European Union

Ireland’s Minister for Health, Stephen Donnelly, has announced the formation of a National Clinical Trials Oversight Group. The group is tasked with developing strategies to increase the number of clinical trials conducted in Ireland.

The looming implementation of an EU law aimed at making European supply chains deforestation-free has united industry, traders, farmers, and NGOs in concern.

The European Commission has called on all parties in the Middle East to “exert maximum restraint” amid growing fears of a full-scale regional war following the assassination of a top Hamas official in Iran on Wednesday morning (31 July).

The creation of a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Common Defence and Security Policy (CSDP) of the European Union (EU) in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty has fuelled a debate over how can a unified foreign policy be created while preserving the diversity of its Member States’ national foreign policies. Indeed, as a sui generis global actor, which does not classify as a state or a supranational organisation, acting on the global stage is essential for the EU to be recognised and legitimised. Recent international events – such as the return of war on European soil, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the rise of great power competition – have all called for more assertive and credible action. How can the EU answer this call?

 

To be able to ‘speak with a single voice’ has been the most widely shared answer between academics, practitioners, and leaders. It is assumed that the EU’s global presence is directly and positively correlated to its ability to act in unison. This is because the EU’s foreign policy-making process relies on unanimity and consensus in order to create a single foreign and security policy out of a multitude of diverging interests, histories, strategic cultures, and conceptions of global issues among Member States. It follows that agreement is a necessary condition for the EU to implement a foreign policy worthy of its name. When Member States disagree and are incapable of coming up with a decision and a single message to be communicated to the rest of the world with a single voice, the EU is usually posited not to be able to act on the global stage.

 

Consequently, as the role of the EU as a global actor has expanded, so has a ‘single voice mantra’ been entrenched in the study of its external action. Many will claim that the academic debate has now moved on from attempting to establish a correlation between the EU’s ability to speak with a single voice and its capacity to act externally. However, I argue that, still, most academic conceptualisations and analyses of the EU and the kind of power it is and projects have been inspired by debates in Comparative Politics and International Relations, which use the unitary state as a yardstick. The model of the state is mirrored at the political and policy level with a strong normative bias in favour of integration, with the objective that one day the Union will become a federation. Why should we move on from it?

 

1 – Let’s take a good look at empirical evidence

 

Although forging substantial and procedural unity is a struggle for the Union’s foreign policy, its track record shows that it is not always optimal. Empirical evidence shows that the impact and performance of the EU are inconsistent regardless of the EU’s ability to speak with one voice across multiple policy areas. Indeed, if unity does not come naturally but after draining internal negotiation activities, it can reduce the EU’s flexibility, resources, and credibility in diplomatic engagement with third parties. When the EU is united and assertive in multilateral settings, it can be accused of bullying by third countries, as seen in recent clashes in the UN General Assembly over the conflict in Ukraine.

 

2 – Let’s be realistic about the future

 

If the correlation between internal unity and agreement and the EU’s capacity to act on the international stage does not satisfactorily hold up with the current political and decision-making structure of the EU, it is unlikely it will do so in the future. The complex and often duplicated nature of the EU has only been emphasised by the Lisbon Treaty. The Treaty has fragmented its external competencies between the Commission and the Member States. With the opening of accession negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova, further integration in foreign and security policy is ever more improbable. Indeed, in an EU30+, the possibility that Member States may renounce their sovereignty through the extension of Qualified Majority Voting in foreign affairs is low. As of now, disagreement and fragmentation are here to stay.

 

3 – Let’s do with what we have – and be creative about it

 

Yes, Member States are not always uniformly committed to collective action on all sets of issues. The Union thus often fails to produce an overarching foreign policy that is cohesive and continuous – all characteristics that are usually associated with national foreign policies. However, a more normative argument can also be made: by dismissing all actions that do not fit in the container of the unitary state, we only have a half-painted picture of the foreign policy practice and potential of a post-modern actor. The EU should not renounce the post-Westphalian governance project that is embedded in its DNA by reducing the scope of international manoeuvre to unitary action only. The fact that its presence on the global stage challenges conventional expectations of diplomacy and international relations away from state-centricity can be a source of strength in an increasingly interconnected and complex world.

