Nathalie Smuha
Faculty of Law / Department of International and European Law
Tiensestraat 41 - box 3417
3000 Leuven
Belgium
contact
Tiensestraat 41 - box 3417
3000 Leuven
Belgium
contact
Prof Dr Nathalie A. Smuha is a legal scholar and philosopher at the KU Leuven Faculty of Law and Criminology, focusing on the intersection of law, philosophy and technology. Her research spans EU and international law and examines legal and ethical questions around AI and other digital technologies, with particular attention to their impact on human rights, democracy and the rule of law. She is the author of Algorithmic Rule By Law: How Algorithmic Regulation in the Public Sector Erodes the Rule of Law, which is expected to be released by Cambridge University Press in the fall of 2024. She is also the editor of the forthcoming Cambridge Handbook on the Law, Ethics and Policy of Artificial Intelligence.
Nathalie Smuha is the academic coordinator of the KU Leuven Summer School on the Law, Ethics, and Policy of AI, and a member of the Leuven AI Institute and Digital Society Institute. She is also a part-time Assistant Professor of AI and Law at the Leuven Centre for IT and IP Law (CITIP), and an Adjunct Professor at NYU School of Law. Previously, she has taken up visiting positions at New York University (2024), the University of Chicago (2023) and the University of Birmingham (2021).
Besides her academic activities, Nathalie Smuha regularly advises governments and international organizations on AI policy and regulation:
- She coordinated the work of the European Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on AI, which drafted Europe’s Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, and set up the European AI Alliance at DG Connect.
- She acted as a scientific expert in the Council of Europe’s Ad Hoc Committee on AI (CAHAI), and its successor, the Council of Europe’s Committee on AI (CAI), which is drafting a new international convention on AI.
- She is a member of the OECD’s Network of Experts on AI (ONE AI), and of the UNESCO expert group on AI and the Futures of Learning. She was also a member of the Core Group of Experts of the Interpol/UNICRI project on Responsible AI in Law Enforcement.
- In Belgium, she is part of AI4Belgium’s Advisory Board, and co-leads AI4Belgium’s Working Group on Ethics & Law, which is drafting a Charter for the reponsible use of AI in government. She was also appointed as a member of the government’s Digital Minds expert group.
Nathalie Smuha's scholarship has gained international recognition, and is widely cited. Her work received several awards and was covered in news articles across the world, where she is frequently asked to comment on technological developments. She is a sought-after speaker at academic conferences and events, and has been nominated to the list of ‘100 Brilliant Women in AI Ethics’ and to the Santander-CIDOB List of ‘35 under 35’ Future Leaders. Previously, she worked in private practice as a member of the Brussels and the New York Bar, focusing on EU competition law and digital regulation. She holds degrees in Law (PhD, MA, BA) and Philosophy (MA, BA) from KU Leuven, and an LL.M. from the University of Chicago School of Law.
query=user:U0117274 year:[2014 TO 2024] &institution=lirias&from=1&step=20&sort=scdate
showing 1 to 20 of 110
Type
all | articles | presentations | conferences | chapters | other | reports | phd theses | book reviews | books | outreach | edited books | invited lectures
-
chapterSmuha, Nathalie A; 2024. The paramountcy of data protection law in the age of AI (Acts). Two decades of personal data protection. What next? EDPS 20th Anniversary; 2024; pp. 225 - 239 Publisher: Publications Office of the European Union; Luxembourg keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS4163684
description
Artificial Intelligence’s data-driven nature renders it undeniably impactful on the rights to privacy and data protection. It is therefore no surprise that Europe’s upcoming AI Act is entwined with regulation that seeks to protect those rights, amongst other EU values. In this article, I dive deeper into the relationship between the AI Act and European data protection law, and seek to unpack how the latter influences the former. I consecutively examine how data protection law grounds the AI Act, how it complements the Act, and how it enables an evaluation and a critique thereof. I conclude by arguing that, notwithstanding the AI Act’s upcoming role and its new set of requirements, data protection law remains paramount to protect people against AI’s adverse effects and to hold AI providers and deployers accountable.
Published -
journal-articleSmuha, Nathalie A; 2024. Vijf(tig) tinten AI-ethiek. Karakter: Tijdschrift van Wetenschap; 2024; Vol. 85; pp. 22 - 24 keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS4144921
description
artificiële intelligentie als onderzoeksdomein beleeft op dit moment een ‘zomer’ als nooit tevoren. ai krijgt vorm door toedoen van mensen, maar geeft de samenleving zelf ook vorm, en kan een aanzienlijke impact hebben op mensenrechten, democratie en rechtsstaat. om die reden hebben ook regelgevers tegenwoordig oog voor onze toenemende ai-afhankelijkheid en de maatschappelijke vraagstukken die ermee gepaard gaan. in hun overwegingen en in het ruimere debat over ai neemt ethiek een steeds centralere rol in.
