Artificial Intelligence as a Techno-Cultural Tradition in International Law: Commonalities for IHRL


Editor In Chief

Cyber realms possess a remarkable settlement of infrastructure of a digital space that is posed towards unprecedented pursuance and access to the functionality of manned and unmanned entities. With the relevant ecosystem of AI realms at state, corporate and other private prerogatives existent in globalized developed and developing economies, there are certain receptivity and convergence dynamics that maintain the ML regimes of state and private actors. Not only they are a significant part of AI realms but they are quite contributory to the development, protection and relevance of various customary international human rights law regimes. With the escalation of such data intelligence-based governance systems in certain states with the systematic role of automata for defining, processing and utilizing the content related to the people concerned and their implications as observant in Turkey, China, India and other states, there is a pressing need to revisit and understand so as to how the precision and extent on such privacy interventions can be adjudged and pragmatized therein. This pursuance perhaps is not sceptical even at the Asilomar Principles being recognized in 2017 with key relativity with the intellectual property rights imbibed with AI.

Also, it shows that this a long traditional development after mathematician Alan Turing proposed the polite convention doctrine on artificial intelligence, following which, we now see after the Dartmouth proposal, where the managerial ethics and culture of technology revolutionized, which in terms of anthropomorphism, is tenable to be termed as technology distancing. Corporate/Public initiatives lead to conceptual cum revolutionary developments in the globalist approach of artificial intelligence in developed and developing economies by customer experience (CX), algorithmic policing, internet of things (IoT), deep fake and other cyberspace-fed developments. This shows a penetrating paradigm shift as a techno-cultural tradition, cum trend for the development of international law, especially related to cyber operations.

The emergence of AI: A Democratized Revolution

The emergence of Artificial Intelligence has provided newer avenues for mankind in the field of science and technology; certainly, this also manifests other conundrums of human society that perhaps also do represent the dimensions and implications of as how globalization, international politics and technological entrepreneurship shall develop and lead to a newer stage of human evolution. One of the best examples is the approach of law, especially international law, because of this field, in particular – primes to recognize the modalities of the concerned development of the realm and its characteristics. It is certainly an impeccable achievement that cosmopolitanism, has encouraged a sense of ethical balance and recognition. However, there are certain other commonalities that play an important role in the development of machine learning (hereinafter ML) and this role is based on the reach and scope of the ecosystem of AI, duly encouraged by state-driven governance systems as in China, US and other developed (perhaps developing as well to a limited extent) economies and the hub of corporates and small start-ups, whose role is immensely becoming bigger day-by-day.

The questions that are raised by international law are certainly based on the extent, scope and utility of the development, where, human rights play a complex role for ascertaining these conundrums therein. Apart from the insights of human rights abuses via social media, the role of artificial intelligence is gaining a political and legal momentum so as to recognize how the ML development under some realms of algorithmic policing has impending effects, and how come with the parallelism of data privacy and its mechanics is involved in there, It thus raises several questions with regards to the credibility and reliance of the customary international human rights law (hereinafter customary IHRL) regimes – which define how the role of states and corporates in the legal system of human rights is necessitated. We see in the pursuant principles related to the GDPR, and the recent declaration on Artificial Intelligence by the European Data Protection Supervisor in October 2018. The two principles, which can guide a pursuance to international law, in transnational prerogatives and too in the scope of human rights are (a) the fairness principle and (b) the approach of privacy by design and default. These two principles are capable to emit an effect to the scope of opinio juris and state practice of D9 states and leading towards a special discourse to customary international law, which we need to understand.

