In this session, Davide Colombi will discuss what the new Return Regulation could mean for the future of EU migration policy, the rights of individuals affected by return procedures, and the broader human rights implications of this evolving framework.
Gender equality has long been considered one of the central pillars of the international human rights system. Through Sustainable Development Goal 5, the United Nations committed the global community to achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls by 2030.
Yet today the challenge appears increasingly different from what many policymakers envisioned a decade ago. Rather than focusing primarily on how to accelerate progress, governments, researchers, and human rights advocates are increasingly confronted with another question: how to respond to what many observers describe as a growing global backlash against gender equality.
Across multiple regions, the rise of anti-gender mobilisations and the diffusion of narratives portraying gender equality as a threat to social order are reshaping public debates. These developments raise serious concerns about the future of SDG 5. If these dynamics continue, progress toward gender equality may slow significantly, potentially making it more difficult to achieve the SDG 5 targets by the 2030 deadline.
From a human rights perspective, this shift is particularly alarming. Gender equality is not simply a policy objective. It is a fundamental component of the international human rights framework, embedded in instruments such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and recognised as essential for the protection of dignity, equality, and democratic participation.
Gender Equality as a Contested Concept
A key factor contributing to the current backlash is the transformation of the concept of “gender” itself. Originally developed as an analytical category in social sciences to understand how power relations shape expectations and opportunities for women and men, the term has increasingly been reframed as a controversial ideological project.
In many political discourses, “gender” is portrayed as a concept that critics argue threatens the family, cultural traditions, or national identity. Rather than engaging with concrete questions of equality, anti-gender actors frequently frame gender-related policies as part of a broader ideological agenda imposed by international institutions, academic communities, or progressive elites.
This discursive strategy has proven remarkably effective. By framing gender equality as a broader cultural conflict, this narrative can shift public debate away from structural inequalities and toward concerns about social transformation. Discussions about wage gaps, political representation, reproductive rights, or gender-based violence are replaced by narratives centred on protecting children, defending traditions, or resisting external influence, as discussed in the work of Judith Butler.
Scholars have described this dynamic as the construction of gender as a “symbolic glue” capable of uniting diverse actors across religious, political, and nationalist movements. As highlighted in the volume Gender as Symbolic Glue, anti-gender narratives allow otherwise heterogeneous groups to mobilise around a shared sense of cultural threat.
Anti-gender Mobilisations in Europe
Europe has become one of the most visible arenas where these dynamics unfold. Over the past two decades, anti-gender campaigns have increasingly moved from religious discourse into broader political mobilisation.
These movements often present themselves as spontaneous civic initiatives defending families or parental rights. Research suggests that these movements often operate through networks linking religious organisations, civil society groups, and political actors. In several cases, mobilisations initially framed as grassroots initiatives have later been integrated into broader populist or nationalist political agendas.
Italy offers a particularly revealing example. Large-scale mobilisations such as the Family Day protests have demonstrated the ability of anti-gender actors to influence public debates and shape legislative processes. Campaigns opposing civil unions, gender equality education, or anti-discrimination laws have mobilised broad segments of society by framing gender equality policies as threats to cultural identity.
Research on these developments, including the work of Massimo Prearo, highlights how these mobilisations have contributed to a broader reconfiguration of political Catholicism and its interaction with right wing populist actors. In this context, gender equality becomes a central battleground in struggles over national identity, morality, and political authority.
Importantly, these dynamics are not confined to Europe. Anti-gender narratives circulate transnationally, adapting to local contexts while maintaining remarkably similar rhetorical structures.
Recent research on information environments and political narratives highlights how gender equality debates can be strategically framed within geopolitical and ideological struggles. As discussed in the ITSS Verona article Civil Resistance in the Digital Age: Gender Narratives and Information Integrity, different political contexts show how equality discourses are manipulated for political purposes.
In Turkey, for instance, state institutions have been observed invoking equality discourse while simultaneously reinforcing women’s traditional roles within society. In parts of Eastern Europe, particularly Russia and Poland, political narratives centred on “family values” promote motherhood as a national duty while marginalising LGBTQ+ activism. In these cases, women’s rights are often invoked selectively, gaining support only when they align with patriarchal and anti-Western narratives.
