRAN
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2021)223
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T9-0009/2021
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A9-0001/2021
- Committee opinion: PE652.639
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE657.364
- Committee opinion: PE646.912
- Committee draft report: PE653.860
- Committee opinion: PE650.702
- Committee opinion: PE650.637
- Committee opinion: PE650.637
- Committee opinion: PE650.702
- Committee draft report: PE653.860
- Committee opinion: PE646.912
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE657.364
- Committee opinion: PE652.639
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2021)223
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 387 |
2020/2013(INI)
2020/06/04
AFET
67 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Highlights that the security and defence policies of the European Union and its Member States
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Calls on the UN and the wider international community to undertake all necessary efforts to ensure that the development and application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in military affairs and the use of AI-enabled systems by the military stay within the strict limits set by international law and international humanitarian law (IHL);
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Calls on the UN and the wider international community to undertake all necessary efforts to
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Recalls that the European Parliament already called twice (2014and 2018) for a ban on (lethal) autonomous weapons;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers in particular that AI- enabled systems must abide by the principles of the Martens Clause, and must never breach or be permitted to breach the dictates of the public conscience and humanity; considers that this is the ultimate test for the admissibility of an AI-enabled system in warfare; calls on the AI research community to integrate this principle in all AI-enabled systems intended to be used in warfare; considers that no authority can issue a derogation from those principles or certify an AI-enabled system; therefore invites Russia and the United States, who are the main developers of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), to halt all design, prototyping and production of such systems;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers in particular that the development and use of AI-
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers in particular that the use of AI-
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers in particular that AI- enabled systems must be designed in a way that abides by the principles of the Martens Clause, and must never breach or be permitted to breach the dictates of the public conscience and humanity; considers that this is the ultimate test for the admissibility of an AI-enabled system in warfare; calls on the AI research community to integrate this principle in all AI-enabled systems intended to be used in warfare; considers that no authority can issue a derogation from those principles or certify an AI-enabled system;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls on the HR/VP to push for an AI international regulatory framework, aligning major powers on common norms, based on democratic values, adequately framed so as to prevent their use for espionage, mass, targeted and political surveillance, disinformation and data manipulation, and a cyber-arms race;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Welcomes the creation of a UN Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on Advancing responsible State behaviour in cyber space in the context of international security and calls on the EU to fully take part in its work;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new) 3c. Calls on the HR/VP to pave the way for global negotiations with a view to put in place an AI arms control regime, and to update all existing Treaty instruments dedicated to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation so as to take AI-enabled systems in warfare into account; calls on the Common position on arms export to fully take into account and cover AI-enabled weapons systems;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Highlights that the security and defence policies of the European Union and its Member States are guided by the principles of the UN Charter and international law, by the principles of human rights and respect for human dignity, 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
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 d (new) 3d. Reaffirms support to the work of the UN GGE on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS), which remains the relevant international forum for discussions and negotiations on the legal challenges posed by autonomous weapons systems; encourages the UN to foster dialogue among Member States, researchers, academics, civil society humanitarian actors and the private sector so as to have inclusive policymaking processes on new international provisions preventing the development, use and proliferation of lethal autonomous weapons systems ; calls for all existing multilateral efforts to be accelerated so that normative and regulatory frameworks are not outpaced by technological development and new methods of warfare;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that states, parties to a conflict and individuals, when employing AI-enabled systems in warfare, must at all times adhere to their obligations under the applicable international law and remain accountable for actions resulting from the use of such systems; recalls that AI machines can under no circumstances be held accountable for intended, unintended or undesirable effects caused by AI-
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that states, parties to a conflict and individuals, when employing AI-enabled systems in warfare, must at all times adhere to their obligations under the applicable international law and remain accountable for actions resulting from the use of such systems; recalls that AI machines can under no circumstances be held accountable for intended, unintended or undesirable effects caused by AI- enabled systems on the battlefield and that accountability must always rest with a human. No AI-powered system, military or otherwise, under no circumstance whatsoever, should be permitted to automatically decide to end a human life;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that states, parties to a conflict and individuals, when employing AI-enabled systems in warfare, must at all times adhere to their obligations under the applicable international law and remain accountable for actions resulting from the use of such systems; recalls that AI machines can under no circumstances be held accountable for intended, unintended or undesirable effects caused by AI- enabled systems on the battlefield; recalls that AI-enabled systems must rely on human oversight and should not get out of control of humanity; stresses that AI- machines can under no circumstances replace human decision;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that states, parties to a conflict and individuals, when employing AI-enabled systems in warfare, must at all times adhere to their obligations under the applicable international law and remain accountable for actions resulting from the use of such systems; recalls that AI machines can under no circumstances be held accountable for intended, unintended or undesirable effects caused by AI- enabled systems on the battlefield and therefore human oversight in the application of AI-enabled systems in combat must be maintained;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that states, parties to a conflict and individuals, when employing AI-enabled systems in warfare, must at all times adhere to their obligations under the applicable international law and must remain accountable for actions resulting from the use of such systems; recalls that AI machines can under no circumstances be held accountable for intended, unintended or undesirable effects caused by AI-
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that states, parties to a conflict and individuals, when employing AI-enabled systems
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that states, parties to a conflict and individuals, when employing AI-enabled systems in warfare, must at all times adhere to their obligations and liability under the applicable international law and remain accountable for actions resulting from the use of such systems; recalls that
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights the need to take duly into account, during the design, development, testing and deployment phases of an AI-enabled system, potential risks as regards, in particular civilian casualties and injury, accidental loss of life, and damage to civilian infrastructure, but also risks related to unintended engagement, manipulation, proliferation, cyber-attack or interference and acquisition by terrorist groups, as well as to escalatory destabilising effects;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights the need to take duly into account, during the design, development, testing and deployment phases of an AI-enabled system, potential risks as regards to incidental civilian casualties and injury,
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Highlights that the security and defence policies of the European Union and its Member States are guided by the principles of the UN Charter, the prohibition on the use of force by States in their relations with each other, 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 while promoting peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Stresses that not all members of the international community will follow the regulatory human-centric approach devised by the union and that authoritarian states will devise a counter framework that will pursue, at the expense of Member States, to deliver military advantages and superiority within the AI domain;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Highlights the need to adopt clear safety and security provisions and requirements for AI-systems in defence, and carry our regular tests and verifications across the entire lifecycle;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Stresses that AI applications used in European Security and Defence Policy have to be categorised as high-risk in all cases given their impact of decisions;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Urges the Member States to track and assess the development of AI technologies, particularly military and surveillance, within authoritarian states that avoid compliance with EU led regulations, to avoid a scenario in which our societies, militaries and institutions fall vulnerable to hybrid warfare;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses the need for robust testing and evaluation systems based on norms to ensure that during the entire lifecycle of AI-enabled systems in the military domain, in particular during the phases of human- machine interaction, machine learning and adjusting and adapting to new circumstances, the systems do not go beyond the intended limits and will at all times comply with the applicable international law; considers that, in the hypothetical event of these limits being overstepped in a theatre of operations, those civilian or military authorities which deployed AI systems should be held to account, including before the International Criminal Court (ICC);
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses the need for robust testing
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses the need for robust testing and evaluation systems based on clear legal norms to ensure that during the entire lifecycle of AI-enabled systems in the military domain, in particular during the phases of human-
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses the need for robust testing and evaluation systems based on norms to ensure that during the entire lifecycle of
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on Member States to serve as the deciding force for the basis of any agreement, using the international legal precedents in practice for CDSP, NATO and individual command structures to ascertain how best to develop any regulations for AI-enabled systems in the battlefield;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Highlights that the security and defence policies of the European Union
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Highlights that any AI-enabled system used in the military domain must, as a minimum set of requirements, be able to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants on the battlefield,
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Highlights that any AI-enabled system used in the military domain must, as a minimum set of requirements, be able to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants on the battlefield, not have indiscriminate effects, not cause unnecessary suffering to persons, not be biased or be trained on biased data, and be in compliance with the IHL principles of military necessity, proportionality in the use of force and precaution prior to engagement; underlines the importance of the quality of algorithms, original data and ex-ante review of decision-making processes;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Highlights that any AI-enabled system used in the military domain, particularly by NATO members, must, as a minimum set of requirements, be able to distinguish between combatants and non- combatants on the battlefield, not have indiscriminate effects, not cause unnecessary suffering to persons, not be biased or be trained on biased data, and be in compliance with the IHL principles of military necessity, proportionality in the use of force and precaution prior to engagement;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Highlights that any AI-enabled system used in the military domain must, as a minimum set of requirements, be able to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants on the battlefield, not have indiscriminate effects, not cause unnecessary suffering to persons, not be biased or be trained on biased data, and be in compliance with the IHL general principles of military necessity