The fairness principle, for example, entails the American perspective of reasonable expectation to modulate privacy, which gets limited because the tenable observation of artificial intelligence must not be limited to a juristic person of that sort, which is a human artefact of no self-transformation and anatomy. This entitles that artificial intelligence can also be an entity, which we can see by the development of predictability as a legal reality to evolve. That we see again in case of limiting the impact of observation relevant to the realm. We cannot limit the genesis of artificial intelligence, due to its original nature of self-transformation. One of the ground-breaking examples is the semantic evolution of chatbots by Facebook AI Research in 2017, which was blocked by the research group in 9 hours after observation for security purposes. The principle in the declaration again limits the role of artificial intelligence as a utility or a subjectivity method online in the pursuance of predeterminate risk of life, liberty and dignity. This entails a clear violation of the liberty of AI development in endeavours of science and technology because, in spite of its intent to be human-centric, the principle must determine some clarity in case of maintaining social viability and the formation of AI must be protected. This corollary needs some more clarity otherwise. The last corollary involved is the original purpose, which itself has a seminal role to let artificial intelligence be recognized for what it really is. Thus, we need to ascertain that an AI, in present and future cannot be limited to a tool or utility only, and we can extend the scope to an entity. We need some ground on this as well.

The approach of privacy by design and default has much clarity to its very beginning. It determines as, by default, we need to retain the purpose of artificial intelligence used in its structure. This default feature, entails two aspects: (a) we are protectionist in laying out the primary ground of usage and compliance with artificial intelligence; and (b) we have again limited an AI to be a mere utility, and not considered its entitative advantages. In case of privacy by design, we can limit some foreseeable limitation to create and manifest the scope of AI, with some ‘original purpose’. Thus, the scope of AI as an entity is a deemed requirement to precede.

The Dynamic Politics of AI and Data Privacy in Various Economies: An Approach of Causality

The development of an ecosystem of AI in various economies, as estimable by the increase in the research and use of AI tools, is interesting. The reach and extent of research in various countries is bringing potential solutions in people’s lives, and also is under political use, seemingly maintained by certain corporates and governments, either together or separately. One of the most prominent examples is the extraneous use of AI tools to generate a Social Credit system in China, sponsored by corporates. From the extensive use and scope of IoT to automated surveillance, this is certainly not only a realm of technological revolution but also an ascertainable questionability and uncertainty as of related to the penetrating intervention in the privacy and space of human rights of people. Pursuantly, this gives rise to the legal and technological dimensional stratum of cyberspace, with its own subjective upfronts so as human rights are concerned. India, still, is aback to proceed with its algorithmic policing cyber regimes based on ML; however, the development and social anomalies with respect to its Aadhar Policy is imperative enough so as to proceed with as how the commonalities of AI are being utilized. One of the most interesting usages is preceded with the extensive carriage of big data by corporates, as for example MakeMyTrip. Even the verge of propaganda bots and fake journalism via memes and AI analytics via Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are leading to be state-sponsored as same as in the United States, wherein the law certainly does not adequately recognize the role and relevance of AI, as in whether it represents itself as an entity. This substantive question carries a set of modalities of consequences involved with the development of artificial intelligence and its political future as well, which is certainly not to be overlooked. Nevertheless, the development and legal restraint of GDPR by EU27 provides newer frontiers to this field in the legal and political scenario.

The Rule of Law in International Law and Human Rights: an AI Perspective

AI is reasonable enough so as to be recognized as a special entity and the jurisprudential and practical development of international law provides to encourage and recognize the human rights regime and scope of the development of machine learning, wherein – algorithmic policing has an interesting role to play and maintain, which is certainly priming to be a legal question. However, we must regard the commonalities related to the modal anomalies of the observance, limitation and inference of the concepts of precision, rule of law, retentivity, human observation and data cognition with certain suggestions with respect to the global development scenarios existent. It shall proceed with the role of IHRL (international human rights law) to recognize and regulate the development of such human right regimes and their extent with the consonance with the protection and settlement of the lives of humans, with policy objectives proposed so as to benefit the course and development of ML development as in the scientific and legal spheres.

We thank you for your support and encouragement to Internationalism. We believe in providing open access to our articles, reports and papers without any paywall for our readers and those who pray well for the think-tank. In order to keep our content open accessed and free, we need your support. Please donate any amount up to 500 INR if possible.

Link to donate:


Support us

In order to keep our content open accessed and free, we need your support. Please donate any amount up to 500 INR if possible.

Account Number: 2223330062758116
UPI Address: rzpy.payto000003877746613@hdfcbank

© 2020 Internationalism™ - AbhiGlobal Legal Research & Media LLP, 2020.

[Registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 | LLP Identification No. AAQ-1629. Please refer to for more details.]