 

So what? Moving from unity to multiplicity

 

The normative, theoretical, and political prescription for a unitary foreign policy, with the issue of internal consensus and unanimity at its core, might not be the most fruitful. The Union has neither the characteristics of an international organisation nor those of a federal state but has both. It can speak with one voice as well as sing with many different ones. I attempt to build a pragmatic approach to capture this hybrid, shape-shifting characteristic by recognising the ‘multiplicity’ of the EU’s foreign policy machinery. A collective global actor, the Union has a diverse and dense system of foreign policy-making, which contains variable geographies and changeable relationships and balances between its actors, instruments, and practices. Multiplicity hence results in an ambiguous and ever-changing structure which depends on the interaction with other elements inside and outside the system, creating different forms that the EU assumes when acting internationally. It follows that there is never a single European Union acting on the global stage, but multiple. This ability to be both united and diverse might be a starting point to analyse how the coexistence of different voices can provide the EU with a sui generis ability to pragmatically adapt to different global contexts and events.

The post Why we should move away from the ‘single voice mantra’ – once and for all appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

About 91.5% of ICT specialist jobs, including around 10 million jobs in the EU, may be in jeopardy because of artificial intelligence (AI), according to a study conducted by big tech multinationals published on Wednesday (31 July).  

French wheat growers are calling for the release of the EU's crisis funding, known as agricultural reserve, and increased state aid for the sector as persistent rains since last autumn are leading to poor harvests in major European grain-producing countries.

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Ukraine, among others, are current candidates for the enlargement of the European Union (EU) that have experienced periods of war and grave human rights violations in the past or present. In the case of the countries of the former Yugoslavia, they underwent transitional justice processes in the 1990s and still attempt to address the consequences of the contentious past. In the case of Ukraine, the conflict continues, the future remains uncertain, and the claim for peace solutions is constant.

 

Following the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the armed conflict once again became a significant issue on the public agenda. However, in this new stage of global tensions and armed conflicts, the lessons left by the conflict that occurred in the Balkan wars of the 1990s are not often mentioned. The oversights committed during transitions and the effectiveness of the institutional reforms that followed the transition were not deeply analyzed, despite the increase in initiatives that aim to strengthen peace achievements through rule of law mechanisms since the transition times (an issue that the EU has considered in the integration processes of the Western Balkans).

 

In the past, the EU has recognized the importance of supporting reconciliation processes and strengthening the rule of law. Documents such as the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions (2018) have emphasized that the Western Balkans (key actors for regional stabilization) must address issues such as consolidating reconciliation in response to the wounds left by the conflicts. This premise has been maintained over time, from the path leading to the signing of the Stabilization and Association Agreements to recent communications such as that of the European Council on the “Reform and Growth Facility for the Western Balkans” (2024) which insists on the development of measures that reinforce the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights.

 

The implementation of these types of measures is important to improve the health of democracy. Nonetheless, no democratic or reconciliation project can be achieved by excluding the interests of women when deep social transformation and the maintaining of peace are pretended. Regarding this, the democratic transition in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s offers important historical lessons concerning the building of conflict narratives and the exclusion of women’s agency in those processes. Matter that paradoxically contrasts with the increasing support for gender agenda.

 

Indeed, bodies such as the European Parliament have stated that women are not only war victims but also peacebuilders and survivors, highlighting the importance of including a gender approach in this topic. Moreover, the EU has been engaged in developing measures to realize gender equality and women’s human rights, promoting legislation, gender mainstreaming, and specific measures for the empowerment of women. Despite this, it is criticized that the EU does not fully understand the principle of equality and gives it secondary importance, reinforcing a protective role instead of adopting a transformative approach to the structural causes of armed conflicts and gender inequality.

 

After the end of the aforementioned armed conflict, there was no doubt about the exacerbating consequences of war on women’s rights and the need to pursue gender-based crimes. Beyond this, it has been noted that one of the major failures during the transition was the inadequate protection of women’s interests during and after the conflict and the essentialization of gender by institutional actors. This problem is not unexpected, considering that international law usually associates gender roles in conflict with essentialist and stereotypical gender conceptions.