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Highlights that any AI-enabled system used in the military domain must, as a minimum set of requirements, be able to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Stresses that any international legal framework for AI must take into consideration the more pressing developments taking place in quantum computing which represents the most revolutionary change in operational capability in conflict since the advent of atomic weaponry and thus urges that the advancement of quantum computing technologies and a viable legal framework for them should be apriority for the Union and Member States;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Stresses that in the use of AI- enabled systems in security and defence, full situational understanding of the operator, predictability and reliability of the AI-enabled system ability to detect possible changes in circumstances and
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Stresses that in the use of AI- enabled systems in security and defence, full situational understanding of the human operator, as well as the human operator's ability to detect possible changes in circumstances and
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Stresses that in the use of AI- enabled systems in security and defence,
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Stresses that in tactical scenarios, AI techniques such as reinforcement learning, which allows machines to share their experiences and optimal solutions among themselves have proven to be a critical asset in military campaigns, leading to the evolution of a highly optimized, robust mission intelligence that is effective at fulfilling objectives set by military command and are in compliance with existing IHL principles;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Highlights that the security and defence policies of the European Union and its Member States are guided by the principles of the UN Charter, and by a common understanding of the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, of human dignity, 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 while promoting peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Calls on states to carry out an assessment of how autonomous military devices have contributed to their national security and what their national security can gain from AI-enabled weapon systems, in particular as regards the potential of such technologies to reduce human error, thus enhancing the implementation of IHL principles; reminds that any given LAWS or weapon with a high degree of autonomy could malfunction on account of badly written code or a cyber-attack perpetrated by an enemy state or a non- state actor; calls on Member States to clearly define and communicate the expected economic, diplomatic and military consequences third actors engaging in cyber-attacks against European weapons with a high degree of autonomy will face; believes that the expected reaction must be credible and severe enough to prevent such actions caused by hostile states and other actors;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Calls on states to carry out an assessment of how autonomous military devices have contributed to their national security and what their national security can gain from AI-enabled weapon systems, in particular as regards the potential of such technologies to reduce human error, thus enhancing the implementation of IHL principles; stresses that this vital consideration of international law with regard to possible war crimes and crimes against humanity must also respect countries' strategic autonomy and their capacity to defend themselves;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Calls on states to carry out an assessment o
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Recalls its resolution of 12 September on autonomous weapon systems; welcomes in this respect the agreement of Council and Parliament to exclude lethal autonomous weapons ‘without the possibility for meaningful human control over the selection and engagement decisions when carrying out strikes’ from actions funded under the European Defence Fund;
Amendment 56 #
9a. Calls for the establishment of a European Agency for Artificial Intelligence, which mandate 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 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10.
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Calls on the HR/VP, in the framework of the ongoing discussions on the international regulation of lethal autonomous weapon systems
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Calls on the HR/VP, in the framework of the ongoing discussions on the international regulation of lethal autonomous weapon systems by states parties to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), to help streamline the global debate on core issues
Amendment 6 #
1. Highlights that the security and defence policies of the European Union and its Member States are guided by the principles of the UN 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 while promoting peace, stability, security and progress in Europe and in the world;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Calls on the HR/VP, in the framework of the ongoing discussions on the international regulation of lethal autonomous weapon systems by states parties to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW)
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Calls on the HR/VP, in the
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Calls on the HR/VP, in the framework of the ongoing discussions on the international regulation of lethal autonomous weapon systems by states parties to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), to remain engaged and help streamline the global debate on core issues and definitions where consensus has not been reached, in particular as regards concepts and characteristics of AI-enabled lethal autonomous weapons and their functions in the identification, selection
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Highlights that the European Union needs to strive for strategic resilience so that it is never again found unprepared in times of crisis, and underlines that especially in what artificial intelligence and its military applications are concerned, this is of crucial significance; emphasises that supply-chains for military AI systems that can lead to technological dependence should be recalibrated and such dependencies should be phased-out; calls for increased investment in European AI for defence and in the critical infrastructure that sustains it;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Acknowledges, that modern arms- race dynamics between major military nation states in the development of lethal autonomous weapon systems are outpacing the advance and effective, universal application and enforcement of common rules and legal frameworks, because the development and deployment of these systems are classified and nation states have an inherent interest in creating the fastest and most effective offensive capabilities, irrespective of current and potential future legal frameworks or principles;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 b (new) 10b. Calls on all UN Security Council Members to classify armed, fully autonomous drone swarms as Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) because of their degree of potential harm and innate deficiencies to fully differentiate between military and civilian targets; believes that effective non-proliferation enforcement of these and any future offensive AI-enabled WMD technologies is paramount to global security;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 b (new) 10b. Stresses that, as a global actor, the European Union should pursue the international adoption of its ethical and technical standards in AI-powered military systems; considers that the Union should engage in AI diplomacy in international fora with likeminded partners like the G7, the G20,and the OECD;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 c (new) 10c. Calls for increased cooperation within the NATO Alliance for the establishment of common standards and interoperability of AI-powered military systems; stresses that the transatlantic relationship is crucial in preserving shared values and in countering future and emerging threats;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Calls on the UN and the wider international community to undertake all necessary efforts to ensure that the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in military affairs and the use of AI-enabled systems by the military stay within the strict limits set by international law and international humanitarian law (IHL); recognizes that the primary guarantor of the Euro-Atlantic security is NATO and that an international consensus related to AI regulations must be made in close cooperation with Member States, the North Atlantic Council and like-minded partners as the US, UK, Canada or Japan;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Calls on the UN and the wider international community to undertake all necessary regulatory efforts to ensure that the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in military affairs and in the law enforcement civil capacities, such as police and border control forces, and the use of AI-enabled systems by the military stay within the strict limits set by international law
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Calls on the UN and the wider international community to undertake all necessary efforts to ensure that the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in military affairs and the study, development and use of AI-enabled systems by the military stay within the strict limits set by international law and international humanitarian law (IHL);
source: 652.560
2020/06/05
TRAN
103 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Recital 1 (new) A. Whereas artificial intelligence (AI) is providing unprecedented opportunities to enhance the performance of the transport sector, by addressing the challenges of an increasing travel demand, safety and environmental concerns, while making all transport modes smarter, more efficient, and more comfortable;
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that it follows from Directive (EU) 2018/958 that humans must always bear ultimate responsibility for, and remain in control of, decision-making and actions that involve
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that AI has changed and has helped the development of the transport sector through increasing automation and greater integration and connectivity of transport networks;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that in the COVID-19 health crisis, several Member States have
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that AI has changed and has helped the development of the transport sector through increasing automation and greater integration and connectivity of transport networks; underlines that automation and the integration of AI vary between transport modes; stresses that when further developing AI technologies in the transport sector, there is a need to increase energy efficiency by promoting the use of renewable technologies and to consider the impact on the natural environment and human health;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that in the COVID-19 health crisis, several Member States have launched the development of mobile apps to protect public health by alerting citizens to past contact with someone who has tested positive for the virus; calls for a common EU approach to AI-enabled mobile apps, the development of which must remain under state control; believes that the use of any tracing applications should remain voluntary and the data collected should be anonymous and should not be used neither for commercial nor for law enforcement purposes; stresses that such applications must be available only during the pandemic, and not run nor be usable during normal times;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that AI has changed and has helped the development of the transport sector through increasing automation and greater integration and connectivity of transport networks; underlines that automation and the integration of AI vary between transport modes;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that in the COVID-19 health crisis, several Member States have launched the development of mobile apps to protect public health by alerting citizens to past contact with someone who has tested positive for the virus; calls for a common
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that AI has changed and
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that in the COVID-19 health crisis, several Member States have launched the development of mobile apps to protect public health by alerting citizens to past contact with someone who has tested positive for the virus; calls for a common EU approach to AI-enabled mobile apps, the development of which
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that AI has changed and has helped the development of the transport sector through increasing automation and greater integration and connectivity of transport networks; underlines that, while automation and the integration of AI vary between transport modes
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that in the COVID-19 health crisis, several Member States have launched the development of mobile apps to protect public health by alerting citizens to past contact with someone who has tested positive for the virus; calls for a common EU approach to AI-enabled mobile apps,
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Emphasises the need for further European investments, research, and leadership in technologies with both high economic growth impact as well as significant dual-use potential; notes that considering the global competitive situation, this will require enablers and supporting infrastructure, including energy to hardware, software, network resources and services as well as ensuring the high quality and quantity of data; highlights the need for innovative cross- sectoral uses of data and cooperation between different ecosystem players in order to strengthen Europe’s industrial base on AI;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that in the COVID-19 health crisis, several Member States have launched the development of mobile apps to protect public health by alerting citizens to past contact with someone who has tested positive for the virus; calls for a common EU approach to interoperable, safe and privacy-compliant AI-enabled