This selective use of gender equality illustrates how human rights language can be appropriated and reinterpreted in ways that may weaken its intended emancipatory goals.
The Significance of the United States
Recent developments in the United States further illustrate the global relevance of these dynamics. Political debates around gender and sexuality have become increasingly polarised, with some actors framing gender equality initiatives as ideological threats rather than democratic commitments.
The 2022 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned federal protections for abortion rights, represents a significant turning point. For decades, access to reproductive healthcare had been widely considered an essential element of women’s autonomy and equality.
The rollback of these protections demonstrates how quickly established rights can be challenged and reconfigured within changing political environments.
Given the global influence of political debates in the United States, these developments have repercussions far beyond national borders. Narratives emerging in the United States political arena often circulate internationally, reinforcing existing backlash movements and shaping policy discussions elsewhere.
Defending Gender Equality as a Human Rights Imperative
These developments point to a fundamental shift in the politics of gender equality. For many years, international institutions focused primarily on promoting women’s empowerment and expanding rights protections. Today, the challenge increasingly includes responding to organised political opposition to gender equality initiatives.
This shift has direct implications for the future of SDG 5. Achieving gender equality by 2030 requires not only policies designed to reduce discrimination and empower women, but also strategies capable of addressing the narratives and political forces that seek to delegitimise equality itself.
From a human rights perspective, defending gender equality means reaffirming that equality is not an ideological preference but a core democratic principle. Without gender equality, the broader system of human rights protection cannot function effectively.
With less than five years remaining before the 2030 deadline, the urgency of this challenge is clear. If the international community is serious about achieving SDG 5, it must recognise that many scholars argue that gender equality norms are currently experiencing one of the most significant global backlashes in decades.
The success of the Sustainable Development Agenda may therefore depend not only on promoting new policies, but also on defending the fundamental human rights principles on which gender equality is built.
On August 14, 2024, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the Mpox crisis a public health emergency of international concern. This declaration comes as the outbreak spreads broadly across the overall Western and Central African region, with two-thirds of the cases recorded in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This situation exacerbates the already existing challenges within the country’s internal political system and deteriorates the ongoing human rights crisis. The Congolese population faces enormous aggravations due to ongoing armed conflict, high food insecurity, and continuous human rights abuses, particularly in the mining sector. This article will examine how the Mpox outbreak in the DRC highlights broader social challenges in the country, including the impact of the mining industry on the already burdened healthcare system.
What is Mpox?
Mpox is an infectious disease that spreads through close and/or sexual contact, and it poses a significant risk to individuals with weakened immune systems, especially pregnant women and children, whose contractions can be fatal. While the initial outbreak was identified in 2022, Mpox has been reported in the DRC for over a decade. The situation worsened in 2024 with the emergence of a new strain, resulting in over 26,000 cases and 833 deaths to date.
In response to the outbreak, vaccination campaigns commenced in September 2024, but the rollout faced delays, making it challenging to keep up with the rapidly increasing case numbers. This situation raises critical questions on equitable access to healthcare in the country, where over 7 million people are internally displaced and around 25 million face food insecurity. Among the most vulnerable populations are children, especially those who are undernourished and live in refugee camps, where sanitation and access to clean water are limited.
According to the Global Director of Health and Nutrition at Save the Children, the DRC records some of the highest levels of child insecurity globally and in 2023, violence, displacement, and killings reached alarming peaks, as reported by UNICEF. Furthermore, issues such as lack of sanitation, sexual abuse and child labour, significantly affect the contraction rate of Mpox amongst another vulnerable group in the DRC: miners.
Cobalt Mines and Human Rights Issues
Owning approximately 70% of the world's cobalt resources,eastern DRC has become a hotspot for conflict and exploitation. The mining industry has caused significant human rights violations in the country, triggering numerous interventions and peacekeeping efforts. The exploitation of Congolese labour dates back to the Belgian colonial period, and both internal and international actors have profited from it ever since.
