REGULATION OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN DIFFERENT CULTURAL CONTEXTS
Introduction: The Influence of AI and the Need for Regulation
- AI is a transformative force with the potential to reshape work dynamics.
- AI’s capacity for creative solutions derived from diverse data sources.
- AI’s potential for both positive and negative impacts necessitates regulation.
Regulation Across Different Geographies
- AI regulation efforts have been most advanced in the European Union (EU), Brazil, Canada, Japan, and China.
- Western countries (EU, Brazil, UK, Canada) have introduced regulatory measures with variations.
- Japan’s approach focuses on human-centric AI principles.
- China’s regulations emphasize adherence to laws, ethics, and values in AI services.
Contrasting Regulatory Approaches: Western vs. Eastern Models
- Western systems adopt a risk-based approach, categorizing AI applications into ‘unacceptable risk,’ ‘high risk,’ ‘limited risk,’ and ‘low risk’ categories.
- Western regulations define specific actions and methods for compliance.
- Japanese regulations emphasize principles like human-centricity, data protection, fairness, etc.
- Chinese regulations prioritize values upheld by AI services and adherence to ethics.
Philosophical Underpinnings of Western and Eastern Legal Systems
- Eurocentric legal systems create rules through postulation (precise instructions and penalties for non-compliance).
- Oriental legal systems create rules through intuition (defining the end to be achieved and underlying morality).
- Ancient Indian legal systems were successful due to clear goals and an underlying moral code.
- Law and morality are synonymous in the Eastern context.
Influence of British Colonial Legacy and Judicial Perspective
- The Indian legal system, influenced by British colonial rule, lacks the virtues of both ancient Indian and English systems.
- Justice V. Ramasubramaniam criticizes India’s tendency to mimic Western legal systems.
- A judgment on cryptocurrency incorporates the Sanskrit epigram “neti neti” (neither this nor that), suggesting a different perspective.
Considering India’s AI Regulations
- NITI Aayog’s discussion papers refer to AI regulations in the West.
- The need for India to establish regulations consistent with its ethos.
- Emphasis on adopting a regulatory framework that aligns with Indian values and culture.
Key Takeaways:
- AI’s transformative power requires effective regulation.
- Different regions have distinct regulatory approaches (Western vs. Eastern).
- Western regulations focus on specific actions, while Eastern regulations prioritize values and ethics.
- Eastern legal systems emphasize intuition and morality.
India should consider its cultural ethos while framing AI regulations, rather than simply replicating Western models.
NAVIGATING THE INDUS WATERS TREATY DISPUTE: EQUITABLE ALLOCATION, LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, AND PATHS TO RESOLUTION
The Indus Waters Treaty, facilitated by the World Bank, has emerged as a contentious issue between India and Pakistan once again. The treaty, which emphasizes equitable water allocation rather than causing harm, has led to disputes, primarily centered around India’s hydel projects.
While India views these projects as crucial for energy and regional development, Pakistan raises objections, citing treaty violations and potential adverse effects on its water supply. This conflict highlights the challenges of managing shared water resources and underscores the need for trust and cooperation between the two nations.
Equitable Allocation vs. Appreciable Harm Principle
- The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), brokered by the World Bank, emphasizes equitable allocation of water resources instead of the principle of appreciable harm.
- Both India and Pakistan have exclusive rights to use allocated rivers’ waters without causing harm to the other’s interests.
- The treaty allocates three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) to India and three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) to Pakistan.
- India can store 3.60 million-acre feet (MAF) of water, with sector-wise allocations for storage and flood control.
Core of the Issue: India’s Hydel Projects
- The current conflict centers on India’s Kishanganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir.
- India sees these projects as essential for energy and regional development, while Pakistan objects, citing treaty violations and potential harm to its water supply.
- The dispute’s focus was on Kishanganga initially, taken to the Court of Arbitration (CoA) in 2010, then the Ratle project on the Chenab in 2012.
CoA Judgment and Ongoing Disputes
- The CoA ruled in 2013 that India’s Kishanganga project is a run-of-the-river dam, allowing India to divert water for power generation.
- However, India was required to maintain a minimum flow of nine cusecs in the Kishanganga river.
- Despite resolving one out of four expected issues, disagreements on pondage and spillway configuration persisted between India and Pakistan.
- Pakistan accused India of treaty violation and appealed to the World Bank, which paused the Kishanganga and Ratle projects.
World Bank Intervention and Ongoing Proceedings
- In 2016, Pakistan sought a CoA through the World Bank, while India requested a neutral expert for dispute resolution.
- Works on the Kishanganga project continued despite the pause, leading to tensions and border incidents.
- In 2022, the World Bank appointed a neutral expert and CoA chairman to address the disputes.
PCA Ruling and India’s Stand
- In 2023, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) affirmed its competence to resolve disputes raised by Pakistan.
- India abstained from PCA proceedings, asserting that it cannot be compelled to engage in illegal parallel proceedings.
- India is participating in the neutral expert’s proceedings scheduled for September 2023.
Addressing the Trust Deficit and Future Prospects
- Opinion pieces suggest revisiting the IWT to incorporate equitable utilization and the no harm rule, emphasizing the need for trust between India and Pakistan.
- Proposals include involving local stakeholders, establishing a joint group of experts, exploring cooperation arrangements outlined in the IWT, and considering amendments.
- Due to the trust deficit, it’s challenging for Pakistan to accept India’s call for renegotiation or amendment.
Conclusion
The Indus Waters Treaty, focused on equitable allocation, has led to disputes between India and Pakistan concerning hydel projects and treaty violations.
Despite interventions by the CoA and the PCA, the lack of trust and differing interests between the two countries complicates the resolution process.
Potential solutions involve involving local stakeholders, expert groups, cooperation arrangements, and mutual agreement for treaty modifications.
Basics of Indus Water Treaty
Indus Water Treaty
- A water-sharing agreement between India and Pakistan signed in 1960
- Brokered by the World Bank after nine years of negotiations
- Aimed to resolve the dispute over the use of the Indus river system and its tributaries
Main Provisions
- The treaty divided the six rivers of the Indus system into two groups: the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas and Sutlej) and the western rivers (Indus, Chenab and Jhelum)
- India got exclusive rights to use the water of the eastern rivers, while Pakistan got exclusive rights to use the water of the western rivers
- India was allowed to use the water of the western rivers for limited irrigation, power generation, navigation and other non-consumptive purposes, subject to certain conditions and regulations
- A Permanent Indus Commission was established to oversee the implementation of the treaty and settle any disputes through arbitration
Significance
- The treaty is considered one of the most successful water-sharing agreements in the world, as it has survived several wars and conflicts between India and Pakistan
- The treaty has ensured a stable and predictable supply of water for both countries, which is vital for their agricultural and economic development
- The treaty has also fostered cooperation and goodwill between India and Pakistan on a sensitive issue, despite their political differences
Challenges
- The treaty faces some challenges due to changing circumstances, such as climate change, population growth, environmental degradation, water scarcity and demand management
- The treaty does not address some emerging issues, such as groundwater extraction, water quality, ecological flows, transboundary pollution and data sharing
- The treaty has also been a source of tension and mistrust between India and Pakistan, as both countries accuse each other of violating or misusing the treaty provisions
The treaty needs to be updated and expanded to address these challenges and ensure its continued relevance and effectiveness