 

The role of gender in armed conflict

 

Historically, the understanding of war has been tied to assumptions such as internal enemies, legitimate or illegitimate aggression, military interventions, and other concepts associated with male values. Moreover, gender stereotypes have influenced the development of laws applicable to armed conflict, reducing gender matters to the protection of victims (women suitable to certain prototypes).

 

Women suffer intense violence during war, but after and before conflict, they are also vulnerable to domestic violence, lack of opportunities, employment discrimination, and others. In accordance with this, many studies investigate whether there is a difference between violence in times of conflict and peace. Regardless of the answer, it is generally concluded that law and judicial decisions often fail to capture the wide range of violence and its relation to broader phenomena such as structural violence.

 

In this regard, it is asserted that the legal framework applicable to armed conflict does not make gender distinctions except in some cases that set out special protection for pregnant women’s integrity and prevent acts of sexual violence, appealing to fragility paradigms. These references do not defend an equality status free of stereotypes, except for a few cases, such as Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention, which promotes equality regarding the treatment of prisoners of war.

 

According to international law, the role of law is to control the immediate crisis scenarios and humanitarian disasters generated by the war. On this matter, it is pointed out that reducing war to an “extraordinary” fact disregards women’s interests because it puts aside the analysis of the interconnected series of events, including the structural inequalities that are precede and influenced by them. Also reinforces the ideals of the “protective” role (played by States, agreements, or organizations, that represent the white male imaginary) under which women’s lives are considered valuable only when their affectation endangers the stability of a State, or a hegemonic social group, in exceptional circumstances.

 

Despite this, the institutionalization of the gender approach and the struggles of the feminist movements, just as the judgments of the international courts, have transformed the content of the international framework, including many provisions related to gender issues. These developments have impacted both international law and local experiences of peacebuilding.

 

In particular, the convictions provided by the ad hoc Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda laid the groundwork for understanding gender crimes. And subsequently, the Rome statute recognized rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution, forced pregnancy, forced sterilization, etc., as grave crimes against humanity and war crimes. This recognition coincided with the revelation of the magnitude of the sexual violence that occurred in the former Yugoslavia, during the Second World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna  in 1993.

 

Based on the previous notes, the advances in these matters have been remarkable. Nevertheless, as indicated by transitional justice studies, the most significant advances in matters of human rights protection of women focus on specific and symbolic cases, while major shortcomings persist in most cases due to issues such as revictimization. Concerning this, the reproduction of rhetoric that infantilizes women is criticized, overlooking the effects and causes of conflicts and the diverse roles women play in war, and reducing gender studies to condemning sexual violence.

 

Even in the more apparently successful experiences, multiple mistakes have been made in providing justice solutions for women, just as succeeded during the Yugoslavia trials. In these trials, women were subjected to inappropriate treatment because the processes were focused on the perpetrator prosecution and the goal of issuing convictions, a purpose materialized in contexts of threat and harassment to women. Besides, after finishing the trials, women confronted difficulties related to social and family reintegration, concerns ignored by authorities and society.

 

Transition in the former Yugoslavia and the gender issues

 

Transitional justice encompasses objectives such as delivering justice to perpetrators of past wrongs, achieving recognition and reparation for victims, establishing truthful and common public narratives for past wrongdoings, exploring new conditions for lawful order and social justice, etc., all aimed at overcoming and preventing war. Furthermore, as noted by Gray & Levin (2013), transitions not only represent unique opportunities to advance the goals of sustainable peace but also to address broader issues of justice, such as forms of gender injustice, which are crucial for achieving long-term social stability.

 

Addressing broader issues of justice does not fully resolve structural problems such as gender-based violence, which pre-dates the conflict and transcends the boundaries of transitions. Likewise, the inclusion or exclusion of women has not prevented the signing of peace agreements and the initiation of transitional processes. Nonetheless, the exclusion of women impacts the degree of resource distribution, marginalization, etc., concerns that are linked to the causes and consequences of conflicts. Indeed, as Rooney (2018) noted, a lower percentage of benefits for the most marginalized in a conflict-affected community “intensifies the value and contentiousness of any redistributive gain involved, be it material, cultural, or symbolic”.