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Recalls the continued importance of the human factor even in automated processes; notes the some effects experienced by workers in the automotive industry and the transport sector as a whole, as a consequence of the introduction of AI technologies;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that in the COVID-19 health crisis, several Member States have launched the development of mobile apps to protect public health by alerting citizens to past contact with someone who has tested positive for the virus; calls for a common EU approach to AI-enabled mobile apps, including publication of the underlying source code and ensuring that the development of
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Highlights that the dual use potential in AI-enabled solutions needs to be taken into account when drafting standards for usage of AI in various areas of commercial and military sectors; calls for high ethical standards and policy to be included in developing defence technologies, products and operating principles; underlines the need for sufficient transparency and predictability, reliability of technology, high quality deployment and proper training of personnel using AI based systems;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that i
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Recalls that the principle of proportionality in international law 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 act
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Recalls the benefits of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS), a seamless automatic train protection system replacing incompatible national ones, the full deployment of which is key for the creation of a Single European Rail Area, as regards reliability, capacity, costs, safety, speed and maintenance; supports its full deployment and its continuous establishment as a global automatic train protection (ATP) system;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Recalls that the principles of
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the Commission’s White Paper on AI and supports the EU ambition to be one of the global AI leaders while strengthening cooperation with like- minded actors; highlights one of the key outcomes of the White Paper - AI systems should empower human beings and benefit all human beings;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that it follows from Directive (EU) 2018/958 that humans must always bear ultimate responsibility for decision-making that involves risks to the achievement of public interest objectives; underlines that any AI technology should be subject to human oversight;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Supports the development and international standardisation of the automation of train operations; encourages the development of automated slot allocation in various transport modes and the use of AI in logistics and other areas of
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Recalls that the principle of proportionality needs to be respected and that questions of causality and liability need to be clarified to determine
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Supports the development and international standardisation of the automation of train operations; encourages the development of automated slot allocation in various transport modes and the use of AI in logistics and other areas of transport, always in respect of the precautionary principle enshrined in Art. 191 of the TFEU;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Recalls that the principle of proportionality needs to be respected and that questions of causality and liability
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Supports the development and international standardisation of the automation of train operations; encourages the development of automated slot allocation in various transport modes and the use of AI in logistics and other areas of
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. 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, without breaching obligations stemming from international law, such as due process;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Supports the development and international standardisation of the automation of train operations; encourages the development of automated slot allocation in various transport modes and the use of AI in logistics and other areas of transport to enhance transport safety and efficiency;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Urges, therefore, the Member States to assess the risks related to AI- driven technologies before automating
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Welcomes the work of the Single European Sky ATM Research project (SESAR) in the area of unmanned aircraft systems and air traffic management systems, both civil and military;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Welcomes the work of the Single European Sky ATM Research project (SESAR) in the area of unmanned aircraft systems and air traffic management systems, both civil and military; stresses that global interoperability and harmonisation on a technical level constitutes a sine qua non for a safe, functional and secure global air traffic management system; encourages the Commission and the Member States to promote SESAR internationally and to contribute to the work of international organisations such as ICAO or IATA in this regard;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Urges, therefore, the Member States to assess the risks related to AI- driven technologies before automating activities connected with the exercise of State authority, such as the proper administration of justice; calls on the Member States to consider the need to provide for safeguards, foreseen in Directive (EU) 2018/958, such as supervision and monitoring by a qualified professional and rules on professional ethics;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Recalls that both civil and military use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), commonly referred to as drones, has increased; highlights the potential, among other, that drone deliveries, drone inspections, and drone surveillance hold for citizens and society; urges the EU to cooperate on the international level to develop two separate set of international norms for civil and military drone use; stresses the need for the EU to be a norm- setter on UAV legislation, respecting the values enshrined in its Treaties;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Urges, therefore, the Member States to assess the risks related to AI- driven technologies before automating activities connected with the exercise of State authority, such as the proper administration of justice; calls on the Member States to consider the need to provide for safeguards,
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Recalls that autonomous vehicles have great potential to improve mobility, safety, and bring environmental benefits; welcomes in this regard the UNECE World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations adopting the Framework Document for Automated Vehicles; notes the work of the new AI technical committee of the International Organization for Standardization;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Urges, therefore, the Member States to assess the risks related to AI- driven technologies before automating activities connected with the exercise of State authority, such as the proper administration of justice; calls on the Member States to consider the need to provide for safeguards, foreseen in Directive (EU) 2018/958, such as supervision by a qualified professional and rules on professional ethics, particularly to ensure that such automation does not in any way affect or interfere with the fundamental rights of citizens;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Calls on the European Commission to propose an effective approach to ensure a clear international legal framework for the driver concept, and relevant issues of responsibility and liability, within the meaning of the UN Conventions and other international traffic laws;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Urges, therefore, the Member States to assess the risks related to AI- driven technologies before automating activities connected with the exercise of State authority, such as the proper administration of justice; calls on the Member States to consider the need to provide for safeguards, foreseen in Directive (EU) 2018/958, such as supervision by a qualified professional and rules on professional ethics; emphasises the need for proper transposition and implementation of this Directive by the Member States, and encourages the Commission to closely monitor the matter;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to participate in the international regulatory activities and discussions on autonomous vehicles, especially in the area of safety and liability, while ensuring cooperation among regulators
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Recalls that the first offensive use of weapons based on artificial intelligence have been cyberattacks which directly or indirectly affect EU citizens and companies, with techniques ranging from political hacking to stealing of trade secrets; therefore urges the Member States and the Commission to take those threats seriously and invest heavily to achieve a high level of overall digital literacy, security research and use of open-source technology to reduce dependencies on third-country vendors and strengthen the single market;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the Commission’s White Paper on AI and supports the EU ambition to be one of the global AI leaders while strengthening cooperation with like- minded actors; notes that addressing AI in defence at the European level is indispensable for the development of European capabilities;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to participate in the international regulatory activities and discussions on autonomous vehicles, especially in the area of safety, while ensuring cooperation among regulators and vehicle manufacturers relevant to the deployment of automated vehicles in road traffic in the EU; calls for standardised geographic input data and stresses the need for accuracy of such data; calls on the Commission also to consult manufacturers of autonomous vehicles on a regular basis and to take into account the factors and legal aspects they consider to be limiting in the context of the deployment of automated vehicles on EU roads;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Stresses that robots as mechanical objects should fall under the definition of machinery set by the directive on machinery (2006/42/EC) and should be designed and assembled in compliance with the standards and safety measures provided therein, as well as with the provisions on placing the machinery on the market and putting it into service;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to participate in the international regulatory activities and discussions on autonomous vehicles, especially in the area of safety, while ensuring cooperation among regulators and vehicle manufacturers relevant to the deployment of automated vehicles in road traffic in the EU; calls for
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Insists on the importance of adapting digital skills to scientific progress involving AI-driven solutions for individuals exercising regulated professions, including activities connected with the exercise of the powers of State authority, such as the administration of justice; calls on the Member States and the Commission to take this duly into account as part of the implementation of Directive 2005/36/EC;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to participate in the international regulatory activities and discussions on autonomous vehicles, especially in the area of safety, while ensuring cooperation among regulators, suppliers and vehicle manufacturers relevant to the deployment of automated vehicles in road traffic in the EU; calls for standardised geographic input data and stresses the need for accuracy of such data;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Underlines that self-driving cars, ships and other means of transportation may ultimately operate transnationally and that this can raise new questions of interpretation and application of international law; urges the Commission to engage with international partners on this matter;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Urges the Commission establish an exchange good practices between Member States; calls on it also to continue to promote AI research in the field of transport;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 c (new) 4c. Considers that the development of AI also entails opportunities to improve global market surveillance and address product safety, counterfeiting and consumer protection in a much more effective way and on a large scale;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Further welcomes any attempts by Member States for improving national infrastructures and supporting the establishment of supervisory mechanisms in order to ensure safety and oversight;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that Member States, regional and local authorities and the Commission should promote AI technologies that work for people; calls on the Member States and regional and local authorities, in close cooperation with the Commission, to develop AI applications aimed at automating and facilitating e- government services, for example in the area of tax administration; calls for such e- government services to be offered also in regional and minority languages of the EU; underlines that explainable algorithms are important to ensure that businesses and consumers benefit from better, non- discriminatory and reliable public services at a lower cost.
