28 Amendments of Andreas SCHIEDER related to 2020/2013(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights that the security and defence policies of the European Union and its Member States are guided by the principles enshrined in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and of those of the UN Charter, and by a common understanding of the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, of freedom, of democracy, of equality and of the rule of law; highlights that all defence-related efforts within the Union framework must respect these universal values while promoting peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recalls its previous positions on lethal autonomous weapons and the necessity to develop an EU common position on lethal autonomous weapon systems ensuring meaningful human control over the critical functions of weapon systems, including during deployment;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recalls that the obligation to respect and protect the dignity of the human person is a general principle of international law, the source and the main pillar of all fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter, common to the constitutional traditions of EU Member States; stresses therefore that the principle of human dignity should always be the ultimate pattern of control when interpreting and applying the law on artificial intelligence and the essential element establishing the human-centric approach to artificial intelligence, directing its use towards the good of individuals, groups of users, consumers and society as a whole;
Amendment 6 #
1. Highlights that the security and defence policies of the European Union and its Member States are guided by the principles of the UN Charter, and by a common understanding of the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, of freedom, of democracy, of equality and of the rule of law; highlights that all defence-related efforts within the Union framework must respect these universal values while promoting peace, stability, security and progress in Europe and in the world;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the UN and the wider international community to undertake all necessary regulatory efforts to ensure that the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in military affairs and in the law enforcement civil capacities, such as police and border control forces, and the use of AI-enabled systems by the military stay within the strict limits set by international law and, including international humanitarian law (IHL) and Human Rights law;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the UN and the wider international community to undertake all necessary efforts to ensure that the development and application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in military affairs and the use of AI-enabled systems by the military stay within the strict limits set by international law and international humanitarian law (IHL);
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that in the COVID-19 health crisis, several Member States have launched the development of mobile apps to protect public health by alerting citizens to past contact with someone who has tested positive for the virus; calls for a common EU approach to AI-enabled mobile apps, the development of which must remain under state control; believes that the use of any tracing applications should remain voluntary and the data collected should be anonymous and should not be used neither for commercial nor for law enforcement purposes; stresses that such applications must be available only during the pandemic, and not run nor be usable during normal times;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers in particular that the development and use of AI- enabled systems must abide by the principles ofin armed conflicts must abide by the Martens Clause, and must never breach or be permitted to breach the dictates of the public conscience and humanity; considers that this is the ultimate testeir ability to be used in compliance with international humanitarian law is the minimum standard for 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 breaching them;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that in the COVID-19 health crisis, several Member States have launched the development of mobile apps to protect public health by alerting citizens to past contact with someone who has tested positive for the virus; calls for a common EU approach to interoperable, safe and privacy-compliant AI-enabled mobile apps, the development of which must remain under state control and whose data storage must remain decentralized to mobile devices;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls on the HR/VP to push for an AI international regulatory framework, aligning major powers on common norms, based on democratic values, adequately framed so as to prevent their use for espionage, mass, targeted and political surveillance, disinformation and data manipulation, and a cyber-arms race;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Welcomes the creation of a UN Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on Advancing responsible State behaviour in cyber space in the context of international security and calls on the EU to fully take part in its work;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Calls on the HR/VP to pave the way for global negotiations with a view to put in place an AI arms control regime, and to update all existing Treaty instruments dedicated to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation so as to take AI-enabled systems in warfare into account; calls on the Common position on arms export to fully take into account and cover AI-enabled weapons systems;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that the principles of proportionality needs to be respected and that questions of causality and liability non- discrimination and proportionality and the requirement for justification need to be respected and that questions of causality, liability and responsibility, as well as transparency, accountability and explainability, need to be clarified to determine the extent to which the State as an actor in public international law, but also in exercising its own authority, can actually transfer that authority to systems based on AI, which have a certain autonomy;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Reaffirms support to the work of the UN GGE on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS), which remains the relevant international forum for discussions and negotiations on the legal challenges posed by autonomous weapons systems; encourages the UN to foster dialogue among Member States, researchers, academics, civil society humanitarian actors and the private sector so as to have inclusive policymaking processes on new international provisions preventing the development, use and proliferation of lethal autonomous weapons systems ; calls for all existing multilateral efforts to be accelerated so that normative and regulatory frameworks are not outpaced by technological development and new methods of