Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights: Balancing Technological Innovation and Fundamental Rights Protection

Abstract

Artificial intelligence has moved rather quickly from a specialist debate into ordinary institutions: police forces, border systems, hiring desks, clinics, social media and consumer markets. It is this move that does not fit the picture of a rights violation I was taught, and why I started this paper. The standard image is a decision by a named official or a company exercising a public function that can be challenged. Often there is an AI system in between. It is trained on old data, it may be opaque even to its designers, and it can be deployed across borders by a combination of public bodies and private firms. This article considers the effect of that change on privacy, non-discrimination, freedom of expression and the right to a remedy. It is a doctrinal and policy-based method. I studied the main human rights instruments, a small set of well-documented cases and investigations, and the newer regulatory texts, especially the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, the GDPR, the Council of Europe’s 2024 Framework Convention, and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. I am not arguing that human rights law has nothing to offer. Law is built for identifiable actors exercising judgement. Statistically mediated systems expose the gaps in that design. The recommendations at the end are correspondingly practical: impact assessment that is not self-certified, remedy that a person can actually reach, and due diligence duties that attach to private developers as well as to states.