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Notes that the deployment of AI in transport, in particular where civil and military uses are interlinked, should be compliant with EU data protection and privacy law;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that Member States and the Commission should promote AI technologies that work for people; calls on the Member States, in close cooperation with the Commission, to develop AI applications aimed at automating and facilitating e-government services, for example in the area of tax administration; underlines that explainable
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Recalls the current comprehensive discussions in the International Maritime Organization on integrating new and emerging technologies, such as autonomous ships, in the regulatory
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that Member States and the Commission should promote AI technologies that work for people; calls on the Member States, in close cooperation with the Commission, to develop
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Recalls the current comprehensive discussions in the International Maritime Organization on effectively integrating new and emerging technologies where appropriate, such as autonomous ships, in the regulatory framework; recalls the importance of supporting and complementing where appropriate national efforts aimed towards improving and modernising existing infrastructure and resources, in accordance with Member States;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that Member States and the Commission should promote AI technologies that work for people; calls on the Member States, in close cooperation with the Commission, to develop AI applications aimed at automating and facilitating e-government services, for example in the areas of tax administration, customs and consumer protection; underlines that explainable algorithms are important to ensure that businesses and consumers benefit from better
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that Member States and the Commission should promote AI technologies that work for people; calls on
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Stresses how intelligent transport systems mitigate traffic congestion and contribute to improving efficiency and mobility solutions; draws attention to the increased exposure of traditional transport networks to cyber threats
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that Member States and the Commission should promote AI technologies that work for people; calls on the Member States, in close cooperation with the Commission, to develop AI applications aimed at automating and facilitating e-government services, for example in the area of tax administration; underlines that explainable, unbiased and transparent algorithms are important to ensure that businesses and consumers benefit from better, non-
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Recalls its previous positions on lethal autonomous weapons and the necessity to develop an EU common position on lethal autonomous weapon systems ensuring meaningful human control over the critical functions of weapon systems, including during deployment;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Stresses how intelligent transport systems mitigate traffic congestion and contribute to improving efficiency and mobility solutions; draws attention to the increased exposure of traditional transport networks to cyber threats; points to the need for more effective transport AI data protection and calls on the Commission to continue working with Member States on data security and protection;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that Member States and the Commission should promote AI technologies that work for people; calls on the Member States, in close cooperation with the Commission, to develop AI applications aimed at automating and facilitating e-government services, for example in the area of tax administration; underlines that explainable algorithms are important to ensure that businesses and consumers benefit from better, accessible, fast, non-
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Stresses how intelligent transport systems mitigate traffic congestion and contribute to improving efficiency and mobility solutions; draws attention to the increased exposure of traditional transport networks to cyber threats; recalls the importance of a human-centric approach and further research and development of cyber-security software and other protective measures to ensure the safety of automated systems;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that Member States and the Commission should promote AI technologies that work for people; calls on the Member States, in close cooperation with the Commission, to develop AI applications aimed at automating and facilitating e-government services, for example in the area of tax administration; underlines that explainable algorithms are
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Stresses how intelligent transport systems can mitigate traffic congestion, increase safety and accessibility and contribute to improving efficiency and mobility solutions; draws attention to the increased exposure of traditional transport networks to cyber threats and underlines in that regard that the security risks of intelligent transport systems and autonomous vehicles need to be addressed;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Insists that the Member States and the Commission protect European companies against political sanctions imposed by third countries in the area of public procurement and in the military or civilian sphere: the extraterritorial application of foreign law should not serve as a pretext for the use of artificial intelligence tools when providing services on European territory, even if the tools in question have been bought or developed using technologies which, in full or in part, come from outside Europe.
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Stresses how intelligent transport systems mitigate traffic congestion, improve the management of traffic flows and contribute to improving efficiency, safety and mobility solutions; draws attention to the increased exposure of traditional transport networks to cyber threats; calls for increased efforts and resources to address these new challenges at EU level;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Notes that public procurement programmes supporting joint procurement of defence products exclude the procurement of defence products which are prohibited by applicable international law; further notes that the Parliament’s position concerning the future European Defence Fund specifies this exclusion, as regards autonomous weapons systems, without prejudice to the possibility to procure early warning or countermeasure systems which are used for defensive purposes.
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Stresses how intelligent transport systems mitigate traffic congestion and contribute to improving efficiency and mobility solutions; draws attention to the increased exposure of traditional transport networks to cyber threats; welcomes the Commission’ s intention to include cybersecurity as a regular agenda item for discussion within transport related international organisations;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Recalls that the Parliament foresaw in its resolution of 16 February 2017 on Civil Law Rules on Robotics the possibility that artificial intelligence may become an independent subject of civil law, which would have significant implications for the functioning of the single market; urges therefore the Commission to monitor and analyse developments of this matter in both international law and the domestic laws of the Member States.
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Supports the use of machine learning AI using big data for the optimization of long term performance, maintenance, failure prediction and construction planning of transport infrastructure and buildings, including factors such as safety energy efficiency or costs;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Considers that AI technologies and network systems should aim towards legal certainty for citizens and consumers; therefore underlines that the conflict of laws and of jurisdictions rules should apply, while taking into account the consumer interest and the risk of forum shopping, and that the efforts to fight unjustified geo-blocking should be pursued.
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Welcomes the efforts to introduce AI systems in the public sector and will
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Insists that European competition and public procurement law be updated in order to promote the emergence of world- class AI players based in Europe;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Welcomes the efforts to introduce AI systems in the public sector and will support further discussions on AI deployment in transport; calls on the Commission to carry out an evaluation of the use of AI and similar technologies in the transport sector and to compile a non- exhaustive list of high-risk segments in the context of AI systems possibly replacing public decisions in this area;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Stresses that AI network systems, especially when designed for use in the military area or for matters of national security, might infringe rights or interests and cause accidents harming individuals or society as a whole, and must abide by ethical and technical standards to be determined between the competent supervisory authorities at Union and national levels but also worldwide; calls for the establishment of jurisdictional authorities competent to handle such infringements and ensure proper redress.
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. Recalls its resolution of 12 September 2018 on autonomous weapons systems; repeats its demand for a ban on the production, development, and use of fully autonomous weapons which enable strikes to be carried out without human intervention; urges the Commission and the Member States to launch a broad international policy dialogue aiming to establish global legal standards on and legal and ethical limitations to the development, proliferation and use of increasingly autonomous weapon systems, e.g. in the form of a binding international agreement.
