The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international agreements outline numerous inalienable rights that apply across geopolitical boundaries. As generative AI becomes increasingly prevalent, it poses risks to human rights such as non-discrimination, health, and security, which are also central concerns for AI researchers focused on fairness and safety. We contribute to the field of algorithmic auditing by presenting a framework to computationally assess human rights risk. Drawing on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, we develop an approach to evaluating a model to make grounded claims about the level of risk a model poses to particular human rights. Our framework consists of three parts: selecting tasks that are likely to pose human rights risks within a given context, designing metrics to measure the scope, scale, and likelihood of potential risks from that task, and analyzing rights with respect to the values of those metrics. Because a human rights approach centers on real-world harms, it requires evaluating AI systems in the specific contexts in which they are deployed. We present a case study of large language models in political news journal
As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly mediate global information access with the potential to shape public discourse, their alignment with universal human rights principles becomes important to ensure that these rights are abided by in high stakes AI-mediated interactions. In this paper, we evaluate how LLMs navigate trade-offs involving the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), leveraging 1,152 synthetically generated scenarios across 24 rights articles and eight languages. Our analysis of eleven major LLMs reveals systematic biases where models: (1) accept limiting Economic, Social, and Cultural rights more often than Political and Civil rights, (2) demonstrate significant cross-linguistic variation with elevated endorsement rates of rights-limiting actions in Chinese and Hindi compared to English or Romanian, (3) show substantial susceptibility to prompt-based steering, and (4) exhibit noticeable differences between Likert and open-ended responses, highlighting critical challenges in LLM preference assessment.
The EU AI Act constitutes an important development in shaping the Union's digital regulatory architecture. The Act places fundamental rights at the heart of a risk-based governance framework. The article examines how the AI Act institutionalises a human-centric approach to AI and how the AI Act's provisions explicitly and implicitly embed the protection of rights enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. It argues that fundamental rights function not merely as aspirational goals, but as legal thresholds and procedural triggers across the lifecycle of an AI system. The analysis suggests that the AI Act has the potential to serve as a model for rights-preserving AI systems, while acknowledging that challenges will emerge at the level of implementation.
In this work we challenge arguments for robot rights on metaphysical, ethical and legal grounds. Metaphysically, we argue that machines are not the kinds of things that may be denied or granted rights. Building on theories of phenomenology and post-Cartesian approaches to cognitive science, we ground our position in the lived reality of actual humans in an increasingly ubiquitously connected, controlled, digitized, and surveilled society. Ethically, we argue that, given machines current and potential harms to the most marginalized in society, limits on (rather than rights for) machines should be at the centre of current AI ethics debate. From a legal perspective, the best analogy to robot rights is not human rights but corporate rights, a highly controversial concept whose most important effect has been the undermining of worker, consumer, and voter rights by advancing the power of capital to exercise outsized influence on politics and law. The idea of robot rights, we conclude, acts as a smoke screen, allowing theorists and futurists to fantasize about benevolently sentient machines with unalterable needs and desires protected by law. While such fantasies have motivated fascinatin
The EU GDPR is a landmark regulation that introduced several rights for individuals to obtain information and control how their personal data is being processed, as well as receive a copy of it. However, there are gaps in the effective use of rights due to each organisation developing custom methods for rights declaration and management. Simultaneously, there is a technological gap as there is no single consistent standards-based mechanism that can automate the handling of rights for both organisations and individuals. In this article, we present a specification for exercising and managing rights in a machine-interpretable format based on semantic web standards. Our approach uses the comprehensive Data Privacy Vocabulary to create a streamlined workflow for individuals to understand what rights exist, how and where to exercise them, and for organisations to effectively manage them. This work pushes the state of the art in GDPR rights management and is crucial for data reuse and rights management under technologically intensive developments, such as Data Spaces.
