International Relations and Defence Committee
Wednesday 4th November 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 day, 3 hours ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
But they've done some useful things. So you could, for instance, have a system provisioned intelligence oversight. We could be applying some of those things. Not that they've worked perfectly what's called a trusted execution environment. And then you could have another system that's looking at what happens to that system also in that trusted execution environment. You can agree a set of rules about what can escape from that environment such that cryptographically, you know, nothing can escape except if, let's say, a rule is violated. Then a set of stakeholders are notified and maybe those stakeholders can choose to decrypt.
But if no rule is violated, then the classified environment is entirely preserved and and no one is notified. So and in fact, in some ways, I think, you know, as more and more of government as is likely to happen soon becomes more AI and less humans, we're going to have to figure out how we sort of translate some of the governing principles that we have that apply to humans into the technological space. So in this case, we're really talking about whistleblowers. You know, we've relied on whistleblowers in classified spaces. We've had rules about who gets notified when somebody blows a whistle.
We're going to have to have a similar kind of technological whistleblower. But actually, the technology affords us even more opportunity to do this sort of oversight in privacy preserving ways.
But if no rule is violated, then the classified environment is entirely preserved and and no one is notified. So and in fact, in some ways, I think, you know, as more and more of government as is likely to happen soon becomes more AI and less humans, we're going to have to figure out how we sort of translate some of the governing principles that we have that apply to humans into the technological space. So in this case, we're really talking about whistleblowers. You know, we've relied on whistleblowers in classified spaces. We've had rules about who gets notified when somebody blows a whistle.
We're going to have to have a similar kind of technological whistleblower. But actually, the technology affords us even more opportunity to do this sort of oversight in privacy preserving ways.
11:57
11:57
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. Only one very small thing, which is very much to agree with all of that, but only to add that the one dimension that perhaps just hasn't been raised yet is the importance of norms here. Now, norms are not laws and norms are not agreements, and norms alone will not save us. But I think if we think about the example of both biochemical weapons of nuclear weapons, once you have that regulatory framework, norms create incentives for governments and others to stick to them. So I think given that we were just talking about the role of the UN in norm setting, I think perhaps just to to emphasize that point as well here.
11:58
11:58
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
-
-
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Well, my question is much more mundane than the last. Much of the work done by the UN on AI takes place within the context of what could be called soft law codes of practice. High level agreements doesn't actually have the force of, of, of law. As I say, it's just codes of practice. What some people call soft. Nor is this in any way a problem is there or is this the natural division between national governments and the universality of the UN? Doctor, perhaps you could address this. And you mentioned earlier the framework agreement for autonomous vehicles.
Perhaps that would be a good example to talk about.
Perhaps that would be a good example to talk about.
11:58
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you. Yes. No, I mean, I think to answer the the kind of broader question, I think first of all, you know, as I've said, I think that there is a value in soft law and in these discussions and establishing these normative frameworks and so on, they won't in and of themselves solve any of these very complex questions. But I think understanding where countries agree with each other on how to address issues which are of common concern to their populations, is something which is good to know. And I also think that, you know, we see in some cases, not in all soft law, you know, moving to becoming hard law in time.
And certainly at the multilateral level, that can only happen when can only start to see multilateral binding sort of legal frameworks. Once you have a sufficient number of countries who want that to happen, and often that is because they have embedded those things in their own legal frameworks, at which point clearly the incentives change and it becomes a good idea for everyone else to to do the same. So I think, you know, it may be that this proliferation of soft law instruments does point towards a does sort of point the way towards potential future instruments on hard law.
We will see on the on the regulatory framework. I'm happy to send a note to the committee on that on that after this session. If if more detail is of interest. But essentially the UN Economic Commission for Europe, based also here in Geneva, where I, I happen to be is the custodian of a number of these kind of regulatory frameworks, among which is, as I said, the World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, which has brought together the sort of critical mass of countries which are both the major producers and consumers of automatic vehicles, most notably in this case, the US and China, to agree this framework for regulating that technology.
And certainly at the multilateral level, that can only happen when can only start to see multilateral binding sort of legal frameworks. Once you have a sufficient number of countries who want that to happen, and often that is because they have embedded those things in their own legal frameworks, at which point clearly the incentives change and it becomes a good idea for everyone else to to do the same. So I think, you know, it may be that this proliferation of soft law instruments does point towards a does sort of point the way towards potential future instruments on hard law.
We will see on the on the regulatory framework. I'm happy to send a note to the committee on that on that after this session. If if more detail is of interest. But essentially the UN Economic Commission for Europe, based also here in Geneva, where I, I happen to be is the custodian of a number of these kind of regulatory frameworks, among which is, as I said, the World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, which has brought together the sort of critical mass of countries which are both the major producers and consumers of automatic vehicles, most notably in this case, the US and China, to agree this framework for regulating that technology.
12:01
12:01
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think there's some distinctions to be made here. Most of the useful governance in the world today in the modern world is not treaty based. So it is soft law. So there is statements of principle which often need to be concretized and and aren't and are very important, but not in and of themselves doing what we what we'd like to see in terms of governance. And are very important, but not in and of.
themselves doing what we what we'd like to see in terms of governance. But when .
themselves doing what we what we'd like to see in terms of governance. But when .
12:11
12:11