New Technologies in International Law / Tymofeyeva, Crhák et al.

assess any actual or potential adverse human rights impacts with which they may be involved either through their own activities or because of their business relationships. This include meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups and other relevant stakeholders, integrate the findings from their impact assessment across relevant internal functions and processes, and take appropriate action. 198 Lastly, States should cooperate with each other to establish, maintain and enforce effective international legal frameworks in order to prevent, reduce and remedy transboundary and global environmental harm that interferes with the full enjoyment of human rights. 199 It is important to note, that there is no legally binding document adopted within the UN, EU or the CoE, which would legally recognise the R2HE. There is a proposal for additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter, 200 however, member States of the CoE in the Reykjavík Declaration , 201 which was adopted this year, fell short of delivering a solid commitment to legally recognise this right. 2. Regulation of Artificial Intelligence by International Organizations The traditional approach of international law to the regulation of emerging technologies has been one of reaction rather than pro-action; only attempting to evaluate and regulate their development or use ex post facto . Regulating uncertain, unknown, and even unknowable futures requires flexibility, transparency, accountability, participation by a whole range of actors beyond the State, and the ability to obtain, understand, and translate scientific evidence into law, even while the law remains a force for stability and predictability. 202 Since only a handful of States adopted national regulation of certain aspects of AI, 203 we turn to the role and steps that were taken by selected international organizations, namely the UN, the EU and the CoE, which are particularly active in the preparation of a legally binding legal framework for AI. It is important to note that at the time of writing this paper there is no generally accepted legal definition of AI. The lack of a definition hampers further discussions on possible international cooperation in the analysed area, and in practice, it is difficult to adopt international legislation, the concept and subject of which is not clearly definable. 204 For the purposes of this paper we consider AI as it is defined in the proposal of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act , 198 Ibid., Guiding Principle 18 and 19. 199 Ibid., Framework principle 13. 200 Council of Europe – Parliamentary Assembly, Anchoring the right to a healthy environment: need for enhanced action by the Council of Europe, Resolution 2396(2021), 29 September 2021, . 201 Council of Europe, ‘United Around Our Values’ (Reykjavík Declaration), 16 – 17 May 2023, . 202 Brownsword R, Scotford E, Yeung K (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Law, Regulation and Technology (OUP, 2017), pp. 500–501. 203 See The OECD Artificial Intelligence Policy Observatory . 204 Klučka J, ‘General Overview of the Artificial Intelligence and International Law’ in Klučka J, Bakošová L, and Sisák Ľ (eds), Artificial Intelligence from the Perspective of Law and Ethics: Contemporary Issues, Perspectives and Challenges (Nakladatelství Leges, 2021), p. 13.

63