Search results

While fighting with the novel coronavirus will not be the main goal of sectoral regulators, different regulatory authorities join the struggle by providing a regulatory response. The purpose of this paper is to address this regulatory response in pandemic gathered around eight thematic areas.

This paper discusses the regulatory response in pandemic gathered around eight thematic areas, namely, the objectives, rules and standards, authorization and permits, procedure, monitoring and surveillance, enforcement, accountability and an institution presenting regulatory actions to tackle coronavirus (COVID-19) in reference to day-watchman type regulation.

Tackling the COVID-19 pandemic should be a knowledge-based approach (taking as much as possible from best available practices with respect to the novel coronavirus) with a framework of rules, standards, authorization, permits and guidance, monitored and enforced in a way adjusted to conditions of the pandemic, being as safe (as non-physical, as online) as possible, with suspended or extended deadlines, free of unnecessary administrative burdens. In this way, regulation should be pragmatic and flexible, as under the day-watchman model.

In a post-pandemic regime, in the short run, the regulators should try to minimize the social and economic challenges faced by consumers and entrepreneurs. Among them, one may find scaling back, at least temporarily, the rules developed in non-disaster contexts. However, in the end, the post-disaster reforms tended to strengthen regulators’ hands, also under the deregulated government. The day-watchman type regulation balances both, as a middle ground approach, being a bridge between “a total subordination” and “a complete release.”

The disaster management (including public law regulation) provided by public authorities when tackling the effects of hurricanes, earthquakes or tsunamis can be a benchmark for regulatory responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. This concerns the support offered to entities and individuals affected by the negative consequences of reducing or stopping their businesses and staying in isolation.

The day-watchman approach, visible in certain examples of public response to COVID-19 may serve as a framework for establishing a regulatory regime that would automatically take effect in case of another pandemic, limiting delays in regulatory actions, reducing non-compliance and accelerating recovery.

This study provides an analysis of different theories on public regulation addressing the notion of regulation using the day-watchman theory, which could be applied in regulatory actions during a pandemic. The paper discusses concrete steps taken by regulatory authorities worldwide, bringing examples from the USA, Canada, the UK, France, China, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. It juxtaposes the regulatory experiences derived from different catastrophes such as hurricanes, earthquakes or tsunamis with the regulatory response in a pandemic.

India is a fast-growing economy, that has a majority share in the global information technology industry (IT). Rapid urbanisation and modernisation in India have strained its energy sector, which is being reformed to cope. Despite being the global IT heart and having above average research output in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), India has not yet managed to leverage its benefits to the full. This study aims to address the role of AI and information management (IM) in India’s energy transition to highlight the challenges and barriers to its development and use in the energy sector.

The study, through analysis of proposed strategies, current policies, available literature and reports, discusses the role of AI and IM in the energy transition in India, highlighting the current situation and challenges.

The results show dispersed research and development incentives for IT in the Indian energy sector; however, the needed holistic top-down approach is lacking, calling for due attention in this matter. Adaptive and swift actions from policymakers towards AI and IM are warranted in India.

The ongoing transition of the Indian energy sector with the integration of smart technologies would result in increased access to big data. Extracting the maximum benefits from this would require a comprehensive AI and IM policy.

The revolution in AI and robotics must be carried out in line with sustainable development goals, to support climate action and to consider privacy issues – both areas in India must be strengthened.

The paper offers an original discussion on certain applicable solutions regarding the energy transition of AI coming from the Global South; they are based on lessons learned from the Indian case studies presented in this study.

The purpose of this paper is to raise awareness on the need for a more comprehensive approach on the interdependence between artificial intelligence (AI) and environmental sustainability. It provides an overview of existing sustainable AI policy initiatives at the national and regional level. More precisely, it discusses whether existing European Union (EU) environmental policies are suitable for the AI era or whether new regulations are needed in this field. Finally, this paper assesses cross-fertilisation opportunities between the EU and non-EU countries.

This study is based on a qualitative analysis of sustainable applications of AI and the sustainability of AI. Emphasis is laid on the latter, and a “sustainable by design” approach is proposed, which in essence is a prerequisite for transparent, responsible and human-centred AI systems. The analysis primarily focuses on environmental sustainability.

The majority of studies focus on how to use AI to protect the environment with very little attention paid to sustainable design of AI. On the other hand, the EU’s comprehensive approach towards sustainable AI is closest to promoting “sustainable by design” AI. Several ways have been identified in which the EU’s actions can be translated beyond its borders.

One of the largest limitations of this study is its moderate scope. This paper is confined to the EU and as such provides a limited assessment of global policies and measures on the interplay between sustainability and AI. Consequently, the paper did not provide an in-depth analysis of environmental policies worldwide that could help provide a better picture of possible cooperation areas or common grounds. Another limitation of this study is that it primarily focuses on environmental aspects and as such accords little attention to the economic and social pillars of sustainability.

