Publications

The EU AI Act seeks to balance the need for societal protection against the potential risks of AI systems, with the goal of fostering innovation. However, the Act’s ex-ante risk-based approach might lead to regulatory obsolescence (already materialised in 2021 with the spread of LLMs and the consequent reopening of the regulatory process), as well as to over or under-inclusion of AI applications in risks’ categories. The paper deals with the latter outcome by exploring how AI uses in law and rulemaking hide risks not covered by the EU AI Act. It is then analysed as to how the Act lacks flexibility on amending its provisions, and the way forward. The latter is tackled without utopian and not really feasible proposals for a new act and risk-based approach, but focusing on codes of conduct and national interventions on AI uses by public authorities.

The EU AI Act seeks to balance the need for societal protection against the potential risks of AI systems, with the goal of fostering innovation. However, the Act’s ex-ante risk-based approach might lead to regulatory obsolescence (already materialised in 2021 with the spread of LLMs and the consequent reopening of the regulatory process), as well as to over or under-inclusion of AI applications in risks’ categories. The paper deals with the latter outcome by exploring how AI uses in law and rulemaking hide risks not covered by the EU AI Act. It is then analysed as to how the Act lacks flexibility on amending its provisions, and the way forward. The latter is tackled without utopian and not really feasible proposals for a new act and risk-based approach, but focusing on codes of conduct and national interventions on AI uses by public authorities.

The use of AI in the public sector is emerging around the world and its spread affects the core States functions: the administrative, the judiciary, and the legislative. Nevertheless, a comprehensive approach to AI in the life-cycle of rules - from the proposal of a new rule to its implementation, monitoring and review- is currently lacking in the rich panorama of studies from different disciplines. The analysis shows that AI has the power to play a crucial role in the life-cycle of rules, by performing time-consuming tasks, increasing access to knowledge base, and enhancing the ability of institutions to draft effective rules and to declutter the regulatory stock. However, it is not without risks, ranging from discrimination to challenges to democratic representation. In order to play a role in achieving law effectiveness while limiting the risks, a complementarity between human and AI should be reached both at the level of the AI architecture and ex post. Moreover, an incremental and experimental approach is suggested, as well as the elaboration of a general framework, to be tailored by each regulator to the specific features of its tasks, aimed at setting the rationale, the role, and adequate guardrails to AI in the life-cycle of rules. This agile approach would allow the AI revolution to display its benefits while preventing potential harms or side effects.

(ITA)
Il contributo suggerisce l’affermarsi di un moderno principio di residualità non limitato ad informare il rapporto tra regolazione e concorrenza, ma che richiede una giustificazione dell’intervento pubblico in termini di effettiva necessità e ragioni specifiche che ne sono alla base, per spingersi ad informare contenuto regolatorio. Le ragioni risultano non solo arricchite rispetto a quelle tradizionali, ma anche disancorate da problemi già concretizzatisi per abbracciare una visione prospettica e anticipatoria.
---
(ENG)
The paper suggests the rise of a modern principle of residuality, which exceeds the balance between regulation and competition. This principle calls for the justification of regulation in terms of necessity. Problem drivers should be also taken into consideration, as well as the regulatory content. The problem drivers appear to be enriched compared to the traditional ones, whilst also being disentangled from problems that have already materialized so as to embrace a prospective and anticipatory approach.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated ongoing developments in decision-making, which bring the notion of risk and the agencies responsible for its assessment and management at the forefront of the government agenda. The current centrality of risk regulation is dictated by the commitment by governments to achieve ambitious yet imperative sustainability objectives, and by the need to manage the Fourth Industrial Revolution. It lays against the overall debate about the role of science in informing policy decisions and the level of societal acceptance of risk and uncertainty. This chapter briefly takes stock of the fundamentals of risk regulation literature and proposes six topical themes that affect the future position of regulatory agencies – spanning from global crisis management to scientific integrity; from the regulation-innovation interface to enhancing government effectiveness through algorithmic regulation. The chapter then presents ideas on how to shape “Better Risk Regulation”, which will allow governments to adequately address the challenges and meet the opportunities of contemporary society.

Consultation is a crucial tool for better regulation, as well as being essential for the accountability and legitimacy of decision-makers. The European minimum requirements for consultation are funda- mental conditions in order to attain these goals. However, they may still not be enough, and consul- tation should also be designed to neutralize or bring out cognitive limitations, both of decision- makers as well as of stakeholders. This paper claims that enriching the better regulation approach with cognitive insights can in fact increase consultation effectiveness and thus become a piece of the puzzle in improving the legitimacy of the European Commission. Moreover, it suggests some techniques to tackle this complexity, which need to be further assessed by ad hoc experiments.

-Introduzione, di Federica Cacciatore e Nicoletta Rangone
-La nuova legislatura europea 2019-2024 e l’agenda della better regulation: le prime mosse, di Nadia Marin
-Capire la nostra natura politica nell’era della post-verità. Un report dell’Unione Europea, di Edoardo Guaschino
-L’intervento regolatorio dell’ART in materia di affidamenti dei servizi di trasporto pubblico locale su strada e per ferrovia: analisi ex ante o ex post dell’impatto?, di Miriam Giorgio
-L’Antitrust e la stima dell’impatto economico delle regolazioni anticoncorrenziali, di Gabriele Mazzantini
-Quando applicare l’AIR? Il caso delle Linee guida n. 15 dell’ANAC sul conflitto di interessi nei contratti pubblici, di Luca Caianiello
-Valorizzare la polivalenza dei dati personali per regolare i mercati digitali: note aggiuntive all’Indagine conoscitiva sui big data di AGCOM, AGCM e Garante privacy, di Matteo Falcone
-Recensione. Processo decisionale automatizzato e diritto amministrativo: quali implicazioni per il principio di trasparenza? La riflessione di Michèle Finck, di Ludovica Sacchi

Summary:
- Introduzione, di Federica Cacciatore e Nicoletta Rangone
- Le nuove indicazioni OCSE in tema di qualità della regolazione: i best practice principles sulla valutazione ex post, di Siriana Salvi
- Doing Business 2020. L’importanza della qualità e della trasparenza regolatoria per lo sviluppo economico e imprenditoriale, di Simone Annaratone
- Macchine “intelligenti” e discrezionalità delle decisioni pubbliche. Alcuni spunti di riflessione sulla regolazione europea e italiana, di Patrizia Calabrese
- La Relazione al Parlamento sullo stato di applicazione di AIR e VIR nel 2018, di Simona Morettini
- IAL Annual Conference: analisi della crisi di fiducia nella legge e nella regolazione, di Rossana Amoroso
- Recensione. Chi partecipa alle consultazioni delle Agenzie europee? I fattori che influenzano la cattura del regolatore, nella ricerca di Jan Beyers e Sarah Arras, di Carolina Raiola