The previous post suggested to pay a greater to people behind processes1 in the context of artificial intelligence and an earlier one highlighted the need to examine what a person had done with a thing.2 These are two ways to approach effectiveness.3 How can one combine them to tackle complex issues such as those involving digital assets, disability, or artificial intelligence?
One may start by noticing locations to identify a network of technical and human relationships that contribute to the value of an estate or a digital project4. Locations are important in international law because of jurisdiction as one knows when one applies the concept of habitual residence as described in the EU Succession Regulation 650/20125.The concept of habitual residence has different autonomous meanings that are similar in various instruments as in the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults and in the EU Succession Regulation. Both instruments favour the location criterion over that of nationality unless the latter is relevant due to the intention of the deceased person, or the need to quickly solve issues faced by a disabled person.6
When one looks at digital assets as a matter of trusts and estate, one can see what to do next: look for conflicts of interests that arise when practical issues are at stake. They may involve substantive rights or actions that have to be taken to ensure that a disabled person takes part in social life or that an entrepreneur develops the value of an assets as he or she wishes. Social life, be it simply domestic, is considered by French courts in the context of incapacity.7 It is easily noticeable when one looks at the following articles of the United Nations Convention of 13 December 2006 on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (New York). This Convention is probably undervalued by practitioners who deal with trusts and estates.
Its Article 12 covers the recognition of rights in any aspect of life. Paragraph 3 of the said Article states that:
States Parties shall take appropriate measures to provide access by persons with disabilities to the support they may require in exercising their legal capacity.
This Article helps to understand that effectiveness is related to support. This is easy to understand when the effect of a disability is easy to notice. This is also true for a tech entrepreneur who is not disabled. People who have a background in management may focus on processes, dashboards, and targets. When one considers effectiveness, one asks oneself: can I make a step forward?
Article 19(a) of the United Nations Convention of 13 December 2006 on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (New York) states that:
Persons with disabilities have the opportunity to choose their place of residence and where and with whom they live on an equal basis with others and are not obliged to live in a particular living arrangement
Can you really decide what to do next, or are you entrenched in a business model that heavily relies on DevOps tools that are developed by Big Techs? Many entrepreneurs are technologically impaired because they cannot decide how they work. As you already know, they do not benefit from their savoir faire.8 Their digital assets are useless since they do not possess nor even enjoy them. Embracing autonomy is crucial; cultivating your savoir faire is the only way to make your digital assets truly yours.
In brief, creating useful digital assets is an endeavour that is as personal as making a house a home.
-
See Heavy and soft. ↩
-
Compare Article 7 of the EU Succession Regulation 650/2012 to Article 7 of the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults. ↩