Certain infrastructure companies occupy positions that are difficult to replace. Their commercial relationships may extend across equipment manufacturers, chipmakers, compute providers and AI developers, giving them unusual visibility and influence throughout the technology supply chain.

JUST is an independent Dutch nonprofit foundation. Our work is currently supported by philanthropic funders, including Macroscopic Ventures and grants associated with Jaan Tallinn through the Survival and Flourishing Fund.

‍

Some of these funders are associated with the Effective Altruism community or with work on the societal risks of advanced AI. There are also specific connections between some funders and the AI industry. For example, Macroscopic Ventures has publicly disclosed investments in Anthropic. Jaan Tallinn has both philanthropic and investment activities relating to AI. The Survival and Flourishing Fund also supports several organisations associated with Effective Altruism.

‍

We disclose these connections because transparency about funding matters. Funding can create actual or perceived conflicts of interest, particularly where funders have relationships with organisations affected by our work. Disclosing relevant relationships allows others to assess our independence on the basis of accurate information.

‍

Our funding does not give our donors a say over our strategy, research projects, legal analysis, advocacy, or public communications. Our funders do not approve our positions or determine which companies, technologies, or practices we examine. We decide independently how to use our funding in pursuit of our mission.

‍

We do not serve the commercial interests of AI developers, our funders, or any political or intellectual movement. Our purpose is to serve the public interest by examining how law can reduce the risk of large-scale harm from powerful technologies. We seek to demonstrate our independence through transparent funding disclosures and rigorous, evidence-based legal work.

‍

Not directly, in most cases. Human rights treaties like the European Convention on Human Rights primarily bind states, not private companies. So the more direct legal pathway is against governments e.g. for failing to put adequate safeguards, oversight, or regulation in place. That said, this doesn't mean companies are off the hook. States often meet their human rights obligations precisely by regulating private companies (through laws like the EU AI Act, for instance), so a government's duty to protect people can translate into binding rules that companies must follow. In that sense, human rights law shapes company obligations indirectly, by setting the standard governments are expected to enforce.

Potentially, yes. Human rights law doesn't just stop states from directly harming people, it can also require them to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to life and health. This is known as a "positive obligation," and it has long applied to things like industrial accidents or environmental hazards. The legal question now being explored is whether that same duty extends to advanced AI: if a government knew (or should have known) that a technology posed a serious, foreseeable risk. (for example, by making it easier to develop biological weapons) and did nothing to regulate or supervise it, that inaction could itself become a legal failing, not just a policy choice. The key factors courts tend to look at are how foreseeable the harm was, how much control or capacity the state had to prevent it, and whether the response was proportionate to the risk.