PreprintCited by 153Digitalization, Law, and RegulationEthics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Law

How the EU Can Achieve Legally Trustworthy AI: A Response to the European Commission’s Proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act

Open access
Smuha, Nathalie A., Rengers, Emma, Harkens, Adam, Li, Wenlong, MacLaren, James, Piselli, Riccardo, Yeung, Karen·2021·SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract

This document contains the response to the European Commission’s Proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act from members of the Legal, Ethical & Accountable Digital Society (LEADS) Lab at the University of Birmingham. The Proposal seeks to give expression to the concept of ‘Lawful AI.’ This concept was mentioned, but not developed in the Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on AI’s Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI (2019), which instead confined its discussion to the concepts of ‘Ethical’ and ‘Robust’ AI. After a brief introduction (Chapter 1), we set out the many aspects of the Proposal which we welcome, and stress our wholehearted support for its aim to protect fundamental rights (Chapter 2). Subsequently, we develop the concept of ‘Legally Trustworthy AI,’ arguing that it should be grounded in respect for three pillars on which contemporary liberal democratic societies are founded, namely: fundamental rights, the rule of law, and democracy (Chapter 3). Drawing on this conceptual framework, we first argue that the Proposal fails to reflect fundamental rights as claims with enhanced moral and legal status, which subjects any rights interventions to a demanding regime of scrutiny and must satisfy tests of necessity and proportionality. Moreover, the Proposal does not always accurately recognise the wrongs and harms associated with different kinds of AI systems and appropriately allocates responsibility for them. Second, the Proposal does not provide an effective framework for the enforcement of legal rights and duties, and does not ensure legal certainty and consistency, which are essential for the rule of law. Third, the Proposal neglects to ensure meaningful transparency, accountability, and rights of public participation, thereby failing to reflect adequate protection for democracy (Chapter 4). Based on these shortcomings in respecting and promoting the three pillars of Legally Trustworthy AI, we provide detailed recommendations for the Proposal’s revision (Chapter 5).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.3899991

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smuha, N. A., Rengers, E., Harkens, A., Li, W., MacLaren, J., Piselli, R., & Yeung, K.
Affiliations
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • University of Strathclyde (GB)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Smuha, Nathalie A.
Venue
SSRN Electronic Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3191061256
Cited by
153
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
Keywords
EU AI Act, EU AI regulation, fundamental rights, rule of law, democracy, proportionality, legal certainty, accountability, transparency, citizen participation, allocation of responsibility, legal reform proposals

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