Suchergebnisse

Abstract
This article explores the proposed amendments to the AI Act, which introduce the concept of "groups of persons". The inclusion of this notion has the potential to broaden the traditional individual-centric approach in data protection. The analysis explores the context and the challenges posed by the rapid evolution of technology, with an emphasis on the role of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. It discusses both the potential benefits and challenges of recognising groups of people, including issues such as discrimination prevention, public trust and redress mechanisms. The analysis also identifies key challenges, including the lack of a clear definition for "group", the difficulty in explaining AI architecture concerning groups and the need for well-defined redress mechanisms. The article also puts forward recommendations aimed at addressing these challenges in order to enhance the effectiveness and clarity of the proposed amendments.

The article deals with the issue of financing the military training of the Serbian Principality. The author examines how the Serbian government collected funds. To realize its goals, the Principality of Serbia has legally approved a loan in the amount of 24,000,000 dinars. The Serbian government planned to implement it through forced and voluntary loans within the state, external voluntary loans from the population of other countries and through loans from commercial organizations in other countries and loans from governments. However, despite all efforts, the Serbian Principality was unable to raise all the necessary funds. Enormous support in this part of the Serbian Principality was provided by the banks of the Russian Empire, which undertook the obligation to implement the loan and issued an advance to the Serbian government.

The text thematizes the complexity of the situation of making a statement
concerning an currently developing event, which subversively changes both
the conceptual grid of the speaker and his existential-historical context.
The currently unfolding subversive ?event? (i.e., ?post-modern? ?war?) calls
for its comprehension by the subject and for a ?clear? (yes/no) formulation
of the subject position in relation to the event. However, the explosively
changing historical, conceptual and existential context holds back the
subject?s ?responsible? statement about the event until the subjective
invention of his new existential-historical context.

In the initial phase after the collapse of the USSR, Russian diplomacy lacked vision and initiative, generally following the West's lead, including its policy towards the Yugoslav crisis (1991-95). It was only from about 1994 and as a result of the decision to expand NATO into Eastern Europe, that it sought to become more synchronized with the prevailing mood in Russian society, increasingly disillusioned with Western policies. There was a change in the phrasing of official statements, but the Russian Foreign Ministry in fact continued to follow the West and supported the severe anti-Serbian sanctions regime. Russia played merely a supporting role in the Bosnian crisis, which led to the withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers. The only Russian initiative in the period was Putin's proposal to hold a Balkan conference to discuss the inviolability of borders and human rights, but it was left out in the open. Recently, however, Russia has become more active in connection with the Kosovo status talks, as a result of her aspiration to translate her newly-gained economic strength into political power, but also of the fact that there are in the post-Soviet territory some unrecognized self-proclaimed states, moreover, for the most part pro-Russian. What is vital for Russia is that she is now seeking to develop a conceptual framework for past events and to prevent any breach of international law in the future. Hence the emphasis on the necessity of laying down 'universal principles' applicable in any situation, not just in the case of Kosovo. Furthermore, a de facto independence for Kosovo, as envisaged by the Martti Ahtisaari plan, cannot resolve the problem of Serbo-Albanian conflict in a sustainable way, and remains a dangerous precedent both regionally and globally.