The demand for cobalt has intensified with advancements in technology and the production of batteries, yet this surge has not been accompanied by a secure and sustainable approach to extraction. In fact, cobalt is highly toxic to inhale and leads to a number of healthcare complications for artisanal workers. Although mining may appear to be one of the better-paid jobs for locals, it comes with significant social and medical obstacles.
In mining areas, the risk of injuries is high due to the constant collapse of pits, often burying workers alive, including children. Reports indicate that tens of thousands of children are involved in the cobalt industry, which often leads them to abandon their education. Moreover, their prolonged exposure to toxic substances can severely damage internal organs, further aggravating immune responses to infections, which are very common in mining communities. Besides the rare access to sanitation facilities in mines, another issue is related to sexual abuses, which often results in the contraction of sexually transmitted and debilitating diseases.
This situation underscores the vulnerability of individuals with already compromised health, further exacerbating the spread of mpox in Eastern DRC, where most mines are located.
Challenges for Healthcare
Despite ongoing efforts to deliver vaccines, the WHO remains optimistic about eradicating Mpox. However, the situation in mining areas poses significant challenges to this vision. Key obstacles include the remote locations of some communities and a lack of awareness about Mpox among local populations. Many individuals lack basic knowledge about the diseases they may contract and the preventive measures necessary to limit their spread. In fact, with the fourth-largest population in Africa and a substantial number of displaced people, the DRC faces an even more complex health burden. Many diseases affect the population - including malaria, HIV, and tuberculosis - and only a portion of these are transmittable. Apart from Mpox, vaccination efforts against other infectious diseases remain insufficient, with geographical coverage remaining low. According to the WHO, the lack of childhood immunisation in the DRC has reached alarming levels, with nearly 2 million children classified as zero-dose or under-immunised.
In times of emergencies, it is important to not only highlight the challenges in ensuring timely responses but also to examine the underlying causes of these issues. In the DRC, limited access to healthcare is influenced not only by geographical barriers or population density but also by the ongoing conflict. Insecurity, high population mobility, and resource exploitation are contributing factors to the spread of Mpox in the country, and they point to gaps in both governmental efforts and regional cooperation.
Source: Russell Watkins/Department for International Development'.(https://shorturl.at/C142R)
Root Causes and Systemic Failures
The underlying causes of conflict in the DRC contribute to various challenges affecting healthcare stability. For instance, displacement, food insecurity, and economic uncertainty can lead to behaviors such as transactional sex, which may increase the spread of diseases. Additionally, difficulties in establishing accountability among political actors can hinder efforts to strengthen community resilience. The country's high level of militarization has also contributed to local distrust of both internal and external actors, which may extend to healthcare and humanitarian personnel.
Effectively addressing the Mpox crisis requires a multifaceted approach. Beyond implementing measures to control the spread of the disease, integrating conflict resolution strategies into healthcare efforts is essential. To restore a system facing significant challenges and improve human rights protections in the DRC, a comprehensive reevaluation of societal issues is needed.
Although finding definitive solutions is highly complicated, there is a large space for improvement. For instance, involving the local population in the management and participation of health programs is essential. As proposed by Bashwira, Mihigo and Duclos from the Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform (SSHAP), initiatives such as mapping conflicts and assessing organisational patterns could prove beneficial for larger-scale responsiveness.
Conclusions
Access to healthcare is a fundamental human right, and global accountability plays an important role in advocating for those with limited means to voice their needs. Promoting equitable healthcare access, while also addressing the socioeconomic factors that contribute to health disparities, is essential. Implementing community-led programs can help create sustainable solutions to the challenges faced by vulnerable populations. Collaborative efforts between local actors and international NGOs can support the delivery of essential services and resources.
