CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 356Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigitalization, Law, and RegulationLaw, AI, and Intellectual Property

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The EU Approach to Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence

Open access
Smuha, Nathalie A.·2019·Computer Law Review International
DOI 10.9785/cri-2019-200402
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

As part of its European strategy for Artificial Intelligence (AI), and as a response to the increasing ethical questions raised by this technology, the European Commission established an independent High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (AI HLEG) in June 2018. The group was tasked to draft two deliverables: AI Ethics Guidelines and Policy and Investment Recommendations. Nine months later, its first deliverable was published, putting forward a comprehensive framework to achieve “Trustworthy AI” by offering ethical guidance to AI practitioners. This paper dives into the work carried out by the group, focusing in particular on its AI Ethics Guidelines. First, this paper clarifies the context that led to the creation of the AI HLEG and its mandate (I). Subsequently, it elaborates on the Guidelines’ aim and purpose (II), and analyses the Guidelines’ drafting process (III). Particular focus is given to the questions surrounding the respective role played by ethics and law in the AI governance landscape (IV), as well as some of the challenges that had to be overcome throughout the process (V). Finally, this paper places the Guidelines in an international context, and sets out the next steps (VI) ahead on the journey towards an appropriate governance framework for AI (VII).

Overview

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 · 10.9785/cri-2019-200402

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–356 of 356

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Smuha, N. A.
Corresponding author
Smuha, Nathalie A.
ORCID
Smuha, Nathalie A.
Venue
Computer Law Review International
Publisher
Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt
Published
2019-08-01
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
97-106
ISSN
  • 1610-7608 (ISSN-L)
  • 2194-4164
DOI
10.9785/cri-2019-200402
OpenAlex
W2968511602
Cited by
356
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 3
FWCI
29.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Computer Law Review International (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • European Commission
  • Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  • KU Leuven
  • Vlaamse regering
  • Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
Keywords
trustworthy AI, AI ethics guidelines, AI governance, drafting process, European Commission

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