Filed under:
Human Centricity

To assess Human Centricity, the framework is effectively asking you as a developer to undertake a cost-benefit analysis before developing or deploying an AI-enabled system to ensure that AI is understood as a tool that genuinely enhances human flourishing. AI systems should prioritise user needs, support ethical decision-making, and maintain accountability in sensitive scenarios such as conflict escalation or targeting. Respect for human dignity is crucial for this principle. The assessment can be likened to the ethical triangulation process (explored in card 1/6) where a proposed solution is tested first with the deontological question “does this enhance human life and wellbeing”, before one asks if the consequences of introducing such a solution outweigh the ethical costs, before looking at the motivation for introducing the system/approach. If all of the answers align in a positive way, and there are no better alternatives, then one can make a strong argument that the system makes a positive contribution. 

 

When evaluating the impact on humans, it is essential to consider a wide range of considerations, including but not limited to the seven key elements related to Human Security as outlined in JSP 985. Their meanings are explained in Card 2/4 but the following section explains how to unpack those ideas to determine how exactly one is to assess the specific risks associated with each consideration. 

 

The impact of AI-enabled systems must be rigorously assessed and considered for all individuals interacting with or affected by these systems. 

Human security encompasses a broad framework that prioritises the safety and well-being of individuals, ensuring they live free from threats that compromise their dignity or survival. 

1. Personal/Physical: freedom from unnecessary physical, psychological harm. Depending upon the system’s function and expected use, it will be necessary to consider questions relating to proportionality, military necessity, and discrimination.[MA1] [MA2] [DW3] (See cards: How do you make a good ethical decision?, What makes the military a profession and what makes the State worth defending?, What are the core military values, and how do they influence a soldier, sailor, or aviator's actions?) How does the system contribute to minimising unnecessary harm (proportionality), how does it discriminate appropriately, or enable an operator to do so, between legitimate targets and illegitimate ones? How does the contextual idea of military necessity relate to how the system operates? For example, desperate last-ditch defence of the home nation is a very different context to a humanitarian operation where the political imperative is to preserve life rather than take it. How does it take into account “the stakes”, or is this left to the judgement of the operator? If so, how are the options presented? Link to case study card. 

This is a question about all forms of harm, not just physical so psychological and even reputational harm might be relevant here. For example, GDPR sets out strict rules for the handling, sharing and storing of personal data. See Card on GDPR. Clearly, any AI-system working with sensitive data has to be compliant with such rules, but just as a medical emergency can provide a reasonable ground for sharing otherwise restricted information (Vital Interests, Article 6.1.d), a national emergency might well permit otherwise prohibited actions under the same kind of reasoning of legitimacy, necessity and proportionality. Consulting with an appropriately qualified data legal specialist will therefore be important. 

As with all of the other considerations, the assessment is not just about when the system is deployed but covers the full lifecycle. This could include an increased likelihood of domestic violence-related incidents due to the long-term effects of deploying a system and its likely impact on the operator. 

 

2. Political: Preservation or promotion of Core Democratic Values. The state has legal obligations to comply with human rights legislation including those related to political and social rights. These values collectively ensure that democratic societies function effectively, protect individual freedoms, and promote fairness and equality for all citizens. They guide institutions, laws, and civic behaviour to uphold the principles of democracy. Any AI-enabled system needs to demonstrate how it promotes, upholds or at least does not undermine such values in use. It is important to also appreciate that a public emergency can mean that some of those rights can become limited. For example, the state may determine that freedom of expression or freedom of association has to be constrained during wartime, and the legal frameworks acknowledge this. Case law establishes that there can be limitations to freedom of expression under European Convention on Human Rights and International Human Rights Law under certain situations. What would a national emergency permit, and what would this mean for your system? This would be a question for a lawyer specialising in civil rights. 

3. Economic: The economic well-being of the state is at the heart of the state’s ability to look after its citizens and uphold its side of the social contract. An equitable access to essential resources is part of this principle but working out what that actually means in practice is not so easy. Firstly, what are included in the essential resources category? This at least covers: fair wages, meaningful employment, affordable housing, healthcare, and education, but how to satisfy these concerns is going to be determined in part by the extant social contract between the people and their government. This implicit, or sometimes even explicit, agreement will determine what is considered “fair” in each situation. Does the proposed system enhance, support or undermine such concerns? And for whom – i.e. does it do so equitably, or if not, is the difference ethically justifiable? 