 

In the countries of the former Yugoslavia, the signing of the Dayton Agreements represented a transcendental political, social, and economic change. Besides, the implementation of new democratic projects was not isolated from the goals of gender equality, which was already a predominant issue on the international public agenda. Nevertheless, women continued to face many obstacles in entitling their rights within both public and private life in post-conflict countries.

 

During the conflict, women occupied different social roles; however, when it finished, the demands of the patriarchal social context led women to return to their traditional roles (for instance, the motherhood). In this context, the violence increased (mainly in the domestic sphere), exacerbated by factors such as the deterioration of individual/collective mental health, as well as the challenge to rooted gender stereotypes. At the same time, the authorities took advantage of the essentialization of gender to release their responsibility in executing post-conflict politics. Hence, caregiving tasks related to social reconstruction measures were assigned to women appealing to the “innate peacemaker” stereotype.

 

On the other hand, regarding the administration of justice by judicial bodies, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) set an international precedent in recognizing the relationship between gender and the commission of certain crimes. This tribunal contributed to exposing the accountability of perpetrators in positions of power, enabled the representation of women in trials, and served as a deterrent and tool in the fight against gender-based violence within the international context. Despite this, it was also criticized for substantial shortcomings in both retributive and distributive justice, the slow advance of trials, and the secondary trauma inflicted on victims, particularly women. These failures had an impact on women, who years later established a people’s court in which women’s agency was vindicated.

 

Both the successes and the failures in peace-building processes have significant repercussions on the future of countries that choose to move from a period of serious human rights violations towards a more peaceful and democratic time. In the case of failures, their persistence over time hinders and delays objectives such as the reduction of internal conflicts. On the other side, excessive triumphalism delays necessary discussions on entrenched issues like inequality and the loss of goals realized during transitions due to the effect of weak democracies.

 

It is criticized that during the aforementioned transition, ethnic divisions and nationalist projects were institutionalized instead of tackling the structural causes of the conflict. Therefore, as happened in other cases, successes achieved in the prosecution of gender-based crimes became fragmented, leaving unresolved discussions such as the connection between poverty, gender discrimination, and war damages, as well as the complexity of structural discrimination or its consequences during wartime.

 

No armed conflict should be preferred over the possibility of peace, even considering the consequences of an imperfect peace. Nonetheless, the peace that excludes women from their own agency and voice is neither just nor lasting.  In the Western Balkans, the transition ended a period of violence, and armed confrontation has not returned despite the social, economic, and political challenges faced by the countries. Notwithstanding, there are growing points of war tension around the world, sustained and compounded by structural injustice problems. In this context, it is always important to review the lessons learned in previous experiences, such as the importance of including gender approaches as the key to overcoming the violent past or present.

The post Gender and war: Reflections on the future of Europe appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

The July 4th Election

The British Conservative Party had been in power for the past 14 years. Public perceptions of the party have varied greatly over their 14-year tenure, but for the past four years, the party and its leaders have been under consistent scrutiny for a series of scandals and political and economical faffs. These incidents include, but are not limited to, the following: Brexit negotiations; the Covid-19 pandemic; ‘Partygate’ under former Prime Minister Johnson; the internal Conservative Party leadership debacle (i.e. Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak); former Prime Minister Liz Truss’s economic mismanagement and the resultant crisis in the British economy; and the domestic cost-of-living crisis. In response to widespread unpopularity, Rishi Sunak, British Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party, decided to call a snap general election on May 22, 2024. I argue that the result of this snap election, which will be expounded in greater detail in the proceeding paragraphs, offers insight into the changing nature of Anglo-British political identity.

The general election was set for July 4, 2024 and was expected to generate a massively changed British government, differing significantly from the current set of sitting officials elected in 2019. As predicted, there was substantial restructuring. After 14 years of Conservative government, the Labour Party had finally regained the public’s electoral mandate, achieving a majority of 412 seats, up from their previous standing of 201. The Conservative Party, by contrast, dropped to 121 seats after previously holding 372. The UK’s ‘third party’, the Liberal Democrats, also capitalised on the perceived failings of the Conservatives, increasing their number of seats from eight to a considerable 64.