Publisher: Academische Stichting Leuven
Published -
internet-publicationSmuha, Nathalie A; Biden, Bletchley, and the emerging international law of AI. Publisher: Verfassungsblog keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS4122312
description
On 30 October 2023, US President Biden issued a ‘landmark’ Executive Order to ensure that ‘America leads the way in seizing the promise and managing the risks’ of AI. In the two weeks that passed since, commentators across the world have analyzed its merits and drawbacks. Yet rather than its substance, the aspect of this Executive Order that I find most interesting, is its timing. The Order was issued four days after the plenary session of the Council of Europe’s AI Committee (CAI), where an international treaty on AI is being negotiated; two days ahead of the UK’s AI Safety Summit, which resulted in the Bletchley declaration calling for international cooperation to manage AI’s risks; four days ahead of the UN First Committee’s adoption of a draft resolution on lethal autonomous weapons; and on the very same day as the G7 leaders’ agreement on Guiding Principles and a Code of Conduct on AI. Each of these global fora positions itself as a venue to discuss, create and shape international AI regulation, alongside national and supranational venues aspiring similar ends. The European Union’s efforts to finalize the impending AI Act, a comprehensive regulation set to become ‘a blueprint’ for AI legislation across the world, can for instance be seen against the same background. The significance of Biden’s Executive Order can therefore only be understood when taking a step back and considering the growing global AI regulatory landscape. In this blogpost, I argue that an international law of AI is slowly starting to emerge, pushing countries to adopt their own position on this technology in the international regulatory arena, before others do so for them. Biden’s Executive Order should hence be read with exactly this purpose in mind.
Published online -
internet-publicationSmuha, Nathalie;Hendrickx, Victoria; 2023. AI and the Administration of Justice: taking ‘precedent analysis’ as a use case to assess the adequacy of the AI Act. Publisher: The Law, Ethics & Policy of AI Blog keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS4113583
description
The European Union is currently negotiating the first comprehensive horizontal regulation on artificial intelligence (AI) in Europe, the AI Act. Among the many areas that will fall under the AI Act’s scope, one can find AI systems used for the administration of justice, which are listed as a high-risk category. In this blogpost, we dive deeper into this area to examine which general obligations apply to such systems, and whether they are sufficiently robust to address the specific risks that arise in the context of the administration of justice. To do so, we will analyse the use case of an AI system that assists judges in their search for relevant legal precedents. We conclude that, unfortunately, the current proposal appears to leave many questions open, and hope that policymakers take this limitation into consideration. Moreover, we call upon legal actors to get more involved in the ongoing processes of AI governance, which will inevitably impact the digitalisation of justice and have consequences for the rule of law.
Published online -
internet-publicationSmuha, Nathalie; 2023. Digital Sovereignty in the European Union: Five Challenges from a Normative Perspective. Publisher: SSRN keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS4097605
description
In this paper, I aim to make sense of digital sovereignty in the European Union by examining both its meanings and its obstacles. I start by unpacking the term through a brief exploration of its use in European discourse, and reflect on two of its dimensions that are prevalently highlighted: economic and normative digital sovereignty (section 2). Focusing primarily on the latter, I subsequently examine five challenges that European digital sovereignty currently faces, and that must be tackled if the EU wishes to maintain its ability to exercise its sovereign powers. These include the significant role of private actors in the public digital sphere, interference by foreign actors, Europe’s rule of law crisis, the risk of poor digital governance, and the lack of digital literacy (section 3). Finally, I offer some concluding remarks, acknowledging the difficult balances the EU will need to strike in its digital policies (section 4).
