Of the diverse array of contemporary challenges around humanitarian access in armed conflict, a particular set of issues concerns the so-called “criminalization” of humanitarian action under counterterrorism frameworks. This presentation raises some key elements of that set of issues.

In the European Union (EU) and Europe in general, there is currently no legally binding definition of artificial intelligence (AI) nor a common EU framework for the regulation of AI. The EU Independent High Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (AI HLEG) defines AI systems as “software (and possibly also hardware) systems designed by humans that, given a complex goal, act in the physical or digital dimension by perceiving their environment through data acquisition, interpreting the collected structured or unstructured data, reasoning on the knowledge, or processing the information, derived from this data and deciding the best action(s) to take to achieve the given goal.” The European Commission in its white paper emphasized that a definition of AI “will need to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate technical progress while being precise enough to provide the necessary legal certainty.” In particular, the terms “data” and “algorithm” need to be defined. With the exception of autonomous vehicles, there are not many AI-specific binding rules yet. A common EU legal framework, which has been proposed in the European Commission's white paper, will build trust and provide legal certainty for consumers and businesses.

A preliminary observation relates to the formalities of debating a question such as the present; in such a situation, the best way to win the debate is to interpret the motion such that you cannot lose. Those speaking for the motion have defined “expansive” as meaning undue or excessive, and no one would disagree with that proposition if that is the correct interpretation.

Thank you very much Professor Padideh Ala'i for that very kind introduction. I would also like to thank you Dean Camille A. Nelson of the Washington College of Law and the Society for this really special honor of inviting me to give the Grotius Lecture this year. I also thank the President of the Society, Catherine Amirfar, for her leadership and stewardship. My thanks too to my friend, Fleur Johns, for accepting to be the discussant for this lecture. Like you, I look forward to her response very much.

The theme of this panel is “Privatizing International Governance.” As the opening vignettes should make clear, public-private partnerships of all kinds are increasingly common in the international system. Since United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan's launch of the Global Compact in 2000, the United Nations has increasingly opened up to business entities. Now, the Sustainable Development Goals, the Global Compact, and the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights all encourage engaging with business entities as partners in developing and executing global governance agendas. These partnerships are seen by some as indispensable to sustainable development, international business regulation, climate change mitigation, and other global governance agendas. Business entities can offer expertise and funding, and their participation can soften resistance and increase buy-in for international regulatory agendas.