The report outlines the principles, legal framework, and ethical aspects of using artificial intelligence systems in the operations of the Chancellery of the Sejm. It indicates that such tools should be implemented in phases, taking into account risk analysis and impact assessments, as well as ensuring compliance with legal provisions, ethical standards, and technical and organisational requirements. The concluding section of the report proposes guidelines for the use of artificial intelligence tools in the Chancellery of the Sejm. These guidelines include the purpose of the regulations, general rules for the use of artificial intelligence, ethical principles, requirements for security, confidentiality, and data protection, as well as requirements for training, oversight, and auditing.
The scale of the use of AI-based tools is now regarded as one of the key factors contributing to competitive advantage. The state should play an important role in supporting both researchers and entrepreneurs in this area. This involves not only financial support for innovation but also the development of an entire ecosystem encompassing AI research, education, and the implementation of solutions that would set standards for similar projects. A systemic approach is needed, which may require new organisational arrangements within public administration. At the same time, the state is responsible for protecting citizens and the economy against the various risks associated with the use of artificial intelligence.
The judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) of 18 September 2024 concerns two motions submitted by the Alternative for Germany group (Alternative für Deutschland), in connection with the removal of one of its members from the position of committee chair and the refusal to appoint candidates from the party to that position. The dispute concerned the scope of the parliamentary group’s rights arising from the principle of proportional representation, the effective functioning of the opposition, and the interpretation of the chamber’s rules of procedure. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ruled that the function of committee chair is purely organisational in nature and that holding that position does not fall within the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the parliamentary group. The Court also held that, due to the autonomy of the chamber, rights arising exclusively from its rules of procedure are subject only to limited review against the standard of the prohibition of arbitrariness. The motions were dismissed as partly inadmissible and unfounded in all other respects.
This review concerns the collective work edited by Andrei N. Medushevsky, entitled Конституция России после реформы 2020 года: проблемный комментарий [The Constitution of Russia after the 2020 Reform: A Critical Commentary], which constitutes a comprehensive, critical study of the effects of the 2020 amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The authors of the publication, representing Russian academic circles, analyse the changes to the political system from the perspectives of legal theory, comparative studies, and political science, pointing to the processes of centralisation and personalisation of power, strengthening of the president’s position, restrictions on local self-government, and redefinition of the state’s relationship with international law. The book is a unique and valuable example of internal, critical reflection on the authoritarianisation of Russia’s political system. The high scientific level of the monograph, its significance for research on Russia in the context of the paradigm of authoritarian constitutionalism, and its scholarly contribution to documenting the legal mechanisms that perpetuate the model of power referred to as ‘constitutional authoritarianism’ warrant emphasis.
This article examines the application of artificial intelligence in the electoral process. It argues that elections constitute a cornerstone of the democratic state, which justifies the need for particular caution in the deployment of new technologies in this sphere, as emphasised, inter alia, by the United Nations, UNESCO, and the European Union’s AI Act. The issue is analysed in the context of the impact of artificial intelligence on democracy, the rule of law, and the protection of human rights. The article highlights the dual nature of artificial intelligence. On the one hand, artificial intelligence may enhance the organisation of elections by strengthening cybersecurity, increasing administrative efficiency, improving the transparency of electoral procedures, and facilitating access to electoral information. On the other hand, it may generate significant systemic risks. Particular threats are associated with the use of generative artificial intelligence and microtargeting techniques, which facilitate large-scale disinformation, manipulation of voter behaviour, and infringements of civil rights and freedoms. From a legal perspective, the article emphasises the classification of artificial intelligence systems used in democratic processes as high-risk systems. From a political science perspective, it points to threats to electoral integrity, the fragmentation of the public sphere, and the erosion of public trust. The article concludes that the ultimate impact of artificial intelligence on elections will depend on the manner in which it is employed by political actors, as well as on the effectiveness of legal regulation, institutional oversight, and the prevailing political culture.