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Underlines that the
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 d (new) 5d. Calls for the Union to establish a governance and market surveillance structure for AI-based systems to issue guidance, opinions and expertise to Member States’ authorities.
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Underlines that the EU should act as a global AI norm-setter in the areas of civil and military use and of state authority, with an effective strategy aimed at strengthening its influence on shaping global standards; calls on the Commission and the Member States to advocate for broader cooperation within the UN, OECD, G7, G20 and other international fora in order to promote the EU approach to AI, emphasising the fundamental rights, freedoms and values that are enshrined in the EU Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and international human rights law; with the increasing importance of research and development in the private sector, and massive investments from third countries such as the United States and China, Europe is facing competition and is, simultaneously, at risk of losing its strategic autonomy;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Recalls that the obligation to respect and protect the dignity of the human person is a general principle of international law, the source and the main pillar of all fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter, common to the constitutional traditions of EU Member States; stresses therefore that the principle of human dignity should always be the ultimate pattern of control when interpreting and applying the law on artificial intelligence and the essential element establishing the human-centric approach to artificial intelligence, directing its use towards the good of individuals, groups of users, consumers and society as a whole;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Underlines that the European Defence Fund and Permanent Structured Cooperation should stimulate cooperation between Member States and European defence industries to develop new European defence capabilities in the field of AI and ensure security of supply, taking ethical considerations into account; emphasises the need to avoid fragmentation by building bridges between various actors and application domains by promoting compatibility and interoperability in all levels and by focusing on common architectural level work and platform solutions; recalls, moreover, that the next Connecting Europe Facility, which also encourages smart infrastructure, will provide for a fund for the development of civilian/military dual- use transport infrastructure with a view to improving military mobility within the Union.
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Underlines that the European Defence Fund and Permanent Structured Cooperation should stimulate cooperation between Member States and European defence industries to develop new European defence capabilities in the field of AI and ensure security of supply, taking ethical considerations into account; recalls, moreover, that the next Connecting Europe Facility, which also encourages smart infrastructure, will provide for a fund for the
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Points out that the effective transportation of goods, ammunition, armaments, and troops is an essential component of successful military operations; stresses that AI is expected to play a crucial roles in the military logistics and transport; points out that different countries across the world, including European Members States, are embedding AI weapons and other systems used on land, naval, airborne platforms; recalls that AI application in the transport sector could provide for new capabilities and allow new form of tactics, like the combination of many systems such as drones, unmanned boats or tanks in an independent and coordinated operation.
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Draws attention to the ongoing international debate on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS); calls on the EU to carefully assess and analyse the interaction between LAWS and transport infrastructure due to safety and privacy implications, amongst others.
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 b (new) 11b. Recalls that an international agreement to regulate emerging military technologies, such as lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), has so far failed to be reached and points out the EU, as a whole, has only recently agreed to discuss on the effects of AI developments and digitalisation on the defence sector; believes that the EU can play a crucial role in helping Member States in harmonising their approach to military AI, in order to lead the international discussions.
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Underlines that the EU should act as a global AI norm-setter in the areas of civil and military use and of state authority, with an effective strategy aimed at strengthening its influence on shaping global standards; calls on the Commission and the Member States to advocate for broader cooperation within the UN, OECD, G7, G20 and other international fora in order to promote the EU approach to AI, emphasising the fundamental rights, freedoms and values that are enshrined in the EU Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and international human rights law; notes that autonomous weapon systems, as a particular category of AI in military domain, should be discussed and agreed internationally, specifically in the UN CCW forum;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Underlines that the EU should act as a global AI norm-setter in the areas of civil and military use and of state authority, with an effective strategy aimed at strengthening its influence on shaping global standards; calls on the Commission and the Member States to advocate for broader cooperation within the UN, OECD, G7, G20 and other international fora in order to promote the EU approach to AI, emphasising the fundamental rights, freedoms and values that are enshrined in the EU Treaties, the Charter of
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Calls on the Commission to increase cooperation at the international level on AI, coordinating work on AI with the OECD and promoting our future EU model on AI on the international scene; believes that the G7 and G20 are also major fora where the EU can play a determining role, as a first step to reaching a global consensus in the UN;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Underlines that the EU should act as a global AI norm-setter in the areas of civil and military use and of state authority, with an effective strategy aimed at strengthening its influence on shaping global standards; calls on the Commission and the Member States to advocate for broader
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Takes note of the significant economic potential of AI applications; underlines that many investments into new technologies in the field of transport and mobility are market-driven, but dual- use commercial off-the-shelf technologies and products are often used in an innovative way for military purposes; highlights the importance of maintaining European competitiveness in this respect;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
source: 652.622
2020/07/28
LIBE
82 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Citation 1 (new) – having regard to Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Citation 10 (new) – having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 11 December 2019 on The European Green Deal,
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Citation 11 (new) – having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics1a, 1a OJ C 252, 18.7.2018, p. 239.
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Citation 12 (new) – having regard to the OECD Council Recommendation on Artificial Intelligence adopted on 22 May 2019,
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Citation 13 (new) – having regard to its resolution of 12 September 2018 on autonomous weapon systems1a, 1aEuropean Parliament resolution of 12 September 2018 on autonomous weapon systems (2018/2752(RSP)) https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/doc ument/TA-8-2018-0341_EN.html
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Recital A (new) A. whereas the development and design of so-called ‘artificial intelligence’, robotics and related technologies is done by humans, and their choices determine the potential of technology to benefit society;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Recital B (new) B. whereas ethical guidance, such as the principles adopted by the High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence, provides a good starting point but is not enough to ensure that businesses act fairly and guarantee the effective protection of individuals;
Amendment 16 #
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion paragraph 1 Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion paragraph 1 1. Sees the great potential offered by the use and development of artificial intelligence as an opportunity for more rapid economic development in the EU; stresses however that in order to harness these opportunities the EU should adopt an appropriate legal framework to mitigate the risks, ensure its ethical use, and prevent its use for malicious purposes; such a framework should clearly determine appropriate liability, accountability, security and traceability regimes;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Citation 2 (new) – having regard to Articles 10, 19, 21 and 167 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Recalls that the European Parliament has already called twice, in 2014 and 2018, for a ban on (lethal) autonomous weapons (LAWs);
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Notes the regulatory advances that some Member States have made; emphasises the importance of a common European approach;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion paragraph 1 b (new) 1 b. Emphasises that lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) have the potential to fundamentally change warfare, dramatically accelerate the speed and sequence of hostile military interactions and trigger unprecedented arms races; emphasises also that the use of LAWS raises fundamental ethical and legal questions over human control, in particular with regard to critical functions such as target selection and engagement; and stresses the fact that the use of LAWS raises key questions about the applicability of international human rights law and international humanitarian law with regard to future military actions;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion paragraph 1 b (new) 1 b. Notes concerns that Artificial Intelligence, when improperly designed and developed, may lead to bias and discrimination; commits to finding regulatory and policy solutions to ensure that discrimination is not enforced but rather, eliminated, through the use of existing and emerging technologies;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion paragraph 1 c (new) 1 c. Recalls the August 2017 open letter from 116 founders of leading robotics and artificial intelligence companies to the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which stated that ‘lethal autonomous weapons threaten to become the third revolution in warfare...[which]...will permit armed conflict to be fought at a scale greater than ever, and at timescales faster than humans can comprehend,' and warned that 'Once this Pandora’s box is opened, it will be hard to close'1a; 1a https://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~tw/ciair//op en.pdf