In conclusion, the Mpox emergency is not solely a medical issue but is closely connected to broader societal challenges. Addressing it from a wider perspective can provide not only immediate health interventions but also contribute to reducing the underlying factors that increase population vulnerability. Through comprehensive efforts, there is potential to improve health outcomes for the Congolese people and uphold their fundamental rights.
by Ilaria Lorusso (Iran Team) in collaboration with the Human Rights Team
Introduction
Iranian elections following former president Raisi’s death in May 2024 were called rather abruptly for this July and resulted in the appointment of Massoud Pezeshkian. Considered a moderate candidate, he campaigned for his election maintaining progressive stances both in internal and external politics, promising more liberties and equal rights – especially with regards to women’s issues, animating the Women, Life, Freedom movement – on one hand, and advocating for a renewed nuclear deal and relations with Western countries, particularly the US, aimed at relieving the sanctions that have weakened the Islamic Republic to this day. His political positions fuel refurbished hope for social justice in Iran. However, the fact that he does not seem to want to openly disrupt the system in place after 1979 revolution, and the persistence of a conservative parliament and the absolute authority of Supreme Leader Khamenei dilute the expectations of most human rights advocates vis-à-vis the efforts possible to mitigate the oppression of traditionally marginalised groups. The LGBTQ+ community is notoriously part of the latter. Even if the new president has not exposed himself explicitly on this topic yet, this piece aims at retracing the treatment of LGBTQ+ rights in Iran, making evident above all the risks queer citizens undergo in the country in the current status quo.
Sharia and LGBTIQ+ rights
As an Islamic Republic after the 1979 revolution, Iran abides by the Shari'a system, following a strict interpretation of Islamic religious texts as a base for law norms1. As such, already when it comes to heterosexual relationships, the 2013 Iranian Penal Code2 condemns any form of sexual activity outside of a lawful marriage. Any extra-marital sexual relations, identified as zina, are illegal and subject to criminal sanctions.
Zooming in, homosexuality – particularly among men – is forbidden (haram) and considered a moral, physical, and psychological disorder, comparable to the heterosexual zina. Article 234-239 of the Penal Code shows that the death penalty is imposed on citizens accused of homosexual acts, particularly for those performing a “passive” role in the relationship. This, combined with the relative indulgence with which homosexuality between women is treated, reveals particularly the will to preserve a certain type of masculinity that Iranian men are supposed to perform3. Lashing, prison and fines are the alternative and almost always applied punishments associated with acts that fall into the interpretation of “sexual deviancy” – lesbian relationships and cross-dressing being among these. Besides legislation, then, the LGBTQ+ community is subject to state violence and police prosecution, with reported mass arrests and torture under custody, and queer activists imprisoned for threatening national security and production of “immoral content”.
LGBTQ+ community and the Iranian society
More importantly, because homotransphobia is widespread in Iranian society – up to 90% according to Equaldex’s 2022 findings4, discrimination then extends in every aspect of one’s personal and professional life, with limited access to housing, education, employment, judicial system and healthcare. Interestingly, The Islamic Republic of Iran offers limited subsidised support for gender confirmation surgery, hormone replacement therapy, and psychosocial counselling for trans people. This is due to the fact that the latter views are seen through the lens of gender identity disorders. This medicalisation has provided some legal recognition for trans individuals but has also reinforced the stigma that they suffer from psychological and sexual disorders and need treatment to become "normal"5. In a way, gender reaffirmation therapy is also perceived as a way to “correct” deviances related to non-heterosexual sexual orientations. Accordingly, trans individuals in Iran, whether recognised by the state, seeking recognition, or living without it, frequently face discrimination and abuse due to their gender identity, including hostile public attitudes, extreme violence, and the risk of arrest, detention, and prosecution.
Photo by Sima Ghaffarzadeh: https://www.pexels.com/photo/crowd-of-people-protesting-on-street-holding-flags-and-posters-14136859/
Queer activism, Mahsa Amini’s protests and the way forward
The 2022 national unrest related to the death of Mahsa Amini re-fueled not only women’s rights activists but also those belonging to the queer community. in custody for allegedly wearing her hijab improperly sparked nationwide protests in Iran, met with deadly force by the government. During the protests, young LGBTQ citizens openly defied the regime by removing their hijabs and displaying same-sex affection publicly6. Activists have also used pro-LGBTQ slogans and symbols, increasing visibility but also facing backlash, as the later overturned death sentence to queer activist Sareh Sedighi-Hamadani in that period exemplifies7. Clearly, this shows that queer liberation is to this day a pressing issue in Iranian civil society, and links back to the general discontent that especially younger generation has towards the post-revolution religious élite. Whether the new presidency will be able to appropriately take up the demands of these movements, remains an open question.
