Cited by 145Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigitalization, Law, and RegulationInternational Law and Human Rights

AI for humanitarian action: human rights and ethics

Pizzi, Michael, Romanoff, Mila, Engelhardt, Tim·2020·International Review of the Red Cross

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI)-supported systems have transformative applications in the humanitarian sector but they also pose unique risks for human rights, even when used with the best intentions. Drawing from research and expert consultations conducted across the globe in recent years, this paper identifies key points of consensus on how humanitarian practitioners can ensure that AI augments – rather than undermines – human interests while being rights-respecting. Specifically, these consultations emphasized the necessity of an anchoring framework based on international human rights law as an essential baseline for ensuring that human interests are embedded in AI systems. Ethics, in addition, can play a complementary role in filling gaps and elevating standards above the minimum requirements of international human rights law. This paper summarizes the advantages of this framework, while also identifying specific tools and best practices that either already exist and can be adapted to the AI context, or that need to be created, in order to operationalize this human rights framework. As the COVID crisis has laid bare, AI will increasingly shape the global response to the world's toughest problems, especially in the development and humanitarian sector. To ensure that AI tools enable human progress and contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, humanitarian actors need to be proactive and inclusive in developing tools, policies and accountability mechanisms that protect human rights.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1816383121000011

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Algorithmic engagement incentives can amplify outrage and moral panic, complicating deliberation about war and peace.

    “Related work on weaponized digital environments further suggests that algorithmic engagement incentives can amplify outrage and moral panic, complicating deliberation about war and peace (Pizzi et al., 2021).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Pizzi, M., Romanoff, M., & Engelhardt, T.
Venue
International Review of the Red Cross
Published
2020-04
Volume
102
Issue
913
Pages
145-180
ISSN
  • 0020-8604 (ISSN-L)
  • 1816-3831
  • 1607-5889
OpenAlex
W3134066130
Cited by
145
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 4
FWCI
23.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Review of the Red Cross (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Law and Human Rights
Keywords
artificial intelligence, humanitarian action, human rights, AI ethics, international human rights law, humanitarian workers, accountability mechanisms, COVID-19 pandemic response, Sustainable Development Goals, AI governance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review