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion paragraph 1 c (new) 1 c. Stresses the importance of training civil and military personnel in the revised Coordinated Plan on Artificial Intelligence, also in close cooperation with Member States, in the proper deployment and use of Artificial Intelligence, including in the accurate identification of data drift during machine learning, to avoid discrimination and bias in data sets;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion paragraph 1 d (new) 1 d. Recalls the Chemical Weapons Convention banning the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors; recalls the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction; notes that prohibitions on the production and use of entire categories of weapons has strong global precedents;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion paragraph 2 2. Stresses that the use, creation and management of artificial intelligence must respect
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Citation 3 (new) – having regard to the right to petition enshrined in Articles 20 and 227 of the TFEU and Article 44 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EUCFR),
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;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion paragraph 2 2. Stresses the fact that the use, creation and management of artificial intelligence must respect the fundamental rights, values and
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion paragraph 2 2. Stresses that the use, creation and management of artificial intelligence must respect the fundamental rights, values and freedoms expressed in the EU Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in the
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion paragraph 2 2. Stresses that the use, creation and management of artificial intelligence must respect the fundamental rights, values and freedoms expressed in the EU Treaties and in the idea underpinning the creation of the European Union; welcomes the publication of the Commission's White Paper on Artificial Intelligence and encourages deeper research into the use of Artificial Intelligence by state authorities and restraint by all Member States before deploying artificial intelligence systems that can pose threats to fundamental rights in the public sector; 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;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion paragraph 2 2. Stresses that the
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Calls on the Commission Vice- President / High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) to take the lead in urging all states to progress global negotiations on an AI arms control regime without any delay, and to update all existing Treaty instruments dedicated to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation so as to provide for a ban on the development, use and proliferation of AI-enabled autonomous weapons systems in warfare, regardless of the degree of automation; calls also for the VP/HR, the Member States and the Council to urgently develop and adopt a common position banning the development, use and proliferation of autonomous weapon systems systems, regardless of the degree of automation;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion 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 38 #
Draft opinion paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Recalls that AI may give rise to biases and thus to various forms of discrimination such as gender, race, color, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, agesexual orientation, gender expression and sex characteristics; in this regard, recalls that everyone’s rights must be ensured and that AI initiatives must not be discriminatory in any form;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Stresses that a comprehensive AI regulatory and strategic framework is needed at EU level in the field of security and defence, that is based on responsibility, protecting our citizens, preserving peace, preventing conflicts and strengthening international security which could be a basis for international norms and standards;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion paragraph 2 b (new) Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion 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 42 #
Draft opinion paragraph 2 c (new) 2 c. Stresses, in light of the complexity of AI-enabled weapons systems and systems and the fact that emergence is a typical property of AI technologies, the difficulty of either defining or monitoring ‘meaningful human oversight’ of autonomous weapons, in particular in the theatre of war; emphasises that lengthy negotiations over definitions and monitoring of meaningful human oversight of weapons of different degrees of autonomy will inevitably result in technological development rapidly outpacing regulation and the deployment of lethal autonomous weapons before any adequate regulatory framework is in place; insists that the precautionary principle necessitates an immediate ban on the development and use of all autonomous weapons, not just fully autonomous weapons;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion 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 44 #
Draft opinion paragraph 2 d (new) 2 d. Notes that data-driven algorithmic tools process large amounts of data quickly, extract patterns from the data that humans cannot otherwise detect, and make reliable predictions; the processing, sharing of, access to and use of such data must be governed in accordance with the requirements of quality, integrity, transparency, security, privacy and control; Stresses the need all over the development, deployment and use of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, to respect the EU legal framework on data protection and privacy in order to increase citizens’ safety and trust in those technologies;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion paragraph 2 d (new) 2 d. Calls for an end to all research into the progressive automation of weapons systems; deplores and calls for an end to the AI ‘arms race’;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion paragraph 2 e (new) 2 e. Calls that the artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, including the software, algorithms and data used or produced by such technologies, regardless of the field in which they are used, should be developed in a secure and technically rigorous manner and in good faith;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion paragraph 3 Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion paragraph 3 3. Notes that the use of artificial intelligence
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion paragraph 3 3. Notes th
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion 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,
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion paragraph 3 3. Notes that artificial intelligence has great potential in the fight against crime, online terrorist content and cybercrime; calls on the Parliament and the Council to conclude negotiations on the Terrorist Content Online Regulation; considers that, in each of these cases, there must be certainty that its use does not lead to the unjustified deletion or blocking of content and thus to the censorship of or discrimination against views expressed online, except where this concerns illegal content online;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion paragraph 3 3. Notes that artificial intelligence has
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Observes that AI is used to manipulate face- and audiovisual characteristics, often referred to as deepfakes; Notes that this technique can be used to promote terrorist and other illegal views and to disseminate disinformation; Asks the Commission therefore to impose an obligation for all deepfake material or any other realistically made synthetic videos, to state it's not original, a strict limitation when used for electoral purposes and strong enforcement;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Considers that artificial intelligence could contribute to strengthening the area of freedom, security and justice also with regards to the management of the common borders;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Considers that artificial intelligence could contribute to strengthening the area of freedom, security and justice also with regards to the management of the common borders;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion paragraph 3 b (new) 3 b. Emphasises the importance of the protection of personal data and privacy; Observes the rapid development of AI applications to recognise unique characteristic elements, such as facial, movements and attitudes; Warns for interferences of privacy, non- discrimination and the protection of personal data with the use of automated recognition applications; Calls on the Commission to consider an absolute ban on the use of facial recognition systems in the public space and in premises meant for education and (health) care and a moratorium on the deployment of facial recognition systems for law enforcement in semi-public spaces, such as airports, until the technical standards can be considered fully fundamental rights compliant, results derived are non- discriminatory, and there is public trust in the necessity and proportionality for the deployment of such technologies;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion paragraph 3 b (new) 3 b. Stresses that persons should have the right to access, manage and control their data in AI-enabled systems and information should be available to them on what type of information the system is allowed to record. for how long the data is stored and who can have access to that information;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion paragraph 4 4. Stresses that all operations u
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Citation 6 (new) – having regard to the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Protocol No 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages,
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion paragraph 4 4. Stresses that all operations undertaken by artificial intelligence must always remain under human supervision
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion 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 62 #
Draft opinion 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 63 #
Draft opinion paragraph 4 4. Stresses that all operations
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion paragraph 4 4. Stresses that all
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion paragraph 4 4. Stresses that all operations undertaken by artificial intelligence must always remain under human supervision
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Calls for algorithmic explainability, transparency and regulatory oversight when artificial intelligence is used by public authorities, and impact assessments to be conducted before tools resorting to Artificial Intelligence technologies are deployed by state authorities, emphasises the importance of verifying how Artificial Intelligence technologies arrived at a decision or command when deployed in high-risk environments; recalls that humans must always bear ultimate responsibility for decision-making;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Considers it necessary to create a clear and fair international regime for assigning legal responsibility for adverse consequences produced by these advanced digital technologies; underlines that the first and foremost aim must be to pre- empt such consequences; thus calls for the consequent application of the precautionary principle for all applications of AI in this area;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion 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 69 #
Draft opinion paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Calls on the member states to make information available regarding the AI systems used by the public sector in an easily-readable and accessible manner;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Citation 7 (new) – having regard to Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin1a (Racial Equality Directive), 1a OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22.