Rehman, J., & Polymenopoulou, E. (2013). Is green part of the rainbow: sharia, homosexuality, and LGBT rights in the Muslim world. Fordham International Law Journal, 37(1), 1-52. ↩︎
Karimi, A., & Bayatrizi, Z. (2019). Dangerous positions: Male homosexuality in the new penal code of Iran. Punishment & Society, 21(4), 417-434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474518787465↩︎
Critical raw materials are crucial for achieving the goals of the green transition, but their supply chain poses challenges. In fact, materials such as gallium, lithium, boron, titanium, and cobalt are and will be necessary for constructing green technologies, including solar panels, batteries, electric vehicles, and wind turbines, respectively. At the same time, this high priority creates problems for their supply, leading to a dramatic increase in demand, precarious supply, and the risk of potential future shortages. The establishment of value chains, including the extraction, refining, and processing of these materials, is also a sensitive issue concerning human rights in the territories where these activities take place, making it necessary to balance different needs in these contexts[1].
In this sense, 2023 was a pivotal year for the EU: since the conflict in Ukraine started, it has become evident the EU's dependency on imports of raw materials for the climate transition and the importance of this supply in an increasingly complex and globalized environment. The European Union responded by proposing the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), relying on bilateral Strategic Partnerships to ensure diversified and advantageous reciprocal supply terms, preventing new dependencies in the future. On this matter, the EU has already initiated political dialogues with several countries to create mutually beneficial agreements[2].
The EU’s supply: the Critical Raw Materials Act
According to the Critical Raw Materials Act, strategic partnerships should adapt to the features of the supplier country, especially if it has unstable governance, lacks protection of citizens' human rights, and has precarious sustainable development policies. The discrepancy in values is also a key issue in the supply of critical raw materials: although strategic partnerships with countries sharing similar values to the EU are the best way to secure access to them, they cover only a small part of the supply since many of the world's richest sources are in emerging markets and developing economies. Recent data indicate that supply is largely dependent on countries with a low level of governance, taking into account factors such as political stability, rule of law, and control of corruption. One example is the Democratic Republic of Congo, whose governance indicators rank among the lowest in the world and with whom the EU aims to conclude an agreement by the end of 2023. The country supplies 63% of the EU's cobalt, essential for the production of batteries for electric vehicles[3].
Many countries potentially supplying the EU raise concerns about the effects on local communities and the possible exploitation of natural resources, as they are not in line with European ideals. Theoretically, the same draft regulation stipulates that strategic EU projects to increase supply should be evaluated considering all aspects of sustainability, including respect for human and labor rights, and specifically, the rights of women and children. However, the mining, refining, and processing of minerals have a long track record of human rights abuses, taking various forms such as discrimination of vulnerable groups, lack of stakeholder inclusion and respect for indigenous peoples, human rights abuse, and impact on cultural and aesthetic resources. In addition to the mentioned issues, the mining sector in developing countries is characterized by a high degree of informality and small-scale/artisanal extraction.
To prevent human rights violations, the European Union must document potential risks to the human rights of indigenous populations and local communities, recognizing their right to free, informed, and consented mining operations. The growing awareness of human rights and environmental risks in mining approval processes has led to the proliferation of voluntary audit and certification initiatives. These initiatives aim to assess and certify businesses' respect for human rights and the environment by confirming adherence to voluntary standards. While some projects concentrate on auditing the sourcing practices of businesses that purchase raw materials, others perform on-the-ground audits of mines and other facilities in mineral supply chains. Several initiatives do both. The Critical Raw Materials Act relies on audits and certifications to determine whether new mining, refining, and other projects are sufficiently sustainable to warrant government support. However, research has shown that third-party audits have inherent limitations: voluntary initiatives frequently lack the detailed criteria and rigorous methodology required to accurately assess an organization's compliance with human rights or environmental standards[4]. This means that standards are often developed by mining companies and industrial groups and do not require adequate participation from labor unions, communities, or non-governmental organizations. Furthermore, as voluntary initiatives, many businesses do not reduce any kind of sustainability ratio[5].
