This commentary explores the principle of proportionality as a possible solution to unresolved problems pertaining to the tensions among principles in various ethical frameworks for artificial intelligence.

L’UNESCO s’est engagée dans un processus de deux ans pour élaborer le premier instrument normatif mondial sur l’éthique de l’intelligence artificielle sous la forme d’une recommandation. Celle-ci devrait devenir une boussole éthique et un socle normatif permettant d’instaurer le respect de l’État de droit dans le monde numérique.

The Resource Guide on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Strategies is a UN publication laying out existing resources on artificial intelligence ethics, policies and strategies on national, regional and international level.

This working paper provides with background research and information for the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and was used as a starting point for its development.

The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU)—an international organization for regional economic integration in post-Soviet space—has a judicial body aimed at ensuring uniform application of law. The predecessor of the EAEU—the Eurasian Economic Community (EURASEC)—also had its own judicial body. This chapter presents findings on the impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the legal system of the EAEU through the lens of citations of CJEU cases by the EAEU and EURASEC courts. Both courts refer to CJEU case law extensively, sometimes even adopting similar approaches, albeit others choosing to pursue different paths. The chapter shows the relevant statistics, explores the relative impact of citations, presents several prominent examples of judgments, and provides possible explanations of the approaches taken.

The report focuses on one of the most crucial questions of our time — the new forms of competitive interaction in the era of digital capitalism.

Доклад подготовлен ведущими экспертами ряда научных подразделений НИУ ВШЭ – Центра исследований структурной политики, Института статистических исследований и экономики знаний, Института права и развития ВШЭ – Сколково, Института проблем правового регулирования, Информационно-координационного центра по взаимодействию с ОЭСР, Института экономики транспорта и транспортной политики, Института образования. Цель доклада – выделить отдельные вызовы в законодательном реагировании на технологические изменения и предложить возможные принципы «нового регулирования». В докладе выделяется ряд критических с позиций прорывного научно-технологического и экономического развития областей регулирования: регулирование оборота данных; искусственного интеллекта; беспилотного транспорта; рынков криптовалюты, рынков агротехнологий, при этом сопоставляется опыт различных стран, оцениваются преимущества и недостатки различных подходов к регулированию. На их основе обсуждаются новые вызовы в условиях радикальных технологических изменений и отдельные принципы «нового регулирования».

The Eurasian Economic Union (‘EAEU’) – an international organization for regional economic integration in post-Soviet space – has a judicial body aimed at ensuring uniform application of law. This article argues that the EAEU Court will struggle in achieving its aim as there are issues of independence, it has diminished powers, and limits have been imposed on its interpretative practices, at least as compared to its predecessor. This may lead to problems in respecting the rule of law and ‘dis-integrates’ the judiciary in the sense of a common system involving national courts. At the same  time, it is also argued that, although the Court’s procedural and substantive powers have been limited, the attempt to limit certain interpretative powers of the Court can hardly result in meaningful consequences for the development of law.

Ethics and law are inextricably linked in modern society, and many legal decisions arise from the interpretation of various ethical issues. Artificial Intelligence (AI) adds a new dimension to these issues. Systems that use artificial intelligence technologies are becoming increasingly autonomous in terms of the complexity of the tasks they can perform, their potential impact on the world and the diminishing ability of humans to understand, predict and control their functioning. Most people underestimate the real level of autonomy of these systems. They can learn from their own experience and perform actions their creators did not intend them to perform. That generates several ethical and legal difficulties that will be addressed in this article. 

The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) is a regional organization for economic integration in the post-Soviet space. Following the limited success of previous integration attempts, the organization aims to pursue deeper integration, borrowing features from the European Union. The EAEU has at its disposal a complex system of elements that make up a newly emerged legal order. This paper analyzes how these elements compare to those of the EU in order to determine how the legal changes that accompanied the creation of the EAEU affect its functioning and whether its legal order can be considered efficient compared to that of the EU. This article argues that the EAEU lags behind the EU both in terms of the autonomy of its legal order and in its ability to ensure the effective functioning of the organization. The EAEU’s supranational features are limited, as it relies predominantly on intergovernmental elements with a view to preserving the interests of all of its member states.

Eurasian integration has created a new legal order – the so-called “Union law” of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). This legal order has its own narrative, principles, hierarchy of rules, and innovations such as the direct applicability of decisions of its regulatory body. Russian legal order is generally accommodating towards international law, which is equally applicable to Union law. However, the recent practice of the Russian Constitutional Court has claimed that Russia can set aside international obligations based on national constitution, which indirectly targets the viability of the EAEU legal order. This is further complicated by the Eurasian judiciary, which, as the main interpretative authority within the integration, has tried to take on an activist role, somewhat borrowing approaches from the European Union. In its turn, the Russian Constitutional Court has voiced its differences in certain approaches. This variability of practices and approaches clearly undermines the “unity” of the EAEU legal order and the interweaving of national and regional legal frameworks. This article analyses the relationship of the two legal orders to assess the possibilities for tensions between them. It points out the sources of such tensions, which lie in certain indeterminacies within the EAEU legal order, temptations to assert power, and recent far-reaching practices of the  Russian Constitutional Court.

The diffusion of the use of various forms of impact assessments (IAs) in different political settings and legal traditions illustrates its great malleability and the operation of various factors. This diversity is not only reflected in the adoption of different models of IA across the various jurisdictions examined, but also in the way this practice is effectively implemented. Factors explaining the various types of IA implemented in various European jurisdictions include the patterns of diffusion from one country to another, the interaction of politics with expert knowledge and the prevailing ‘evidence eco-system’ in each jurisdiction. The authors illustrate this phenomenon by exploring diffusion patterns not only in terms of the adoption of IA, but also in terms of the adoption of IA types. They do so by introducing a taxonomy developed with the purpose of describing the interaction of politics and expertise in each jurisdiction. The chapter is completed by empirically connecting the diffusion process with the type of IA prevalent in a jurisdiction.

The diffusion of the use of various forms of impact assessments (IAs) in different political settings and legal traditions illustrates the great malleability of the tool. This diversity is not only reflected in the adoption of different models of IA across the various jurisdictions examined, but also in the way this practice is effectively implemented. Factors explaining the various types of IA implemented in various European jurisdictions include the patterns of diffusion from one country to another, the interaction of politics with expert knowledge and the prevailing “evidence eco-system” in each jurisdiction. In this study we explore diffusion patterns, not only in terms of the adoption of the tool of IA, but also in terms of the specific types of IA implemented. We do so by introducing a taxonomy developed with the purpose to describe the interaction of politics and expertise in each jurisdiction. The last part of the chapter empirically connects the diffusion process with the type of IA prevalent in a jurisdiction.