them – there was no mechanism to implement them. If there was no newly created institution to defend them, were they only doing their job halfway? Secondly, if these competences were given to the existing office of the Human Rights Commissioner, which was already overloaded, then he asked if they were actually making the institution less functional, or if a new one could be created to deal with the new generation of human rights within the Council of Europe. He was reluctant to speak about innovation on a UN level. A last remark, he said, beyond this question of duplicating the work and creating a new institution or not, was a call to the President of the Parliamentary Assembly and President of the Committee for Judges to think of a set of clear criteria which could be used in order to have judges admitted to the Court who were open to using international jurisprudence linked to the new generation of human rights, in order to make the cases arriving to the Court of so many thousands of people appealing there relevant. Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR handed the floor to Ms Petra STIENEN. Ms STIENEN thanked the panel for a very lively discussion. She asked Ms HALLGRIMSDÓTTIR, Youth Representative in the Icelandic Climate Council, about her comments on ”the delay matters” and the importance of businesses. She felt that the younger generation was showing how they had purchasing power and voting power to make businesses become more aware of their responsibility. This was her second question. Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR asked the Icelandic Prime Minister if she agreed with Mr BULAI’s reflection that they had to establish new institutions within the Organisation to have a more precise mechanism to defend these new generations of human rights. Ms JAKOBSDÓTTIR, Prime Minister of Iceland, said the primary issue was to have a set of clear criteria when it came to new generation rights and then to think about how to institutionalise it, to deal with it, and implement it, especially since people were often afraid of more and more institutions. She had mentioned earlier that the Court was already dealing with so many issues; up to 300 cases had come to the Court. On the point of AI versus the human elements of compassion, respect, caring, and more, personally, she said there was a lot of talk about the importance of having more education and research into science and technology. She absolutely agreed that was important, but so was the humanities, which was needed to really consider the human aspect of AI. Just like democracy, they were under pressure everywhere on the continent from a really firm belief in technological solutions to everything. They had seen that that did not exactly function for democracy. Technology did not solve everything; they needed to be very mindful of humanities, she concluded. Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR asked Ms HALLGRIMSDÓTTIR about her phrase “the delay matters”, and to answer the question regarding the purchasing power of the young people. Ms HALLGRIMSDÓTTIR said one could fall prey to thinking about the problem of purchasing power in an individualistic manner and put all the responsibility on the consumer, which was often the most concerned about this issue. Today, it was young people. They could not expect all young people to channel all their angst about the climate into researching the most environmentally friendly product, for example. She felt like standardisation and sustainability in climate reporting was very important, so they did not have to do all that research themselves. She said the maturity of the responsibility should be on the people in power so that, for the consumer, the most sustainable option was the easiest, the most affordable and most available at any time, and not to have to make these consumer choices. It would just be evident what they were going to do. She had a general reflection on an additional Protocol, which was related to that, but it was something that came from above. When that was accepted, that would mean that they had confirmed the responsibility of member States to ensure this right, which would have a catalysing effect trickling down and increase the coherence of the jurisprudence on human rights. They could make individual decisions that would have an effect, but she said they should think about this in a more systemic manner, because that is also what the IPCC has been saying. To conclude, it was a systemic revolution that was needed, and they could not put all the pressure on people and consumers alone. Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR thanked Ms HALLGRIMSDÓTTIR. She asked the panellists to give the room a glimpse of hope considering these new emerging challenges, the AI and the danger to democracy and social unrest. She wanted to address the issue of hope via each panellist.

20 DE JULHO DE 2023 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

33