11 Amendments of Javier NART related to 2020/2013(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)
Citation 3 a (new)
- having regard to Article 218 of the TFEU;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas the respect for human rights, in particular respect for human dignity, as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, should guide any action at European, international or national level within this field;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers in particular that the use of AI- enabled systems in armed conflicts must, abs provided by the principles of the Martens Clause,Martens Clause, abide by the general principles of IHL and must never breach or be permitted to breach the dictates of the public conscience and humanity; considers that this is the ultimate test forclause should guide the admissibility of an AI- enabled system in warfare; calls on the AI research community to integrate this principle in all AI-enabled systems intended to be used in warfare; considers that no authority can issue a derogation from those principles or certify an AI- enabled system;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the need for robust testing and evaluation systems based on norms to ensure that during the entire lifecycle of AI-enabled systems in the military domain, in particular during the phases of human- machine interaction, machine learning and adjusting and adapting to new circumstances, the systems do not go beyond the intended limits and willmust be used at all times in complyiance with the applicable international law;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Highlights that any AI-enabled system used in the military domain must, as a minimum set of requirements, be able to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants on the battlefield, not have indiscriminate effects, not cause unnecessary suffering to persons, not be biased or be trained on biased data, and be in compliance with the IHL general principles of military necessity, and humanity, and the implementing principles of proportionality in the use of force and precaution prior to engagement;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that in the use of AI- enabled systems in security and defence, fullcomprehensive situational understanding of the operator, ability to detect possible changes in circumstances and ability to discontinue an attack are needed to ensure that IHL principles, in particular distinction, proportionality and precaution in attack, are fully applied across the entire chain of command and control; stresses that AI- enabled systems must allow the military leadership to assume its full responsibility at all timthroughout each of their uses;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the HR/VP, in the framework of the ongoing discussions on the international regulation of lethal autonomous weapon systems by states parties to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), to remain engaged and help streamline the global debate on core issues and definitions where consensus has not been reached, in particular as regards concepts and characteristics of AI-enabled lethal autonomous weapons and their functions in the identification, selection and engagement of a target, application of the concept of human responsibility in the use of AI-enabled systems in defence, and the degree of human/machine interaction, including the concept of human control and judgment, during the different stages of the lifecycle of an AI-enabled weapon.
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Takes the view that persons who have been the subject of a decision taken by a public authority based solely or largely on the output from an AI system should be informed thereof and, should receive the information referred to in the preceding paragraph without delay and be offered the possibility of contesting that decision;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Notes that AI is increasingly being used in the field of justice, to enablehelp judges to take decisions which are more rational and more in keeping with the law in force and to do so more quickly; insists, however, that the final decision must always lie with a human and be subject to strict human verification and due process;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26 a. Stresses that the EU should play a key role in the international efforts to regulate AI and should aim to act as a norm-setter for AI in a hyper-connected world by adopting an efficient strategy towards its external partners, fostering its efforts to set global ethical norms for AI at international level, be it for civil or military uses, in line with safety rules and consumer protection requirements, as well as with European values and fundamental rights;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Recalls that AI is a scientific advance which must not undermine the law, but must on the contrary always be governed by it — in the European Union by the law emanating from its institutions and its Member States — and that under no circumstances must the power of algorithms lead to fundamental rights democracy and the rule of law being flouted, a principle which has guided the drafting of this report;