Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights
Abstract
Rapid adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies and increased reliance upon AI by both governments and the private sector have led to rising concern about potential negative implications for human dignity, democratic accountability, and the bedrock principles of free societies. We need a global governance framework to address the wide range of societal challenges associated with AI, including threats to privacy, information access, and the right to equal protection and nondiscrimination. Rather than working to develop new frameworks from scratch, we argue that the challenges associated with AI can best be confronted by drawing onthe existing international human-rights framework.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Environmental degradation caused by AI development contributes directly to the global climate crisis.
“The environmental degradation caused by AI development is not limited to the destruction of ecosystems or the depletion of natural resources; it also contributes directly to the global climate crisis.”
From Artificial Intelligence Colonialism: Environmental Damage, Labor Exploitation, and Human Rights Crises in the Global South (2024) · cites this paper as [101]
Data centers and the mining of rare minerals both generate substantial greenhouse gas emissions, accelerating the pace of climate change.
“Data centers and the mining of rare minerals both generate substantial greenhouse gas emissions, accelerating the pace of climate change.”
From Artificial Intelligence Colonialism: Environmental Damage, Labor Exploitation, and Human Rights Crises in the Global South (2024) · cites this paper as [101]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Artificial Intelligence Regulation: A framework for governance
de Almeida, P. G. R., dos Santos, C. D., & Farias, J. S. (2021) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-021-09593-z · Cited by 395 · see citing works
Regilme, S. S. F. (2024) · SAIS Review of International Affairs · doi:10.1353/sais.2024.a950958 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Sigfrids, A., Nieminen, M., Leikas, J., & Pikkuaho, P. (2022) · Frontiers in Human Dynamics · doi:10.3389/fhumd.2022.858108 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
“Contributions suggested ways to enhance the practical implementation of ethical principles and human rights in policy-making (Floridi et al., 2018; Rahwan, 2018; Wallach and Marchant, 2018; Donahoe and Metzger, 2019; Sun and Medaglia, 2019; Truby, 2020; de Almeida et al., 2021; Delacroix and Wagner, 2021; Stix, 2021;…”
BackgroundInfluential
- Authors
- Donahoe, E., & Metzger, M. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Democracy
- Publisher
- Project MUSE
- Published
- 2019
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 115-126
- ISSN
- 1045-5736 (ISSN-L)
- 1086-3214
- OpenAlex
- W2939191944
- Cited by
- 158
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 17.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of democracy (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Rights and Human Rights
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, human rights, global governance, privacy, access to information, non-discrimination, equal protection, democratic accountability, human dignity, international human rights framework
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