Although this was a national, pan-UK election, the most significant changes occurred in England, the largest – in geography, by population, and by GDP per capita – of the four home nations (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) that comprise the UK. Unlike the other home nations, England is not granted devolved governmental powers like Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland; all English laws and policies are created and voted on within Westminster Parliament, meaning representatives from the other home nations are able to influence the trajectory of English lawmaking and politics. The English, however, do not possess the same ability to impact lawmaking and politics (due to devolution in a vast number of policy areas, i.e., sports and the arts, education and training, health and social care, etc.) in the home nations. Concerns about England’s national identity and Anglo-specific issues have been largely neglected, if not suppressed, by the structure of British government, namely, Westminster Parliament and devolution. Furthermore, England and Englishness are often, rightly or wrongly, conflated with Britain and Britishness. It is because of this conflation that I feel the term Anglo-British identity is appropriate.

 

Tory England

The Conservative Party (colloquially referred to as ‘The Tories’), technically a pan-British political party, has, under various leaders in both historical and contemporary (the last decade) contexts, found its greatest support in England. In fact, support for the Conservatives is almost exclusively grounded in England, particularly Southern England (excluding most London boroughs). In turn, the party has positioned itself as the party of England and English interests; it has also presented itself, both pre- and post-devolution (1997), as the party most concerned with maintaining the British political union, with England at its core, in the face of increased political fragmentation between the home nations. The modern Conservative Party is more internally divided than ever, as evidenced by the formation of various party member groups, including the New Conservatives, National Conservatives, and Popular Conservatives, coupled with the constant change in party leadership and reshuffling of cabinet ministers.

Nevertheless, the party has attempted to maintain an overarching ideological identity, including a somewhat cohesive imagination of British national identity. The Conservative Party’s image of British national identity is centred on the idea of British sovereignty, guided by a ‘Britain first’ mentality with England at its core. Brexit can (and should) be viewed as a manifestation of the Conservative Party’s ‘Britain first’ mentality. In keeping with the Conservative’s Anglocentrism, the Brexit result was channelled through the English electorate in particular. As evidenced by the exit statistics of the Brexit referendum, it was English voters who essentially determined the result of the referendum: 53.4% of the English voting population who voted in the referendum voted to leave the European Union (EU), meaning 15,188,406 voted ‘leave’ in England (see: Brexit Referendum Results – BBC ). It could be argued that Brexit was at least in part an expression of English nationalism.

Yet, UK-wide statistics illustrate that many Britons, including English voters, now regret leaving the EU, especially the younger generations. In fact, as of May 2024, 55% of people consulted in a Statista poll consider leaving the EU to have been a mistake (see: Bregret – Statista ). The polls leading up to the July 4th election predicted a massive change in government as the British electorate grew increasingly frustrated with the perceived failings of Brexit, the cost-of-living crisis, and general dissatisfaction with the Conservative government. Therefore, the result of the election did not come as great a surprise to those involved in, or attuned to, UK politics. Still, it hugely significant that England, the traditional bedrock of Conservative electoral support, almost completely reorientated itself towards the Labour Party. The aforementioned political and economic failings of the Conservative Party, as well as the numerous scandals within the party, all contributed to this political turn. Yet, there is another factor at play as well.

 

A Change in English Identity? Tory England No More

Labour’s victory in the July 4th election signals a change in Anglo-British identity, shifting from a more traditionalist, inward-looking, and sovereigntist set of values and beliefs, those commonly associated with the Conservative Party, to a new identity that places greater emphasis on progressiveness, community, and interdependence. Keir Starmer, formerly the Leader of the Opposition and now the UK’s Labour Prime Minister, spoke about reclaiming Englishness from the right, arguing in an open letter that “Labour is now the true party of English patriotism”. Starmer goes further, stating that the Conservatives have done a disservice to “some of our proudest national institutions – from the BBC, to the National Trust and England football team – … [and have shown through their actions that] they don’t have faith in the strength of our history, identity and flag to withstand discussion” (to read the letter in full, see: Starmer Open Letter – The Telegraph). Through interchanging between the two identities as he writes, Starmer outlines how Englishness is a vital aspect of Britishness, making them practically inseparable.

