We’re pleased to announce that in November and December 2024, Kostina Prifti (ESL), Ida Varosanec (RUG), and Benedikt Schmitz (RUG) will be the first “Public-Private Challenge” PhDs to defend their dissertations.
Below, you’ll find a link to the official announcement page, including an abstract of their manuscripts.
Kostina Prifti
Abstract
This study is concerned with regulating Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies by focusing on its design processes, from an EU law perspective. Regulating AI systems is one of the most prominent regulatory discussions, due to the societal problems sprung by AI, which require the introduction of governance measures.
These measures, which may be embedded in various governance levels and governance modes, should aim to steer the design and deployment of AI technologies in directions that benefit societal interests, preventing or (at least) mitigating the risks that AI poses. Regulation by design, a research field and a practice concerned with the regulative activity of design, can play an important functional role in this societal objective by virtue of the impact that the practice of designing has on the behaviour of the technological system.
This thesis aims to explore and develop the field of regulation by design in the context of AI and EU governance. Concretely, this is performed by identifying and addressing the problems that hinder the potential of regulation by design, both as a research field and as a practice. Analytically, these problems may be categorised in four groups: conceptual, theoretical, practical, and governance-related problems.
Ida Varosanec
Abstract
The legislator is often placed on a tightrope. This PhD dissertation explores the complexity of balancing transparency and secrecy in using artificial intelligence (AI) systems within the public sector, particularly when these technologies affect individual rights and freedoms. AI can make public services more efficient, but when decisions are made by or with the help of algorithms, citizens and oversight bodies often struggle to understand the rationale behind them, due to secrecy concerns linked to intellectual property (IP) and confidentiality.
Although transparency is the currency of trust, trust necessitates a dose of secrecy. This research examines how current EU laws applicable to AI try to reconcile transparency – needed for accountability and public trust – with the confidentiality that protects proprietary AI technologies. It introduces a transparency-secrecy spectrum, where transparency fosters trust but cannot always be absolute due to privacy, security, and business interests. The study shows that whereas laws like the EU AI Act strive to ensure ‘sufficient transparency’, they fall short of fully balancing these needs, leaving public bodies with limited guidance on what should be disclosed.
Through an analysis of legal frameworks, the dissertation proposes that transparency in AI could be enhanced with technical tools (e.g. explainability methods), tailored laws, and ethical standards. Such an approach could help public authorities use AI responsibly, maintaining public trust while respecting the confidentiality required by AI developers. The findings suggest that a holistic approach combining transparency and secrecy can support ethical, transparent, and trustworthy AI in governance.
Benedikt Schmitz
Abstract
Consumer protection is taken for granted in today’s society. A multitude of consumer law harmonisation measures exist on the EU level. Also conflict-of-laws knows a specific rule for consumer contracts: Article 6 Rome I Regulation. It regulates that the law of the consumer’s home country applies to the contract unless a choice of law was made. If so, that choice may not lead to the consumer being ‘deprived of protection’ that they enjoy in their home country.
It is unclear how to assess whether the consumer is deprived of their protection. This book shows that both involved laws need to be compared. If one law is more favourable to the consumer, then that law applies (‘preferential law approach’). The judge needs to exercise this comparison on their own motion.
However, comparing the consumer laws of two countries leads to practical issues. The language and the difficult accessibility of sources on foreign law, amongst other things, render the comparison complicated. A comparative analysis of Dutch and German consumer law shows that the level of consumer protection in EU countries differs despite harmonisation efforts. Comparing both laws can therefore lead to the conclusion that the chosen law protects the consumer better. Yet, the complicated application of the rule leads the author to conclude that Article 6 needs to be revised.
The best option is to abolish the right to choose a law. The law of the consumer’s home country then applies, resulting in lower costs and higher legal certainty for both parties.