We embed buying rights into a (repeated) Arrow-Debreu model to study the long-term effects of regulation through buying rights on arising inequality. Our motivation stems from situations that typically call for regulatory interventions, such as rationing, namely, distribution crises in which demand and supply are persistently misaligned. In such settings, scarce resources tend to become increasingly concentrated among more affluent individuals, while the needs of the broader population remain unmet. While fully centralized distribution may be logistically or politically unfeasible, issuing buying rights offers a more practical alternative: they can be implemented digitally, e.g., via tokens traded on online platforms, making them significantly easier to administer. We model a scenario in which a regulator periodically distributes buying rights with the aim of promoting a more equitable allocation. Our contributions include (i) the definition of the (iterated) market where in each round the buying rights are distributed and then traded alongside the resource, (ii) the approximation algorithm of the market-clearing prices in every round, and (iii) the upper bound on \textit{frustrati
Cultural rights and the right to development are essential norms within the wider framework of international human rights law. However, recent technological advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and adjacent digital frontier technologies pose significant challenges to the protection and realization of these rights. This owes to the increasing influence of AI systems on the creation and depiction of cultural content, affect the use and distribution of the intellectual property of individuals and communities, and influence cultural participation and expression worldwide. In addition, the growing influence of AI thus risks exacerbating preexisting economic, social and digital divides and reinforcing inequities for marginalized communities. This dynamic challenges the existing interplay between cultural rights and the right to development, and raises questions about the integration of cultural and developmental considerations into emerging AI governance frameworks. To address these challenges, the paper examines the impact of AI on both categories of rights. Conceptually, it analyzes the epistemic and normative limitations of AI with respect to cultural and developmental assumptions
Privacy regulations such as the CCPA and GDPR grant individuals rights over their personal data, yet it remains challenging for most users to exercise them in practice due to vague policy interpretation and unapproachable settings on web interfaces. We introduce Privy, an LLM-powered browser assistant that guides users through exercising their privacy rights on websites. Privy automatically analyzes a website's privacy policy and surfaces the specific rights available as action labels in a side panel. When a user selects a right, Privy provides step-by-step guidance and navigation, presenting direct links, generating email templates, or guiding form completion. Users can also request on-demand policy evidence and rights education to enhance their literacy. A technical evaluation across 14 websites shows that Privy extracts rights with high precision (0.979) and completes 96.3\% of privacy tasks in an average of 3.2 steps. A user study (N=15) also demonstrates the overall high-level of perceived helpfulness among users. Our findings suggest that comprehension and usability are not two separate challenges but a single interaction problem, and that effective privacy support requires i
This chapter introduces a conceptual framework for qualitative risk assessment of AI, particularly in the context of the EU AI Act. The framework addresses the complexities of legal compliance and fundamental rights protection by itegrating definitional balancing and defeasible reasoning. Definitional balancing employs proportionality analysis to resolve conflicts between competing rights, while defeasible reasoning accommodates the dynamic nature of legal decision-making. Our approach stresses the need for an analysis of AI deployment scenarios and for identifying potential legal violations and multi-layered impacts on fundamental rights. On the basis of this analysis, we provide philosophical foundations for a logical account of AI risk analysis. In particular, we consider the basic building blocks for conceptually grasping the interaction between AI deployment scenarios and fundamental rights, incorporating in defeasible reasoning definitional balancing and arguments about the contextual promotion or demotion of rights. This layered approach allows for more operative models of assessment of both high-risk AI systems and General Purpose AI (GPAI) systems, emphasizing the broader
Whether and how to regulate AI is now a central question of governance. Across academic, policy, and international legal circles, the European Union is widely treated as the normative leader in this space. Its regulatory framework, anchored in the General Data Protection Regulation, the Digital Services and Markets Acts, and the AI Act, is often portrayed as a principled model grounded in fundamental rights. This Article challenges that assumption. We argue that the rights-based narrative surrounding EU AI regulation mischaracterizes the logic of its institutional design. While rights language pervades EU legal instruments, its function is managerial, not foundational. These rights operate as tools of administrative ordering, used to mitigate technological disruption, manage geopolitical risk, and preserve systemic balance, rather than as expressions of moral autonomy or democratic consent. Drawing on comparative institutional analysis, we situate EU AI governance within a longer tradition of legal ordering shaped by the need to coordinate power across fragmented jurisdictions. We contrast this approach with the American model, which reflects a different regulatory logic rooted in
In the dynamic realm of digital content, safeguarding intellectual property rights poses critical challenges. This paper presents "SecureRights," an innovative Blockchain-based Trusted Digital Rights Management (DRM) framework. It strengthens the defence against unauthorized use and streamlines the claim of digital rights. Utilizing blockchain, digital watermarking, perceptual hashing, Quick Response (QR) codes, and the Interplanetary File System (IPFS), SecureRights securely stores watermark information on the blockchain with timestamp authentication. Incorporating perceptual hashing generates robust hash tokens based on image structure. The addition of QR codes enhances the watermarking, offering a comprehensive solution for resilient intellectual property rights protection. Rigorous evaluations affirm SecureRights' resilience against various attacks, establishing its efficacy in safeguarding digital content and simplifying rightful ownership assertion.
