Retroactive implementation: the framework convention on AI and human rights, the AI act, and the existing EU “digital acquis”

The implementation in the EU of the CoE Framework Convention on AI, human rights, democracy and the rule of law, will happen through the pre-existing AI Act, complemented by other relevant Union acquis. This contribution argues that the AI Act is not the right instrument to implement the Framework Convention. Besides the fact that the AI Act predates the Framework Convention, the AI Act is a product safety regulation: because product safety should be limited to hazards that can be addressed through technical and procedural measures, it is not a good fit for human rights protection. Additionally, the strong emphasis on meta-regulation and the role of technical standards, the absence of rights for individuals, and the scarce, public law remedies offered by the AI Act, do not make it a good candidate to implement a human rights convention.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
VU Research Portal
Published
2025-12-01
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Retroactive implementation: the framework convention on AI and human rights, the AI act, and the existing EU “digital acquis”

Silvia De Conca
VU Research Portal
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Retroactive implementation: the framework convention on AI and human rights, the AI act, and the existing EU “digital acquis”

Silvia De Conca
article en

Abstract

The implementation in the EU of the CoE Framework Convention on AI, human rights, democracy and the rule of law, will happen through the pre-existing AI Act, complemented by other relevant Union acquis. This contribution argues that the AI Act is not the right instrument to implement the Framework Convention. Besides the fact that the AI Act predates the Framework Convention, the AI Act is a product safety regulation: because product safety should be limited to hazards that can be addressed through technical and procedural measures, it is not a good fit for human rights protection. Additionally, the strong emphasis on meta-regulation and the role of technical standards, the absence of rights for individuals, and the scarce, public law remedies offered by the AI Act, do not make it a good candidate to implement a human rights convention.

VU Research Portal
CNI College (US), Institute of Philosophy, Sociology and Law (AM), Ministry of Law and Justice (IN)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 22%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.