Proefschrift

86 3 CHAPTER 3 reinforce existing inequities. Applying this to the case of the Comprehensive Human Oversight Framework, the people providing feedback, either as part of political, legal or professional accountability or taking part in the article 36 review committee, have access to high tech ICT systems. High tech ICT tools can strengthen the criteria mentioned above by extending the reach of the feedback process and ensuring inclusivity, but this should be purposely considered when designing and implementing high tech ICT systems for a feedback process. Table 7: Spectrum of ICTs (as in: Gigler et al., 2014, p. 230) Technology category Description and barriers to access Example No tech Relies on in-person interactions; negligible barriers to accessa In-person site visits, interviews, community meetings Low tech Increasingly ubiquitous and rapidly approaching complete penetration; low barriers to accessa Community radio or television, mobile phones (straddles low, high) High tech Comparatively new with lower penetration rates; higher barriers to accessa Internet, social media, mobile phones (straddles low, high) In terms of cost, literacy, and hardware. Environment The environment consists of the institutional and cultural context in which formal and informal societal norms guide the interaction in the feedback process. Two obligations are important when designing a feedback process; 1) creating a measure to track the representativeness for those providing feedback and 2) balancing costs and benefits for those who participate. Applying these obligations to the case of the Comprehensive Human Oversight Framework, when designing the feedback process careful consideration on tracking the representativeness and cost-benefit balance is needed. This means that in designing the committees for the various types of accountability mechanisms or in standardizing the article 36 review process, the participants should be inclusive ensuring a wide variety of stakeholder participation, not only governmental stakeholders, but also including non-obvious or vulnerable stakeholders, such as representatives of nongovernmental organizations, industry or citizen advocacy organizations. The ‘transaction costs’ of participating should be balanced with benefits for participating. This balance should be considered when designing the feedback process. Application Five-Point Systems Framework to Autonomous Weapon System case using a toy example To apply the Five-Point Systems Framework to the case of Autonomous Weapon Systems, the scenario described in section 1.2 is used as an example.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw