O texto apresentado é obtido de forma automática, não levando em conta elementos gráficos e podendo conter erros. Se encontrar algum erro, por favor informe os serviços através da página de contactos.
Não foi possivel carregar a página pretendida. Reportar Erro

With regards to gender as a cross-cutting issue, the implementation was not there after so many years, and it was essential in all areas they worked on. She said that the Secretary-General of the UN was very strong and spontaneously strong on gender equality whenever he talked about other rights and situations. It was interesting to begin with the idea of whether they were talking about new rights or new challenges in the frameworks that they had, how they could be applied, and how the framework could be interpreted to really apply to these rights. She said that one of the reasons that they had other specialised conventions, frameworks or even binding conventions was that sometimes they needed to have that specificity, even if they could cover it under the general rights. Ms BRANDS KEHRIS agreed with the right to a healthy, clean, sustainable environment at the UN level, just as at the Council of Europe level, citing two landmark resolutions recognising this as a right in the last couple of years: at the Human Rights Council, which passed a Resolution, and the UN General Assembly, which meant that all of the member States passed the Resolution. They needed to continue working on it, and she recognised the Council of Europe’s brilliant work to make sure that they co-operated on bringing this forward and having the binding norms there. Ms BRANDS KEHRIS said that there was very dense commentary about the right to life, referring to her role as a former member of the Human Rights Committee. The general comment no. 36 of the Human Rights Committee on Article 6 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights stated that the right to life was a right to life in dignity, but it specifically also referenced the environment, relating to climate change, pollution, and biodiversity as three aspects in the triple planetary crisis. This comment was also looking out for the rights of present and future generations. Ms BRANDS KEHRIS said that there had been a lot of advances, also at the national level, in making sure that that right was recognised even through court interpretations. They were happy to work together with the Working Group of the Council of Europe for the new technologies, especially as, suddenly, AI had become the topic of the day. She felt there was an advantage of having this fear being expressed in public by some of the leaders, even in developing the technologies, in putting the topic on the global agenda, and making it engaging. She said equality and non-discrimination were the key principles for the environment as well as for new technologies and AI. Another key principle was participation, and accountability, which came together with transparency. Ms BRANDS KEHRIS thought it was positive that people were engaging in becoming aware of what the potential threats were, as well as all of the good things that AI would bring. She listed a series of questions too: How would the safeguards be placed there? What developments needed to be banned altogether, including those not at an extreme level of risk? How would a regulatory framework be created to apply it in a manner compliant with human rights? She also raised the concern of erasing the risk of national security from the coverage of technology, and border management in some cases, and law enforcement which very closely followed on from national security. From a human rights perspective, these were areas that required ensuring that there were systems in place that respected human rights. She wanted to continue the discussion and ensure that the safeguards were there, that they were coherent on the work being done globally with the Parliamentary Assembly’s important work as a regional institution. She wanted to go forward with that promotion of ensuring that they really did respect human rights, both in the development of the technologies and in their production, sale, purchase, and applications: all the way through the entire life cycle of the technologies. Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR asked Ms Nathalie SMUHA, Researcher and Assistant Lecturer, Institute for European Law, KU Leuven, and expert on Artificial Intelligence, about the fears that artificial intelligence would diminish democracy and fuel social unrest, amongst others. She asked how those human rights and fundamental freedoms in the times of fast evolving artificial intelligence could be protected. Ms Nathalie SMUHA,Researcher and Assistant Lecturer, Institute for European Law, KU Leuven, and expert on Artificial Intelligence, gave thanks for her invitation. She agreed there was a profound impact that AI had on society at large, which was a technology centred on human choice as human beings created it and then delegated important decisions to it.

II SÉRIE-D — NÚMERO 63 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

26