Just as with the other principles, a state of war or national emergency may well mean amendments to that social contract, but clearly, both domestic law and international legal requirements must still be adhered to. For example, while the normal expectation of social housing may be amended, the arbitrary confiscation of property or livelihoods is not something that can be entered into without an extraordinary legal process, even where collective stability is being prioritised over individual well-being. Understanding how the proposed AI-system may relate to this involves looking at all of the affected parties and wider environmental impact of implementation and operation. 

 

4. Cultural/community: Community security focuses on ensuring the safety, cohesion, and well-being of individuals within their communities. The balancing of the different, sometimes competing factors is not going to be straightforward. For example, managing diverse populations whist supporting different cultural, religious (and secular) views and heritage considerations. Community security can be challenged by ethnic or religious tensions, or by organised crime or gangs. Minority groups can easily end up being vulnerable to the “tyranny of the majority” where an apparently democratic process can end up alienating or over-riding the smaller groups rights and interests. Environmental degradation can affect everybody in the long run, but its short-term effects are likely to disproportionately impact on certain groups, while forced displacements due to conflict, development projects or natural disasters can disperse or fragment existing community ties. 

By establishing mechanisms for peaceful dispute resolution, ensuring access to justice, and empowering communities through development and resilience-building initiatives, community security helps prevent conflict and support harmonious coexistence. Ultimately, it is essential for creating stable and inclusive societies where individuals can trust institutions and actively contribute to collective well-being. 

 

5. Health: Health security focuses on protecting individuals and communities from health threats that compromise their well-being, dignity, and survival. It encompasses the prevention of diseases, both communicable and non-communicable, through effective public health policies, vaccinations, and access to clean water and sanitation. Ensuring equitable access to affordable, high-quality healthcare is central. Health security also involves preparedness for emergencies like pandemics and epidemics, supported by robust healthcare infrastructure, while recognising the importance of mental health as part of overall well-being. Environmental and occupational health risks, such as pollution and hazardous working conditions, are also key concerns, requiring sustainable practices to mitigate harm. Global health cooperation is vital to tackling cross-border challenges like pandemics or antibiotic resistance. By addressing these dimensions, health security reduces vulnerabilities, strengthens resilience, and promotes social stability and individual dignity. Informed consent can often be an issue with the provision of healthcare. See Informed Consent. 

6. Food: Food security is a critical component of Human Security in the UK, ensuring that all individuals have consistent access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to lead healthy and active lives. Food security intersects with issues of affordability, sustainability, and resilience to external shocks, such as economic crises, climate change, or supply chain disruptions. Rising food prices and the cost-of-living crisis have highlighted vulnerabilities, with many households relying on food banks or other support networks. The UK also faces challenges related to sustainable agriculture and self-sufficiency, as it imports a significant proportion of its food. Climate change further threatens food security through impacts on domestic production and global supply chains. Efforts to address these challenges include promoting sustainable farming practices, supporting local food systems, and enhancing resilience to external disruptions. Food security in the UK is essential not only for individual well-being but also for social cohesion, as equitable access to food underpins public trust and stability in society. It may be appropriate to consider how individuals or certain groups may have need for specific foods due to medical or cultural requirements, and how conflict or societal disruption may therefore have disproportionate effects on them. 

7. Environmental/climate: Environmental and climate security can directly impact health, livelihoods, and societal stability. The UK faces challenges such as rising temperatures, flooding, coastal erosion, and biodiversity loss, all of which threaten ecosystems and human well-being. Climate change exacerbates these risks, disrupting agriculture, infrastructure, and water resources, and increasing vulnerability to extreme weather events. The transition to net-zero emissions is a priority for the UK to mitigate these effects, with policies focused on renewable energy, sustainable development, and reducing carbon footprints. Protecting the environment also includes addressing air and water pollution, preserving biodiversity, and promoting sustainable land use to ensure long-term resilience. Environmental and climate security are essential for safeguarding the UK's economic stability, public health, and quality of life, reinforcing the need for collaborative action at local, national, and global levels to mitigate risks and build adaptive capacity. 

While there are no Human Rights to the environment, many of our other rights are only made possible if this is protected. This is why the laws of war do take some environmental factors into account (e.g. special protections for dams or nuclear power stations).