Published online -
presentationSmuha, Nathalie; 2023. De regulering van AI - een ethische en juridische blik.LIRIAS4097609
description
Published -
presentationSmuha, Nathalie; 2023. Artificial Intelligence and Gender Data Bias - Legal and Ethical Perspectives.LIRIAS4097608
description
Published -
presentationSmuha, Nathalie; 2023. A Legal Perspective on Responsible AI. keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS4097607
description
Invited Guest Lecture on the governance of AI
Published -
presentationSmuha, Nathalie; 2023. Algorithmic regulation in between the rule of law and the rule by law.LIRIAS4097610
description
Published -
internet-publicationSmuha, Nathalie;De Ketelaere, Mieke;Coeckelbergh, Mark;Dewitte, Pierre;Poullet, Yves; 2023. We are not ready for manipulative AI – urgent need for action. Publisher: Euractiv keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS4076667
description
Chatbots and other human-imitating artificial intelligence (AI) applications are increasingly important in our lives. The possibilities raised by the latest developments are fascinating, but the fact that it is possible does not mean it’s desirable. Given AI’s ethical, legal and social implications, questions on its desirability are increasingly pressing.
Published online -
internet-publicationSmuha, Nathalie;De Ketelaere, Mieke;Coeckelbergh, Mark;Dewitte, Pierre;Poullet, Yves; We are not ready for manipulative AI – urgent need for action. Publisher: The Law, Ethics and Policy of AI BlogLIRIAS4076295
description
Published online -
internet-publicationSmuha, Nathalie;De Ketelaere, Mieke;Coeckelbergh, Mark;Dewitte, Pierre;Poullet, Yves; 2023. Le chatbot Eliza a brisé une vie : il est temps d'agir face à l’IA manipulatrice. Publisher: La Libre Belgique S.A. keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS4076665
description
Le suicide, en Belgique, d’un homme suite aux incitations d’un chatbot souligne le risque de la manipulation émotionnelle. 50 académiques tirent le signal d’alarme. Développeurs et fournisseurs d’Intelligence Artificielle (IA) mais aussi les gouvernements doivent adopter au plus vite un cadre juridique protecteur.
Published online -
internet-publicationSmuha, Nathalie;De Ketelaere, Mieke;Coeckelbergh, Mark;Dewitte, Pierre;Poullet, Yves; 2023. Onze samenleving is niet klaar voor manipulatieve AI. Publisher: Vlaamse Tijdschriften Uitgeverij keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS4076666
description
Wat de laatste AI-doorbraken mogelijk maken is fascinerend, maar het feit dat iets mogelijk is, maakt het nog niet wenselijk’, schrijft een groep bezorgde wetenschappers en juristen naar aanleiding van het nieuws dat een man uit het leven stapte nadat hij daartoe zou zijn aangemoedigd door een chatbot. ‘Er is dringend nood aan actie.
Published online -
presentationSmuha, Nathalie; 2023. The governance of Artificial Intelligence: A journey from ethics to law. keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS4097606
description
Invited Guest Lecture on the ethics and law of EU
Published -
presentationSmuha, Nathalie; 2023. Towards the ethical use of AI in Public Administration.LIRIAS4097611
description
Published -
internet-publicationHendrickx, Victoria;Smuha, Nathalie; 2023. Artificial Intelligence and interdisciplinarity: an evaluation. Publisher: The Law, Ethics & Policy of AI Blog keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS4065702
description
Interdisciplinary research is becoming increasingly popular, especially in the domain of artificial intelligence (AI) where it is difficult to fathom societal opportunities and risks without considering insights from various disciplines. However, taking an interdisciplinary approach also comes with several challenges, which can sometimes be overlooked and which need to be addressed to ensure its full potential. This blogpost draws on the experience of the (interdisciplinary) KU Leuven Summer School on the Law, Ethics and Policy of AI. It provides some reflections on the advantages and drawbacks of AI and interdisciplinarity, as well as key takeaways for the future of interdisciplinary AI research.