In the European context, both the EU AI Act proposal and the draft Standardisation Request on safe and trustworthy AI link standardisation to fundamental rights. However, these texts do not provide any guidelines that specify and detail the relationship between AI standards and fundamental rights, its meaning or implication. This chapter aims to clarify this critical regulatory blind spot. The main issue tackled is whether the adoption of AI harmonised standards, based on the future AI Act, should take into account fundamental rights. In our view, the response is yes. The high risks posed by certain AI systems relate in particular to infringements of fundamental rights. Therefore, mitigating such risks involves fundamental rights considerations and this is what future harmonised standards should reflect. At the same time, valid criticisms of the European standardisation process have to be addressed. Finally, the practical incorporation of fundamental rights considerations in the ongoing European standardisation of AI systems is discussed.
This white paper is the product of a joint Digital Public Library of America (DPLA)-Europeana working group organized to develop minimum rights statement metadata standards for organizations that contribute to DPLA and Europeana. This white paper deals specifically with the technical infrastructure of a common namespace (rightsstatements.org) that hosts the rights statements to be used by (at minimum) the DPLA and Europeana. These recommendations for a common technical infrastructure for rights statements outline a simple, flexible, and extensible framework to host the rights statements at rightsstatements.org. This white paper specifically outlines the management of rights statements as linked open data. The rights statements are published according to Best Practices for Publishing RDF Vocabularies. They are encoded into dereferenceable URIs, express further information encoded in RDF, and link to existing vocabularies and standards. The rights statements adhere to expressions of existing rights vocabularies. Furthermore the paper reviews the publication and implementation to make the rights statements available through human-readable web pages augmented with machine-readable form
We examine how production and the development of property rights interact with cultural transmission to shape the treatment of the elderly across societies. Our model posits that respect for the elderly arises endogenously: parents invest in cultivating cultural values in their children, who later reciprocate in proportion to this investment. We show that this model is functionally equivalent to one in which cultural goods are transferred by the elderly. We focus on the distinct roles of property rights, finding that while insecure output rights may promote elderly welfare, secure rights over productive resources can have comparable benefits. The model reveals a nonlinear relationship between cultural sophistication, property rights, and economic factors such as the capital and land intensity of production, driving variations in elderly well-being across societies. Finally, we consider how the model suggests demographic, technological, and policy changes influence elderly well-being across the spectrum of development.
This paper presents a new rationale for a self-interested economic elite voluntarily extending property rights. When agents make endogenous investment decisions, there is a commitment problem. Ex-post, the elite face strong incentives to expropriate investments from the non-elite (who don't have property rights), which dissuades investment. Extending property rights to new groups can resolve this problem, even for those not given property rights, by making public good provision more attractive to the elite. Unlike other models of franchise extensions, extending property rights in this paper does not involve the elite ceding control to others. Rather, it changes the incentives they face. Additionally, adding identity groups to the model shows that an elite faces weaker incentives to resolve the commitment problem when it is part of a minority identity -- identity fragmentation makes it harder for a society to extend property rights.