Prime Minister Starmer’s conceptualisation of English identity is more progressive, multiculturally sensitive, and compatible with multiple identities, meaning that individuals are able to hold a combination of identities. We may therefore see a marked drop in the number of individuals in England who identify as exclusively English – as opposed to Anglo-British or even, Anglo-British-European. Thus, the massive shift in UK government we have just witnessed, especially the change in party allegiance amongst English voters, suggests that the Anglo-British political identity is changing in response to the perceived failings of the Conservative government. England, the vital base from which the Conservatives garnered their support for their past 14 years of government, has expressed its desire for political change, endorsing a new value set manifest in Keir Starmer’s Labour Party.

This shift is significant on three levels:

1) At the home nation (English) level: Starmer’s variant of Englishness is more inclusive and accessible to those who do not necessarily meet the stereotype of what it means to be English (i.e., white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant – WASPs), as well as to newcomers to England who wish to assimilate;

2) At the national level of the UK: a more equitable and open English nation(alism) will lead to greater cooperation and harmony amongst the home nations, creating a more robust British political union with less animosity between the four home nations;

3) At the international/European level: a renewed, more outward-looking and agreeable English identity will point England and the UK in the direction of multilateralism, potentially leading England and the UK towards an ever-closer relationship with the EU – although rejoining is off the cards, at least for the immediate future, a foundation can be set.

 

The End (For Now)

To conclude, in reflecting upon the July 4th election in the UK, I believe that the result is indicative of a changing Anglo-British identity, moving away from the more exclusive and closed-off version put forth by the Conservatives and shifting towards a more open and inclusive form under Labour. It is still too early to say with any certainty that the majority of English people who voted Labour did so out of genuine belief in the Labour platform as opposed to voting for Labour as a means of expressing their disenchantment with the Conservatives. That being said, I believe that Starmer’s reframing of Englishness may continue to change what it means to be English, including the relationships between Englishness, Britishness, and Europeanness, in the coming years.

 

 

WORD COUNT: 1521

The post The Resurgence of Labour: what it means for Anglo-British Identity appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

EU lawmaker Stine Bosse from the Danish Moderate Party (Renew Europe) announced on Wednesday (31 July) she is resigning from the board of the Norwegian bank DNB to avoid a possible conflict of interest with her role in the European Parliament.

Telecom industry stakeholders have called on incumbent Commissioner for the Internal Market, Thierry Breton, to reconsider some of his previous stances in light of his potential reappointment for the 2024-2029 term.

Inga Ulnicane

The release of ChatGPT in late 2022 captured the public imagination. It provided a tool everyone can play around with, making Artificial Intelligence (AI) accessible to many. It also raised a lot of urgent questions, including about protecting copyrights, fighting disinformation, and avoiding discrimination. These and other questions were dealt with in several governance and policy initiatives, developed in the context of a new hype characterized by high positive and negative expectations surrounding ChatGPT. In my recent article ‘Governance fix? Power and politics in controversies about governing generative AI’ (Ulnicane 2024), I examine emerging governance of generative AI with a particular focus on activities of the G7, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the AI Safety Summit.

 

Focusing on risks, neglecting purpose & society

To examine the key ideas about the generative AI governance, I draw on the Responsible Innovation approach, which already for more than ten years has been widely used in technology governance research and practice.  While the Responsible Innovation approach is broad and fluid, I in particular focus on three features. First, it focuses on collective stewardship of technology towards socially beneficial goals and goes beyond individual responsibility of technology developers. Second, the Responsible Innovation approach emphasizes the importance of inclusion of the public in a two-way consultation, assigning an active role to society in co-shaping technology. Third, its approach to technology governance goes beyond mere risk management to encompass the purpose and direction of innovation.

