ABSTRACT

Over the past two years, the international debate on artificial intelligence (AI) regulation has clearly escalated, with several initiatives led by the United Nations (UN), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the Council of Europe (CoE). Furthermore, at a regional level, the European Union (EU, the Union) proposal on a future regulation on AI, and several national strategies, have created fertile ground for a more mature and elaborate debate. In this regard, the initiative of the CoE, with the establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAHAI), with its multi-stakeholder approach, the different legal cultures of Member States and Observers, and stakeholder participation process, offers an interesting case study on the tensions underpinning the ongoing regulatory process. Leaving aside the variety and creativity of ethical guidelines, developing binding provisions on AI entails addressing important and challenging issues relating to the scope of the regulation; the interplay between international, national and soft law; different approaches in crucial areas (dual-use technology, national security, deference, public sector, liability, etc.); and the role and nature of future AI supervisory authorities. In this contribution, we analyse all these different elements not only from a traditional legal perspective, focused on the main outcomes of the CAHAI, but also by looking at the process and highlighting the underlying tensions, different points of view, consultation methodologies and the dynamics that make the dialogue on AI regulation an extremely interesting laboratory for human rights law. The overall focus of our analysis is on the ambitions that characterise the debate on AI regulation, and how the initial high expectations of addressing crucial human rights issues risk being frustrated and limited to a general riskbased approach, as well as a minimalist regulation which looks more to industry and economic benefi ts than to human rights. This is occurring at a time when several academic researchers suggest adopting a broader perspective on the AI industry by considering its entire supply chain from a human rights standpoint, which also has relevance for the role of human rights in international business and competition.