BEYOND COMPLIANCE: EMBEDDING ETHICS-BY-DESIGN IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS UNDER THE EU AI ACT
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
This article explores the evolution of artificial intelligence governance in the European Union, focusing on the shift from regulatory compliance toward ethics-by-design. While the EU Artificial Intelligence Act establishes a comprehensive risk-based framework, the study argues that compliance alone is insufficient to address deeper ethical challenges related to human autonomy, dignity, fairness, and power asymmetries in algorithmic systems. The article conceptualizes ethics-by-design as a form of operational normativity that embeds ethical principles directly into the lifecycle of AI systems. It identifies key mechanisms for such integration, including ethical impact assessments, algorithmic auditing, transparency tools, and human oversight. At the same time, it highlights challenges such as translating abstract values into technical practices and avoiding superficial formalization. The study concludes that ethics-by-design is a necessary condition for the legitimacy of AI governance in the EU. By integrating ethical reasoning into system design, it becomes possible to bridge the gap between legal compliance and substantive justice, reinforcing a human-centric model of digital governance.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Artificial Intelligence Governance, Ethics-by-Design, EU AI Act, Trustworthy AI, Human- Centric AI, Algorithmic Accountability, Risk-Based Regulation, Digital Ethics, AI Regulation, European Union.
2. European Commission. (2020). Assessment list for trustworthy artificial intelligence (ALTAI).
3. European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act).
4. European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act).
5. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., et al. (2018). AI4People – An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707.
6. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1).
7. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399.
8. Mittelstadt, B. D. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(11), 501–507.
9. Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2).
10. Morley, J., Floridi, L., Kinsey, L., & Elhalal, A. (2020). From what to how: An initial review of publicly available AI ethics tools, methods and research to translate principles into practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 2141–2168.
11. OECD. (2019). OECD principles on artificial intelligence.
12. Stix, C. (2021). Actionable principles for artificial intelligence policy: Three pathways. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(1).
13. Veale, M., & Borgesius, F. Z. (2021). Demystifying the draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Computer Law Review International, 22(4), 97–112.
14. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Russell, C. (2018). Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31(2), 841–887.