The initial international initiatives for governance of generative AI fall short of the premises of inclusive and purposeful governance of technology, as suggested by the Responsible Innovation approach. They predominantly focus on risks, framing the public debate about generative AI largely in terms of existential vs immediate risks. Concerns about the risk management dominate over the considerations of purpose of this technology. Generative AI can be characterized as being largely a supply-driven technology push with unclear public demand. Its early governance initiatives pay relatively little attention to its contribution to tackling major societal challenges of our time. Moreover, they assign a rather passive role for society that needs to adapt and contribute to risk mitigation rather than actively co-shape the technology. This creates a kind of paradox of generative AI governance, when a technology that is used widely by society is at the same time governed narrowly by technical experts.

 

Governance fix: instrumental, narrow & technocratic

I coin the term ‘governance fix’ to highlight the instrumental and technocratic approach to governance in generative AI policy. To do that, I build on the concept of ‘technological fix’ that presents technology as a quick and cheap solution to complex and uncertain social problems. According to the ‘technological fix’ concept, technical solutions are seen as superior to political, economic, educational and other social science approaches to tackling problems. Accordingly, engineers are best placed to solve social problems and there is no need for public participation.

While technological fix remains a highly popular approach, it has received considerable criticism for being incomplete, ineffective, mechanical, not getting to the heart of the problem, and creating new problems as it solves the old ones. Prioritization of technical solutions allows technology companies to promote their vested interests, while letting policymakers avoid searching for more complex approaches to addressing problems that require immediate attention.

I suggest that in the case of generative AI, we can observe a ‘governance fix’ approach that, similarly to ‘technological fix’, considers governance as a technocratic endeavour that can be quickly developed and implemented by experts without public participation and deliberation regarding goals, direction and purpose of generative AI. As an alternative to this narrow and technocratic approach, I suggest participatory and inclusive governance that focuses on co-shaping technology towards socially beneficial goals.

 

Let’s continue the conversation!

AI, including generative AI, continues to pose major political questions. More research on politics, power and policy of AI is in the works. If you are interested to collaborate, please get in touch. Those attending the ECPR General Conference in Dublin, might be interested to attend the featured roundtable ‘Politics, Political Science, and Artificial Intelligence’ on Monday, 12 August 11:15-13:00 and a panel ‘Challenging power in Artificial Intelligence politics and policies’ on Wednesday, 14 August 16:15-18:00. Hope to see many of you there!

 

Reference:

Ulnicane, I. (2024) Governance fix? Power and politics in controversies about governing generative AI, Policy and Society, puae022, https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae022

The post Governance fix for generative AI? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

French President Emmanuel Macron said on Tuesday (30 July) that Morocco’s Western Sahara ‘autonomy’ proposal was the only plan able to end a 30-year-long territorial sovereignty dispute, challenging the EU’s historic stance and making it harder for the Union to keep stable relationships with both Rabat and Algiers.

The European Union is expected to welcome 758 million tourists this year, a number equivalent to about 70% of the entire European population, according to the European Travel Commission.

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

Protesters took to the streets across Venezuela on Tuesday (30 July), demanding that President Nicolás Maduro acknowledge he lost Sunday's election to the opposition, as a major international observer concluded the vote was undemocratic.

From the aqua vitae of mediaeval Europe to the baijiu of ancient China, distilled alcohol has an incredible global heritage, and today each sip of spirit tells the tale of its birthplace.

Escalation or even all-out war is likely more than ever in recent years, after the killings on Tuesday and Wednesday (30 and 31 July) of two senior commanders of forces hostile to the state of Israel.

European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen promised single-ticket rail travel across the continent in her re-election pitch to the European Parliament, but a similar initiative in her previous five-year term never saw the light of day.

Ukraine has invited China's foreign minister to visit amid growing dialogue that could eventually lead to a meeting between the two countries' leaders, Kyiv's foreign ministry said on Tuesday (30 July).

A large crowd of anti-Muslim protesters clashed with police on Tuesday (30 July) in a northern English town where three girls were stabbed to death and five other children critically wounded during an attack on a Taylor Swift-themed event on Monday.