With less than 10 years to go before reaching the sustainable development goal deadline, this study can help stakeholders better understand what is being done worldwide in terms of sustainable AI. Moreover, given that the technology is still in its early phase, this study can inspire a “sustainable by design” approach to the development of AI technologies.

All national AI strategies published by 1 June 2021 were analysed to identify whether and to what extent they prioritise the interplay between environment and AI. Furthermore, the authors also looked at the EU policy and how it aims to address AI from a sustainable perspective.

The purpose of this paper is to present the legal conditions under which governments may use green artificial intelligence (AI) in city planning. Although Japan was one of the early countries to release its general AI principles, it has been relatively slow in establishing conditions where administrative agencies may use AI. Granted, there have been some recent scholarship that discusses the usage of AI in general under Japanese administrative law, but the use of green AI in city planning under Japanese law has not yet been discussed. Hence, this paper intends to focus on green AI in city planning and discuss the conditions for usage based on different categories of AI.

This paper conducts a legal analysis on the utilization of AI for the purpose of sustainable city planning and administration in Japan. The approach of this paper is to summarize the existing scholarship in Japanese administrative law and analyse the new elements in the new field of green AI in city planning. This paper is not a natural science paper. The social science method of jurisprudence is used. This paper cites only public sources, and no informal literature has been referenced.

This paper establishes the conditions where Japanese central and local government may use green AI in city planning from a legal viewpoint based on three categories. The categories are green AI usage in city planning concerning things, green AI usage in city planning concerning people and green AI usage in city planning concerning automated decision-making.

This research is limited to an analysis of Japanese law, which means that issues other than law are not included in this paper. Further, although general legal issues are discussed, this paper is intended to discuss Japanese law issues only, and foreign laws are not discussed. Therefore, this paper mostly cites Japanese language papers published in domestic journals.

The intended practical implication of this paper is to allow central and local governments to determine – based on the proposed categories – whether green AI can be used for city planning purposes and under which conditions. The authors hope that this will assist the Japanese government in establishing rules on the usage of AI by governmental agencies and allow for the greater actual usage by Japanese central and local governments of green AI in future city planning.

As the theme of this paper deals with governmental use (and the function of a government is to serve society), the social implications at issue can be said to be equivalent to the practical implication.

There have been articles discussing Japanese administrative law restrictions on AI in general. However, as of now, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there have been no articles published focusing on green AI used for city planning. The authors note that the green AI used for city planning would have different legal implications from AI’s usage by the government in general, such as the chatbot used by the agencies or lethal autonomous weapons by the military force. Therefore, this paper is original in focusing on green AI used for city planning.

The paper aims to examine the environmental challenges of artificial intelligence (AI) in EU law that regard both illicit uses of the technology, i.e. overuse or misuse of AI and its possible underuses. The aim of the paper is to show how such regulatory efforts of legislators should be understood as a critical component of the Green Deal of the EU institutions, that is, to save our planet from impoverishment, plunder and destruction.

To illustrate the different ways in which AI can represent a game-changer for our environmental challenges, attention is drawn to a multidisciplinary approach, which includes the analysis of the initiatives on the European Green Deal; the proposals for a new legal framework on data governance and AI; principles of environmental and constitutional law; the interaction of such principles and provisions of environmental and constitutional law with AI regulations; other sources of EU law and of its Member States.

Most recent initiatives on AI, including the AI Act (AIA) of the European Commission, have insisted on a human-centric approach, whereas it seems obvious that the challenges of environmental law, including those triggered by AI, should be addressed in accordance with an ontocentric, rather than anthropocentric stance. The paper provides four recommendations for the legal consequences of this short-sighted view, including the lack of environmental concerns in the AIA.

The environmental challenges of AI suggest complementing current regulatory efforts of EU lawmakers with a new generation of eco-impact assessments; duties of care and disclosure of non-financial information; clearer parameters for the implementation of the integration principle in EU constitutional law; special policies for the risk of underusing AI for environmental purposes. Further research should examine these policies in connection with the principle of sustainability and the EU plan for a circular economy, as another crucial ingredient of the Green Deal.

The paper provides a set of concrete measures to properly tackle both illicit uses of AI and the risk of its possible underuse for environmental purposes. Such measures do not only concern the “top down” efforts of legislators but also litigation and the role of courts. Current trends of climate change litigation and the transplant of class actions into several civil law jurisdictions shed new light on the ways in which we should address the environmental challenges of AI, even before a court.

A more robust protection of people’s right to a high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment follows as a result of the analysis on the legal threats and opportunities brought forth by AI.

The paper explores a set of issues, often overlooked by scholars and institutions, that is nonetheless crucial for any Green Deal, such as the distinction between the human-centric approach of current proposals in the field of technological regulation and the traditional ontocentric stance of environmental law. The analysis considers for the first time the legal issues that follow this distinction in the field of AI regulation and how we should address them.