Published online -
thesis-dissertationSmuha, Nathalie; 2022. The Algorithmic Leviathan and the Rule of Law: An examination of how algorithmic regulation in the public sector can lead to ‘algorithmic rule by law’, and a critical evaluation of EU legal safeguards. keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS3935648
description
In this thesis, I explore two current global developments. The first concerns the increased use of algorithmic systems by public authorities in a way that raises significant ethical and legal challenges. The second concerns the erosion of the rule of law and the rise of authoritarian and illiberal tendencies in liberal democracies, including in Europe. While each of these developments is worrying as such, I argue that the combination of their harms is currently underexamined. By analysing and demonstrating how the former development might reinforce the latter, I provide a better understanding of how algorithmic regulation can undermine the rule of law ― a threat that I conceptualise as algorithmic rule by law ― and I seek to identify pathways towards countering this problem. At least two problematic scenarios are thinkable. Under a first scenario, a state may resort to the implementation of algorithmic regulation with ill intentions to augment its power under the guise of 'efficiency', while avoiding public scrutiny. It can, for instance, creatively translate law to code and program algorithms in a manner favourable to government supporters, yet unfavourable to dissidents, minority groups or anyone the state considers falling outside the 'norm'. Under a second scenario, a state may resort to algorithmic regulation with good intentions, yet without proper attention to the risks that can arise therefrom. While the well-intentioned government may not seek to abuse the vulnerabilities it creates, individuals subjected to the system can nevertheless be harmed, and the rule of law's principles might be affected. Moreover, an infrastructure is put in place that can easily be abused by a next, less well-intentioned government. Evidently, neither of those two scenarios is desirable, and a third one should be ensured: one in which appropriate safeguards exist to counter this threat. I start my inquiry by defining algorithmic regulation and discussing how public authorities are relying on it to inform or adopt administrative acts (Chapter 2). Subsequently, I define the rule of law in the context of liberal democracies and draw on the acquis of the European Union ('EU') and the Council of Europe to distil six requirements that public authorities must meet to comply with the rule of law (Chapter 3). By analysing concrete applications of algorithmic regulation that are used by public authorities, I comprehensively assess how each of these six rule of law-requirements can be obstructed. I conclude that the irresponsible use of such applications can lead to algorithmic rule by law instead: a distortion of the rule of law under the guise of legality and algorithmic efficiency (Chapter 4). Finally, I assess whether the EU's legal framework, which includes new legislative initiatives in the sphere of artificial intelligence, is sufficiently armed against this new threat (Chapter 5). I conclude that the EU's digital agenda and its rule of law agenda are not merely misaligned, but seem to be pursuing fundamentally antagonistic ends. I close with a set of recommendations that might help address this threat, and a plea for further reflection before proceeding with the large-scale roll-out of algorithmic regulation in the public sector (Chapter 6).
Published -
internet-publicationSmuha, Nathalie;Morandini, Anna; 2022. Trustworthy AI through regulation? Sketching the European approach. Publisher: The Digital Constitutionalist keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS3894582
description
In this post, Nathalie Smuha and Anna Morandini continue asking fundamental questions on the interaction between regulation and technology. Can the European AI Act mitigate the ethical and legal concerns raised by this hyped technology? Which trail is the EU blazing to secure ‘Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence’ in Europe, as distinct from the laissez-faire approach in the US and the state-centric approach in China? In this post, both authors unpack the proposed AI regulation and evaluate its merits and pitfalls. After explaining the build-up towards the proposal, they set out the scope of the Act and its four categories of risks as part of a ‘risk-based approach’ to regulate AI. While the transformation from ethics guidelines to ambitious legal framework is an important milestone – with a potential for global reach – both authors conclude that the Act contains several Achilles’ heels that must be addressed during the ongoing legislative negotiations to ensure it truly protects EU values.
Published online -
journal-articleSmuha, Nathalie A; 2022. Doorzending van verkeers- en locatiegegevens naar nationale autoriteiten: van het recht op privacy tot het recht op veiligheid. HvJ (grote kamer) 6 oktober 2020, C-623/17 (Privacy International) en gevoegde zaken C-511/18, C-512/18 en C-520/18 (La Quadrature du Net e.a.). Tijdschrift voor Bestuurswetenschappen en Publiekrecht; 2022; Vol. 2022; iss. 8; pp. 540 - 543LIRIAS3937767
description
Publisher: Kluwer
Published -
chapterSmuha, Nathalie A; 2022. Pitfalls and pathways for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in education. The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Education; 2022; pp. 113 - 145 Publisher: Routledge keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS4158397
description
Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications are entering all domains of our lives, including education. Besides benefits, the use of AI can also entail ethical risks, which are increasingly appearing on legislators’ agendas. Many of these risks are context-specific and increase when vulnerable individuals are involved, asymmetries of power exist, and human rights and democratic values are at stake. Surprisingly, regulators thus far have paid only little attention to the specific risks arising in the context of AI in education (AIED). In this chapter, I assess the ethical challenges posed by AIED, taking as a normative framework the seven requirements for Trustworthy AI set out in the Ethics Guidelines of the European Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on AI. After an overview of the Guidelines’ broader context), I examine each requirement in the educational domain and assess the pitfalls that should be addressed. I pay particular attention to the role of education in shaping people’s minds, and the manner in which this role can be used both to empower and exploit individuals. I note that AIED’s main strength – offering education on a wider scale through more flexible and individualized learning methods – also constitutes a liability when left unchecked. Finally, I discuss various pathways that policymakers should consider to foster Trustworthy AIED beyond the adoption of guidelines, before concluding.
Published