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion paragraph 4 b (new) 4 b. Underlines that any disadvantageous decision about a natural person that is based solely on automated processing, including profiling, and which produces an adverse legal effect concerning the data subject or significantly affects him or her, is prohibited under Union law, unless authorised by Union or Member State law which at least provides for the right to obtain human intervention; reminds that decisions in the exercise of state authority are almost always decisions that have a legal effect on the person affected, due to the executive nature; calls on the Commission, the European Data Protection Board and other independent supervisory authorities to issue guidelines, recommendations and best practices in order to further specify the criteria and conditions for decisions based on profiling and the use of AI for the exercise of state authority, and to engage internationally to develop an international legal framework;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion paragraph 4 b (new) 4 b. Is deeply concerned about the deep fake technologies that allow increasingly realistic photo, audio and video forgeries that could be used for blackmailing, to generate false news reports, erode public trust and influence public discourse; underlines that AI also enables comprehensive behavioral profiling using digital footprint of a person which can also be used for targeted influence operations or blackmailing; both practices have the potential of destabilizing countries, spreading disinformation and influence elections; calls for adequate research in this regard to ensure that countering technologies keep pace with the malicious use of AI;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion 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 73 #
Draft opinion paragraph 4 c (new) 4 c. calls for a ban on automated, non- contestable legal and/or administrative decision-making; Underlines that in the exercise of state authority, the final decision always needs to be taken by a human, who can be held accountable for the decisions made, and include the possibility of a recourse for a remedy; points out however to the risks in decisions made by humans if solely relying on the data, profiles and recommendations generated by machines;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion 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;
Amendment 75 #
4 d. Recalls and fully supports its 12 September 2018 resolution on autonomous weapons; stresses the urgent need to prohibit autonomous weapon systems without meaningful human control and oversight both at EU and international level; calls on the EU to act without delay and adopt a common position in this respect and initiate negotiations at international level leading to a ban of lethal autonomous weapon systems;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion paragraph 4 e (new) 4 e. Stresses the role of IT security both as a tool and a target in attacks on civil and military infrastructure, by both private and state actors; highlights the fact that the lines between private and state attackers continue to be blurred and that the attribution of attackers, and the identification of motivations for attack, continue to be very hard and call for caution and restraint as the potential for obfuscation and falsified evidence is very high due to the nature of IT systems; calls for a review of international concepts of state responsibility against the background of new technologies; notes in this regard the importance of international cooperation and the publication and sharing of vulnerabilities and remedies (fixes and updates); notes in addition the dual-use nature of IT systems in this regard, and calls for effective regulation, including for artificial intelligence applications;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion paragraph 5 Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion paragraph 5 Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion paragraph 5 5. Notes that the situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic means that governments are facing considerable pressure from their citizens to protect their health effectively; considers that the use of artificial intelligence
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Citation 8 (new) – having regard to Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation1a (Equal Treatment in Employment Directive), 1a OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion paragraph 5 5. Notes that the situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic means that governments and state authorities are facing considerable pressure from their citizens to protect their health effectively; considers that the use of artificial intelligence can greatly help in the fight against the global pandemic
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion paragraph 5 5. Notes that the situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic means that governments are facing considerable pressure from their citizens to protect their health effectively; considers however that the use of a
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion paragraph 5 5. Notes
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Citation 9 (new) – having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)1a (GDPR), and to Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA1b, 1a OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1. 1b OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89
source: 654.068
2020/09/15
JURI
135 amendments...
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution 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 100 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Considers it essential, where an AI system is used to interact with people in public services,
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Takes the view that persons who
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution 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 on the output from an AI system should be informed thereof
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Takes the view that persons who have been the subject of a decision taken by a public authority based
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Notes that artificial intelligence is playing an increasingly fundamental role in areas such as public health, c
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Insists, nevertheless, that all uses of AI in the area of public health must respect the human dignity of patients and staff and guarantee the protection of
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A b (new) Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Urges that all uses of AI in the area of public health uphold the principle of the equal treatment of patients as regards the accessibility of and access to treatment, preserve the patient-doctor relationship and be consistent with the Hippocratic Oath at all times such that the doctor is always able to deviate from the solution suggested by AI, maintaining responsibility for any decision;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution 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 Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Notes that AI is increasingly being used in the field of justice, t
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Notes that AI is increasingly being
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Notes that AI is increasingly being used in the field of justice, to
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Notes that AI is increasingly being used in the field of justice,
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 a (new) 22 a. Considers that it is necessary to clarify whether it is appropriate for law enforcement decisions to be partially delegated to AI, while maintaining human control over the final decision;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the Union and its Member States have a particular responsibility to make sure that these technologies are human-centred, i.e. basically intended for use in the service of humanity and the common good, in order to contribute to the well-being and general interest of their citizens;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Calls, therefore
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Calls, therefore, for the public to be informed of all such uses of AI in the field of justice and for those uses not to lead to discrimination resulting from programming and to uphold the right of every individual to have access to a judge, as well as the right of every judge to depart from the solution suggested by AI where he or she considers it necessary
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution 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 124 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Notes that, given that an increasing number of disputes under international private law are arising from the internationalisation of human activities, be it on-line or in the real world, AI c
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Notes that, given that an increasing number of disputes under international private law are arising from the internationalisation of human activities, be it on-line or in the real world, AI can help
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution 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 127 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Considers, however, that the public must be properly informed about the uses of AI in international private law and that these uses must not lead to discrimination through programming, which would result in one nation’s laws being systematically favoured over another’s and must respect the rights of the court pre-determined by law, permit appeals in accordance with the applicable law and allow any judge to disregard the solution suggested by AI;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Stresses that the circulation of autonomous vehicles in the European area, 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, with Member States deciding whether or not to apply it;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas AI, robotics and related technologies can be used cross borders; whereas the Union and its Member States have a particular responsibility to make sure that these technologies contribute to the well-being and general interest of the
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Stresses that the circulation of autonomous vehicles
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Stresses that the circulation of autonomous vehicles in the European
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 a (new) 26 a. Stresses that the EU should play a key role in the international efforts to regulate AI and should aim to act as a norm-setter for AI in a hyper-connected world by adopting an efficient strategy towards its external partners, fostering its efforts to set global ethical norms for AI at international level, be it for civil or military uses, in line with safety rules and consumer protection requirements, as well as with European values and fundamental rights;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Recalls that AI is a scientific
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution 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 to fundamental rights democracy and the rule of law being flouted, a principle which has guided the drafting of this report;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 a (new) 27 a. Stresses the five AI defence principles: Responsible, Equitable, Traceable, Reliable, Governable.
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the Union and its Member States have a particular responsibility to make sure that
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution 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 18 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas this particular responsibility implies a need to examine questions of interpretation and application of international law related to the active participation of the EU in international negotiations, in so far as the EU is affected in the areas of civil and military uses of such technologies and questions of state authority vis-à-vis such technologies outside the scope of criminal justice;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas this particular responsibility implies a need to examine questions of interpretation and application of international law in
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 8 a (new) - having regard to the OECD Council Recommendation on Artificial Intelligence adopted on 22 May 2019,
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution 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 21 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the purpose of such an examination is to determine to what extent the rules of international public and private law are geared to dealing with these technologies, and to highlight the challenges and risks which the latter pose for state authority, so that they can be properly and proportionately managed;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the purpose of such an examination is to determine to what extent the rules of international public and private law and EU law are geared to dealing with these technologies, and to highlight the challenges which the latter pose for state authority;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) D a. Whereas the European Commission does not consider the military aspects of the use of artificial intelligence in its White Paper.
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas a harmonised European approach to these problems becomes desirable; it calls for a common definition of AI and for steps to ensure that the the core principles and values of the European Union and principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union are upheld;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas a harmonised approach to these problems calls for a common definition of AI and for steps to ensure that
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E a (new) E a. whereas the principle of proportionality of military action makes the legality of such action conditional on the means used being commensurate with the objective pursued, and on the assessment of said proportionality being made, or expressly approved, by a human being;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Considers that
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution 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 30 #
Motion for a resolution 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 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. ‘Artificial intelligence’ 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;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Considers that
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Considers that all military uses of AI must be subject to human control, so that
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution 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) 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 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Emphasises that use of artificial intelligence provides an opportunity to strengthen the security of the European Union and its citizens and that it is essential for the EU to adopt an integrated approach in future international debates in this area;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Warns that the attribution of values to algorithms does not raise their level to that of human beings, but degrades human dignity, placing it on the same level as that of mere machines;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Stresses the importance of European Union involvement in the creation of an international legal framework for use of artificial intelligence and the need to lay the foundations for comprehensive common framework provisions governing the use of AI for military and other purposes;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution 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 40 #
Motion for a resolution 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) 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) 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) 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 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Recalls that people must always have ultimate responsibility for decision- making processes, which involve a high risk of achieving public interest objectives; Considers that their decision- making process must be traceable, so that the human decision-maker can be identified and held responsible where necessary;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Considers that their decision- making process must be traceable, so that the human decision-maker can be identified and held responsible where necessary; reiterates that autonomous decision-making should not absolve humans from responsibility for an action;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution 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 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Welcomes the possibilities for using artificial intelligence systems for training and exercises, which potential should not be underestimated, especially given that the EU conducts exercises of a dual civilian and military nature
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Considers that any use of systems based on artificial intelligence has to be consistent with the general principles of international humanitarian law, in accordance with the Martens Clause;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas AI, robotics and related technologies
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 b (new) 3 b. Considers that, in addition to supporting operations, AI will also benefit service staff. By massively processing health data and expanding health monitoring, AI will identify risk factors related to the environment and working conditions of the armed forces and propose appropriate safeguards to limit the health impact on service personnel;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Recalls that according to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996, the principle of originality cannot be cited in support of any derogation regarding compliance with current norms of international humanitarian law;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution 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) 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 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Reiterates that
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Highlights that robotics will not only enable service personnel to stay at a distance but also offer better self- protection, as for example with operations in contaminated environments, fire- fighting, mine clearance on land or at sea and defence against drone swarms
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Insists that they must always be consistent with the principle of
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Insists that they must always be consistent with the principles of proportionality, precautions and distinction between combatants and non- combatants, which make
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution 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,
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas AI, robotics and related
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution 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 8. Recalls that
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Recalls that LAWS are weapons capable of identifying a target and deciding to attack it without human intervention, and that the level of threat they pose requires that their use be subject to specific prohibitions
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution 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) 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) 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 66 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Considers that LAWS are lawful only if subject to control sufficiently strict
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Considers that LAWS
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Considers that LAWS
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Considers that LAWS are lawful only if subject to strict control
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) A a. whereas AI is causing a revolution in military doctrine and equipment through a profound change in the way armies operate, owing mainly to the integration and use of new technologies and autonomous capabilities;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution 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) Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 Amendment 73 #
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Recalls that the purpose of the European Defence Fund (EDF) is to finance military research projects conducive to innovation, especially those implementing AI
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15.