warfare;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that states, parties to a conflict and individuals, when employing AI-enabled systems in warfare, must at all times adhere to their obligations under the applicable international law and remain accountable for actions resulting from the use of such systems; recalls that AI machines can under no circumstances be held accountable for intended, unintended or undesirable effects caused by AI- enabled systems on the battlefield; recalls that AI-enabled systems must rely on human oversight and should not get out of control of humanity; stresses that AI- machines can under no circumstances replace human decision;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Urges, therefore, the Member States to assess the risks related to AI- driven technologies before automating activitiprofessional services connected with the exercise of State authority, such as the proper administration of justice, for example, the risks related to protection of consumers, of recipients of services and of workers, ensuring safe, healthy and secure working conditions, the proper administration of justice, ensuring high standards of education and protection of the environment; calls on the Member States to consider the need to provide for safeguards, foreseen in Directive (EU) 2018/958, such as supervision by a qualified professional and rules on professional ethics;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Highlights the need to take duly into account, during the design, development, testing and deployment phases of an AI-enabled system, potential risks as regards to incidental civilian casualties and injury, accidental loss of life, and damage to civilian infrastructure, but also risks related to unintended engagement, manipulation, proliferation, cyber-attack or interference and acquisition by organised crime and terrorist groups;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses that robots as mechanical objects should fall under the definition of machinery set by the directive on machinery (2006/42/EC) and should be designed and assembled in compliance with the standards and safety measures provided therein, as well as with the provisions on placing the machinery on the market and putting it into service;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses that AI applications used in European Security and Defence Policy have to be categorised as high-risk in all cases given their impact of decisions;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the need for robust testing and, evaluation, certification and monitoring systems based on democratic 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 and their effect do not go beyond the intended limits and that users will at all times be able to comply with the applicable international law;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that Member States and the Commission should promote AI technologies that work for people; calls on the Member States, in close cooperation with the Commission, to develop AI applications aimed at automating and facilitating e-government services, for example in the area of tax administration; underlines that explainable, unbiased and transparent algorithms are important to ensure that businesses and consumers benefit from better, non- discriminatory and reliable public services at a lower cost.
Amendment 40 #
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, notbetween military and civilian targets, recognize when a combatant surrenders or is hors de combat; not have indiscriminate effects, individuate the use of force and not target a certain category of people, not be of a nature to cause unnecessary suffering to persons, nor cruel or degrading treatments, not be biased or be trained on biased data, and be used in compliance with the IHL principles of military necessity, proportionality in the use of forcedistinction, proportionality and precaution prior to engagement and in attack;
Amendment 41 #
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 principles of military necessity, proportionality in the use of force and precaution prior to engagement; underlines the importance of the quality of algorithms, original data and ex-ante review of decision-making processes;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Recalls that the Parliament foresaw in its resolution of 16 February 2017 on Civil Law Rules on Robotics the possibility that artificial intelligence may become an independent subject of civil law, which would have significant implications for the functioning of the single market; urges therefore the Commission to monitor and analyse developments of this matter in both international law and the domestic laws of the Member States.
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that in the use of AI- enabled systems in security and defence, full situational understanding of the operator, predictability and reliability of the AI-enabled system ability to detect possible changes in circumstances and ability tooperational environment and ability to intervene in or 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 control and responsibility and be accountable at all times;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on states to carry out an assessment of hown whether autonomous military devices shave contributed to their national security and what their national security canould gain from AI-enabled weapon systems, in particular as regards the potential of such technologies to reduce human error, thus enhancing the implementation of IHL principlessupport and enhance human decision- making in compliance with IHL;
Amendment 56 #
9a. Calls for the establishment of a European Agency for Artificial Intelligence, which mandate would cover common standards, certification and monitoring frameworks, as well as strong bilateral cooperation with NATO when it comes to the deployment, development and us of AI in the military field;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. CRecalls the European Parliament position on autonomous weapons systems enabling strikes to be carried out without meaningful human intervention; calls on the HR/VP, the Member States and the European Council to adopt a common position on autonomous weapons system, that ensures meaningful human control over the critical functions of weapons systems, including during deployment; 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 help streamline the global debate on core issues and definitions where consensus has not been reached, in particular as regardsadvance the effort to develop a new global normative framework and a legally binding instrument, focused on definitions, concepts and characteristics of AI- enabled lethal autonomous weapons and theirsystems, specifically their critical 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 theto consider the necessary degree of human/machine interaction, including the concept of human control and judgment, to ensure compliance with international humanitarian and Human Rights law as well as with ethical concerns, during the different stages of the lifecycle of an AI- enabled weapon.