In terms of the partnerships with resource-rich countries, these should be based on domestic business processes, supporting national production and transformation industries to add value at the local level. In this regard, it could be helpful to involve environmental organizations and human rights organisations as tools to track the effectiveness of strategic partnerships and assess their impact not only for the European Union but also for third-party countries.
Conclusion
In light of the different strategies that the EU intends to pursue in concluding and developing bilateral strategic partnerships, it is still unclear which policies can effectively ensure that extractive activities are in harmony with the sustainable development needs of partner countries. These needs are particularly felt in the creation of supply chains that entail significant environmental and human rights risks, especially in developing countries. Finally, it should be considered that the protection of human rights should be a key factor for a just climate transition.
[1] European Commission, Critical Raw Materials: ensuring secure and sustainable supply chains for EU's green and digital future, Brussels, 2023.
[2] European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for ensuring a secure and sustainable supply of critical raw materials and amending Regulations (EU) 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, 2018/1724 and (EU) 2019/1020, Brussels, 2023.
In this podcast episode, Dr. Sergii Masol talks about the ongoing violation of human rights in Ukraine from the perspective of the law. This small, but informative, talk covers the nature of human rights and international criminal law; the Ukranian Conflict; and the legal status of mercenary groups (e.g. Wagner Group).
Dr. Sergii Masol is Humboldt postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Cologne. Sergii obtained his doctorate in law from the European University Institute in Florence, where he also worked as a research assistant.
Interviewer: Vittoria Brunazzo - Human Rights Team
Diletta Huyskes, Head of Advocacy in Privacy Network, talks about the latest developments regarding Artificial Intelligence. In particular, this episode deals with the challenges that AI poses to the protection of Human Rights and how this issue is tackled in the upcoming AI Act.
Artificial Intelligence or “AI” is already being widely used for various purposes whether it be in analysing marketing trends, modern warfare or as of recently: reproducing artwork. Around 2021 and up till now, various articles have been released discussing the issue of AI being developed to reproduce an artist’s style and even recreate new artwork and therefore bringing up ethical issue of whether artists are in danger of losing their copyright claim on their own work. Whilst this issue is very new and one cannot say for sure where this development is going and whether one should be concerned in the first place. This article explains the recent debate and issues that are being addressed while drawing upon classical AI theory from warfare and highlighting possible suggestions.
Artificial intelligence not only in the military realm
“In April this year, the company announced DALL-E 2, which can generate photos, illustrations, and paintings that look like they were produced by human artists. This July OpenAI announced that DALL-E would be made available to anyone to use and said that images could be used for commercial purposes.”
An article by Wired “Algorithms Can Now Mimic Any Artist. Some Artists Hate It,” discusses how an AI called “DALL- E 2” can reproduce an artist’s style and make new photos, digital art and paintings. In theory anyone can use the programme to mimic another artist, or artists can sue it to make new art based on their old work. This of course brings many issues to light such as whether one can put a copyright on an art style (as is also discussed in the article), what exactly one wants to achieve with using AI to recreate more art and how this will be discussed in the future if indeed art work will be stolen. An earlier article by the Los Angeles Times from 2020 “Edison, Morse ... Watson? Artificial intelligence poses test of who’s an inventor,” already addressed this issue by discussing who is exactly the “inventor” when AI can develop for instance computer games and other inventions. It is true that a human being must develop the AI programme however, can that person also then be called the inventor if that said programme develops own ideas and perhaps own artwork? In relation to the general debate, one should consider “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” Article 27: “Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.”