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15 a. Notes that the global AI ecosystem is dominated by American and Chinese digital giants, which are developing domestic capabilities and buying many promising companies; therefore urges that, in order to avoid lagging behind in artificial intelligence technology, it is essential to move towards a better balance between basic research and industrial applications, while developing comparative strategic advantages by further building own potential and resources;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution 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 8 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) A a. whereas the respect for human rights, in particular respect for human dignity, as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, should guide any action at European, international or national level within this field;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15 a. Notes that the use of IA for military purposes is a priority for the armed forces of the main global powers; takes the view that any kind of European act or regulation aimed at legislating on such implementation should not prejudice the ability, power, effectiveness or efficiency of the armies of the Member States or of any other NATO country;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15 a. Recalls the ambition of the EU to be a global actor for peace, and calls for the expansion of its role in global disarmament and non-proliferation efforts, and for its actions and policies to strive for the maintenance of international peace and security, ensuring respect for international humanitarian and human rights law and the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution 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 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 b (new) 15 b. Welcomes the fact that various armies are expanding, and investing in, the use of new machines, robots and smart autonomous systems in order to reduce the potential risk for soldiers; considers that such systems should be given priority when it comes to financing projects through the EDF;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 b (new) Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 c (new) 15 c. Recalls that our allies within a national, NATO or EU framework are themselves in the process of integrating AI into their military systems. 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 be set in a European framework, which is the only relevant framework for truly generating powerful synergies, as proposed by the EU’s AI strategy
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 d (new) 15 d. Considers that the EU needs to carefully monitor and deliberate about the implications of AI advances for defense and warfare, including potentially destabilizing developments and deployments and guide ethical research and design, ensuring integrity of personal data and individual access and control, as well as economic and humanitarian issues;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 4 State authority
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 4 State authority: examples from
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution 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 90 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Stresses that Member States must, without significantly distorting the market, ensure that the possession of highly sophisticated AI technologies by powerful private groups does result in the authority of the state being challenged, let alone usurped, by a private authority, especially if those private groups are owned by a third country outside the European Union;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Stresses that Member States must
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Stresses that Member States must ensure that the possession of highly sophisticated AI technologies
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution 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) Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16 a. Recalls that the principle of proportionality needs to be respected and that questions of causality and liability need to be commonly 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 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16 a. Considers, in this respect, that Member States should ensure effective human oversight when employing any type of AI systems which can result in biased State authority decisions and affect negatively citizens rights;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 b (new) 16 b. Calls, therefore, on the Commission, the Council and on the Member States to pay particular attention when negotiating, concluding and ratifying international agreements related to cross-border family cases, such as international child abductions, and to ensure that AI systems are always used under effective human verification and respect due process within the EU and within the countries which are signatories of these agreements;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 b (new) 16 b. Urges the Member States to assess the risks related to AI-driven technologies before automating activities connected with the exercise of State authority, such as the proper administration of justice; calls on the Member States to consider the need to provide for safeguards such as supervision by a qualified professional and strict rules on professional ethics;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 c (new) 16 c. Stresses the importance of taking action at European level to help promote much-needed investment, data infrastructure, research including research into the use of artificial intelligence by public authorities and a common ethical framework
source: 657.364
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2021-12-18Show (20) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/2 |
|
| committees/2 |
|
| committees/4 |
|
| committees/4 |
|
| docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.637&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/IMCO-AD-650637_EN.html |
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AFET-AD-650702_EN.html |
| docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE653.860New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-PR-653860_EN.html |
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TRAN-AD-646912_EN.html |
| docs/4/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE657.364New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-AM-657364_EN.html |
| docs/5/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE652.639New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-AD-652639_EN.html |
| docs/6 |
|
| events/0/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament |
| events/2/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
| events/3/type |
Old
Committee report tabled for plenary, single readingNew
Committee report tabled for plenary |
| events/4 |
|
| events/4 |
|
| events/5 |
|
| events/5/type |
Old
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Decision by Parliament |
2021-02-16Show (17) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref |
129073
|
| committees/2 |
|
| committees/2 |
|
| committees/3/rapporteur/0/mepref |
118949
|
| committees/4 |
|
| committees/4 |
|
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702 |
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912&secondRef=02 |
| docs/5/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE652.639&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE652.639 |
| events/2 |
|
| events/3 |
|
| events/4 |
|
| events/5 |
|
| forecasts |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Procedure completed |
2020-12-09Show (7) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref |
129073
|
| committees/2/rapporteur/0/mepref |
28223
|
| committees/3/rapporteur/0/mepref |
118949
|
| committees/4/rapporteur/0/mepref |
197516
|
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912 |
2020-11-27Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702&secondRef=02 |
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912&secondRef=02 |
| docs/5/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE652.639New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE652.639&secondRef=02 |
2020-11-24Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702 |
2020-11-23Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/5 |
|
| docs/5 |
|
2020-11-18Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702&secondRef=02 |
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912 |
| docs/5 |
|
2020-11-11Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702 |
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912&secondRef=02 |
2020-11-10Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702&secondRef=02 |
2020-11-10Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702 |
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912 |
| forecasts |
|
2020-11-06Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912&secondRef=02 |
2020-11-01Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702&secondRef=02 |
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912 |
2020-10-19Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702 |
2020-10-06Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702&secondRef=02 |
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912&secondRef=02 |
2020-09-27Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702 |
| docs/4 |
|
2020-09-04Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912 |
2020-09-01Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912&secondRef=02 |
2020-08-24Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912 |
2020-08-21Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702&secondRef=02 |
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912&secondRef=02 |
2020-08-19Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702 |
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912 |
2020-07-29Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702&secondRef=02 |
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912&secondRef=02 |
2020-07-28Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702 |
2020-07-24Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702&secondRef=02 |
2020-07-20Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912 |
2020-07-18Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702 |
2020-07-17Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702&secondRef=02 |
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912&secondRef=02 |
2020-07-16Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/2/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE653.860
|
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE646.912 |
2020-07-15Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/3 |
|
2020-07-14Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.702 |
| docs/2 |
|
2020-07-09Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1 |
|
2020-07-07Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs |
|
2020-05-25Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0/shadows/2 |
|
2020-03-05Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/1/rapporteur |
|
2020-02-24Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/2/rapporteur |
|
2020-02-21Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0/shadows/2 |
|
| committees/4 |
|
| committees/4 |
|
2020-02-19Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
2020-02-18Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0/shadows |
|
2020-02-07Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0/rapporteur |
|
2020-01-29Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/5/opinion |
False
|
2020-01-27Show (1) Changes
| committees/4/rapporteur |
|