Large language models (LLMs) are often trained on data that reflect WEIRD values: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. This raises concerns about cultural bias and fairness. Using responses to the World Values Survey, we evaluated five widely used LLMs: GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Llama-3, BLOOM, and Qwen. We measured how closely these responses aligned with the values of the WEIRD countries and whether they conflicted with human rights principles. To reflect global diversity, we compared the results with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and three regional charters from Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. Models with lower alignment to WEIRD values, such as BLOOM and Qwen, produced more culturally varied responses but were 2% to 4% more likely to generate outputs that violated human rights, especially regarding gender and equality. For example, some models agreed with the statements ``a man who cannot father children is not a real man'' and ``a husband should always know where his wife is'', reflecting harmful gender norms. These findings suggest that as cultural representation in LLMs increases, so does the risk of reproducing discriminatory beliefs. Approaches suc
Resource distribution is a fundamental problem in economic and policy design, particularly when demand and supply are not naturally aligned. Without regulation, wealthier individuals may monopolize this resource, leaving the needs of others unsatisfied. While centralized distribution can ensure fairer division, it can struggle to manage logistics efficiently, and adapt to changing conditions, often leading to shortages, surpluses, and bureaucratic inefficiencies. Building on previous research on market-based redistribution, we examine a repeated hybrid market that incorporates buying rights. These rights, distributed iteratively by a central authority (for instance, as digital tokens), are intended to enhance fairness in the system - a unit of right is required to acquire a unit of the resource, but the rights themselves can also be traded alongside the resource in the market. We analyze how this regulatory mechanism influences the distribution of the scarce resource in the hybrid market over time. Unlike past works that relied on empirical methods, we explore the exact analytical properties of a system in which traders optimize over multiple rounds. We identify its market equilibr
There have been works discussing the adoption of a human rights framework for responsible AI, emphasizing various rights such as the right to contribute to scientific advancements. Yet, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to take this framework with special focus on computer vision and documenting human rights violations in its community. This work summarizes such incidents accompanied with evidence from the lens of a female African Muslim Hijabi researcher. While previous works resorted to qualitative surveys that gather opinions from various researchers in the field, this work argues that a single documented violation is sufficient to warrant attention regardless of the stature of this researcher. Incidents documented in this work include silence on Genocides that are occurring while promoting the governments contributing to it, a broken reviewing system and corruption in the faculty support systems. This work discusses that demonizing individuals for discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, creed or reprisal has been a successful tool for exclusion with documented evidence from a single case. We argue that human rights are guaranteed for every single indivi
The emergence of digital technology has fundamentally transformed all facets of human existence, posing important queries about the safeguarding and implementation of human rights in the digital domain. The research focuses on important topics including privacy, freedom of speech, and information access. The methodology involves an extensive review of existing literature, legal frameworks, and relevant case studies to provide a comprehensive understanding of the intersection between technology and human rights. The paper highlights the challenges posed by surveillance, data breaches, and the digital divide while also exploring the role of international law and policy in safeguarding digital rights. The review highlights the significance of modifying human rights frameworks for the digital era, pointing out gaps in existing research and offering recommendations for future investigations.
Most of the synthesis literature has focused on studying how to synthesize a strategy to fulfill a task. This task is a duty for the agent. In this paper, we argue that intelligent agents should also be equipped with rights, that is, tasks that the agent itself can choose to fulfill (e.g., the right of recharging the battery). The agent should be able to maintain these rights while acting for its duties. We study this issue in the context of LTLf synthesis: we give duties and rights in terms of LTLf specifications, and synthesize a suitable strategy to achieve the duties that can be modified on-the-fly to achieve also the rights, if the agent chooses to do so. We show that handling rights does not make synthesis substantially more difficult, although it requires a more sophisticated solution concept than standard LTLf synthesis. We also extend our results to the case in which further duties and rights are given to the agent while already executing.