Some recent debate centres not only around whether it is a question of the “ethics” in artificial intelligence but going one step back to understand the term “intelligence”. Joanna J Bryson writes: “Intelligence is the capacity to do the right thing at the right time. It is the ability to respond to the opportunities and challenges presented by context.”[i] Whilst the authors consider AI in relation to law, they do point out that: “Artificial intelligence only occurs by and with design. Thus, AI is only produced intentionally, for a purpose, by one or more member of the human society.”[ii] Joanna further discusses that the word artificial means that something has been made by humans and therefore again brings up a key concept in AI of whether the human or the programme is responsible.[iii] When we consider this in relation to human rights issues and ethics, it may be true that AI in the world of art can be produced with a purpose by humans, but it remains the problematic issue of what the purpose is. We need the clear outline of why this AI programme has been made in the art world and for what purpose in order to then be able to answer further questions.
It has been pointed out that one should consider this development as nothing new since AI has been already used in the 1950s and 1960s to generate certain patterns and shapes. It is seen by many as a tool that helps the artists in these areas to work faster and be more precise however, it’s been debated that one should not be worried at all that the AI can replace humans since it lacks the human touch in the first place. This remains to be seen how far the AI can learn and adapt since it is programmed that way. If one should not be concerned by AI replacing human artists, then why is the debate happening in the first place?
Credits: unsplash.com
The continues need for clearer definitions
It is not only a matter of the AI replicating art, but how we can define whether the system has crossed the line of copyright infringement: “(…) lawsuits claiming infringement are unlikely to succeed, because while a piece of art may be protected by copyright, an artistic style cannot.” This only shows again that one needs to quickly define more clearly what is an “artistic style”, “artwork” in relation to how AI would be even allowed to replicate the style.
One can draw a comparison to AI in warfare with debates concerning following themes: responsibility gap, moral offloading and taking humans out of the loop (discussed by scholars such as Horowitz, Asaro, Krischnan and Schwarz). Keith argues for example that psychological analyses show that we suffer from cognitive bias and that AI (in terms of military defence) will change our decision-making process.[iv] If we use the example of drone warfare and the campaign “Stop Autonomous Weapons”, it depicts how drones can be used without directly sending humans into battle and shows the system getting out of hand and people distancing themselves from responsibility. Such type of warfare has an impact on the decision-making process, distancing the soldiers and strategists from the battle field. With of course taking into mind that using an AI in the art world does not involve possible casualties, one still can consider how we have a similar distancing from responsibility and moral offloading. It comes back to the recurring issues of who is responsible if an AI system decides by itself which choices to make, how to make them and determine the output. There are no humans involved during the process of making or “replicating” the art pieces however, there was an individual present during the development of the AI – I would like to call it a problematic ethical circle of debate in the art world.
Even though the idea of using AI to copy an art style or artworks altogether is quite new and perhaps even undeveloped, one should consider more strongly certain methods in order to bring a certain control and a managing system into the game. Nick Bostrom for instance discusses what a superintelligence in relation to AI would entail saying that one would need certain incentive methods in order for the AI to learn and adapt to the human society: “Capability control through social integration and balance of power relies upon diffuse social forces rewarding and penalizing the AI. (…) A better alternative might be to combine the incentive method with the use of motivation selection to give the AI a final goal that makes it easier to control.”[v]
Conclusion
It is not only problematic for the art world that an AI is able to copy any artist’s style -it is concerning how much further this development could go in terms of taking an artist’s style and creating an entire new series and diluting therefore the line between where the old and fictional artist lies. As has also already pointed out by others then need for better definitions however it needs to be stressed more strongly: one needs clearer definitions of who is an “artist”, “inventor”, “digital artist” when AI enters the discussion and is apparently here to stay. One needs to make a clear distinction between a human artist and a ‘programme artist (AI)’. Can an artist call himself artist when he or she uses AI to produce art? All these questions should be discussed further in the near future since it seems to be the case that AI has entered the art realm and will continue to stay playing maybe a larger role in the future perhaps even with the development of the Meta verse.
[i] Markus Dirk Dubber, Frank Pasquale, Sunit Das, (2020) The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI Oxford handbooks. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 4
Marco Bocchese is a Professor of international law and international relations at the Webster University in Vienna. He talks about international justice that might be applicable in the Russian-Ukrainian War and the consequences for human rights violations human trafficking and Russian criminal actions towards Ukraine.
Interviewing Team: Igor Shchebetun and Greta Bordin.
