Concern 878 · Working draft · editorial review in progress
Right to human decision-maker
A human-review safeguard aims to ensure that a person can make a meaningful judgment in certain important automated decisions, rather than merely approve the machine's answer.
Understanding the concern
Human involvement can be superficial. A reviewer may lack time, information or authority to disagree, making the review a rubber stamp. The practical issue is whether someone understands the case, considers the person's account and can change the result. Human review can also introduce its own mistakes and biases.
Some laws require safeguards in defined situations; there is no universal right to a human for every interaction with software. A useful analogy is a referee who can actually overturn a call, rather than an announcer who repeats it. Organizations need to specify which decisions receive review and ensure that the reviewer has suitable evidence and responsibility.
An example
A staff member is assigned to review an automated denial but is forbidden from changing it without the same system's approval.
Illustrative unless identified as a documented case.
Evidence and its limits
GDPR Article 22 provides safeguards in specified cases and has scope limits and exceptions. It does not require human handling of every automated service or guarantee a favorable outcome.
European Union · Legislation
General Data Protection Regulation, Article 22 ↗ (opens in a new tab)Covers solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, with specified exceptions and safeguards. Not a universal veto on all automated assistance.
Broader frameworks and background
These resources provide context. They do not establish every claim in this concern.
- EU AI Act — high-level summary (opens in a new tab)
regulation
- Council of Europe AI Convention (opens in a new tab)
regulation
- International humanitarian law (IHL)
framework
The body of law that governs the conduct of armed conflict and the protection of people who are not fighting, which applies to AI used in or for conflict.
- Building a responsible humanitarian approach: the ICRC's policy on artificial intelligence (opens in a new tab)
institutional policy
- Deciding under algorithms: artificial intelligence and the protection of civilian infrastructure in armed conflict (opens in a new tab)
guidance
- Artificial intelligence and machine learning in armed conflict: a human-centred approach (opens in a new tab)
position paper
- ICRC law and policy hub on AI (opens in a new tab)
guidance
People and organizations cited
Public writing, not endorsement, partnership, or affiliation.
International Committee of the Red Cross
A question to discuss
Does the reviewer have the knowledge, time and authority needed to make an independent decision?
Keep track of different views, what needs checking, and any next step in your own discussion notes.
Open discussion notes →Principles for the conversation
Before you finish · reflect together
Virtues and principles to consider
Virtues are qualities we practice in how we treat people and make choices. They are not scores for judging someone. Use these ideas to explore what a thoughtful response could look like.
Justice
Justice means fair treatment, fair procedures, and attention to who receives benefits and burdens. It asks whether people with less power can be heard and seek repair.
Look at outcomes across different groups and individual cases. Provide a usable way to challenge decisions and correct harm. Equal wording in a policy does not guarantee equal treatment in practice.
Ask together: Who benefits, who bears the cost, and who can challenge the decision?
Accountability
Accountability means being answerable for decisions and taking responsibility for repair. It requires more than saying that the software made the choice.
Name the person or team responsible, keep useful records, and give them authority to correct problems. Make the route to a complaint clear to the people affected.
Ask together: Who will answer for the outcome and help put things right?
Dignity
Dignity means recognizing each person's worth regardless of usefulness, status, or a system's score. People deserve respect and a voice in matters that affect them.
Explain important decisions, avoid humiliating treatment, and keep room for a person's story. Do not treat a prediction as a complete account of who someone is.
Ask together: Does this use treat each person as someone whose experience matters?
Editorial ratings
These are editorial judgments from the register, not measured probabilities or predictions about your situation.
About the register and scoring →More ways to explore
Search for more writing
For more specific or recent material, open a search below or ask for a web summary. AI-generated summaries can contain mistakes; open the original articles to check them.