Valtazar Bogišić: How can the 1888 Code inspire the AI code?

Note: I had the pleasure of talking often with the late Ambassadors Ljubiša Perović and Milan Begović about the applicability of Valtazar Bogišić’s legal philosophy to our era. I am dedicating this text to the memory of two of them. The 2024 updated version is prepared ahead of the annual meeting of the 2024 International Forum on Diplomatic Training, which will be held between 8 and 12 October in Becici, Montenegro with the aim to link Montenegrin cultural, legal, and political heritage to the latest challenges of the AI era ahead

Today, as we search for the best way to regulate AI, let us seek inspiration from past philosophers and thinkers. One of them is Valtazar Bogišić, who drafted a legal masterpiece of its time – the  General Property Code for the Principality of Montenegro in 1888. 

As his wisdom remains confined to a small circle of legal studies in Montenegro and the Balkans, this text aims to unlock this hidden thinking treasure that can help drafters of AI codes and regulations worldwide. 

Similar to the current AI transformation, Valtazar Bogišić, in 1880, had to anchor, at that time, modern civil code regulation into the customs of Montenegrian society. He had to sync two different legal, policy, and societal spaces. AI regulators and diplomats face similar dilemmas nowadays as AI global platforms developed in the cultural context of Silicon Valley are used to address family, personal and emotional issues of very diverse societies and cultures worldwide. What can we learn for AI era from Bogisic’s way of linking modernity and tradition in the 19th century? 

Combination of customary and modern law

The Montenegrin 1888 code successfully integrated traditional customary law with modern legal principles of Code Civil or Napoleonic Code, which was introduced after the French Revolution.  Bogišić conducted an in-depth study of Montenegrin customs and legal traditions, managing to incorporate them into the code, thus preserving the authenticity of local traditions while introducing modern legal concepts.

In contrast, modern digital and AI regulations and strategies are typically a ‘copy and paste’ exercise. This approach dealt with rather technical cybersecurity or data protection issues that dominated the first two decades of our century. You could have used similar regulations to protect cyber infrastructure in, for example, Germany and Kenya. 

Conversely, AI poses another type of challenge as it is much more than technology. AI codifies social and cultural norms. Thus, the cultural context of Germany cannot be used to deal with, let’s say, family issues such as divorce in Kenya. Therefore, drafters of AI policies and regulations should, like Bogisic in the 1880s, understand their society and adjust AI models and governance to their respective local cultural and societal contexts. 

Simplicity and clarity

The 1888 Montenegrin code was written in simple and understandable language, making it accessible to the general population and reminiscent of simple and precise formulation in Roman law. For example, Bogisic’s  formulation that initial injustice or legal problem cannot be fixed by the passage of time reads:

‘Što se grbo rodi, vrijeme ne ispravi.’ has also simple formulation in the Latin: ‘Quod natura curvum est, nemo corrigit.’

The gist of this formulation in English – ‘what is born crooked, time does not straighten’ – is, in modern legal regulations, usually explained through long paragraphs filled with legal terms, making them incomprehensible to a wider population, thus preventing them from understanding all possible implications of the policies discussed. 

Most AI regulations are similar, i.e. they are written beyond comprehension. The EU AI Act has 144 pages, which is similar to other AI regulations. Hence, grasping them requires in-depth knowledge of AI, which creates a major obstacle for the legal profession, let alone citizens; while some AI complexity exists, it can be explained simply and clearly. Modern AI drafters can learn a lot from Bogisic!

Societal acceptance

The people of Montenegro fully accepted the 1888 code as their own law, thanks to Bogisic’s work linking their existing customs to modern law in a clear and understandable language. Thus, the code was easily applied in everyday life, making it an effective tool for regulating property and family relations in Montenegro. Bogisic’s code was one of the laws which required the least force and sanctions to be implemented.

Implementing the current AI regulation is complex, mainly due to the incomprehensibility of the language used. As a result, most rules remain just letters on paper as companies and developers follow their ways of developing and deploying AI systems. 

Even when AI regulation becomes enforceable, it’s implementation is conducted mainly via the threat of sanctions and fines. Again, Bogisic can inspire a regulatory approach relying more on societal acceptance of rules than on punishments. 

Protection of vulnerable social groups

One of the Montenegro Code’s main goals was to protect poorer segments of society. The code introduced certain social measures that protected the rights of peasants and small property owners, thereby promoting social justice, which also helped the code’s smoother acceptance.

This starkly contrasts the current situation where AI is increasing societal and digital divides between masters of AI and the rest of society. If not addressed properly, these new divides around access to knowledge will tear societal fabrics worldwide and create inevitable tensions and conflicts.

Agile regulations

Fully aware of societal changes, Bogišić designed the code in such a way that it could adapt to future social and economic developments. This was achieved through the flexibility in interpreting and applying the legal provisions.

AI’s rapid and often unpredictable development makes many rules obsolete fast. Last year’s frenzy call for regulating long-term risks brought us on the edge to adapt rigid regulations of AI in anticipation of possible future developments. Fortunately, it was avoided. This year brought a much more realistic approach to AI regulation, focusing on concrete issues such as jobs, education, and content management. AI regulators are getting close to Bogisic’s ‘agile regulation’ approach.  

Conclusion

Bogišić’s work helped Montenegro transition from a traditional to a modern society. He drafted laws compatible with European legal standards at that time while tailoring them to Montenegrin society’s specific needs. Today, many societies are searching for similar social contracts to anchor the latest AI developments into local cultural, legal, and societal contexts. 

Bogišić’s legacy is significant for diplomats working to sync between international and national dynamics. In the coming years, many hours of their work will ensure global AI developments are anchored well into national legal, cultural, and societal dynamics. They will have to negotiate not only with their counterparts from other countries but also with their constituencies back home. In this context, the International Forum for Diplomatic Training members should act fast to prepare future diplomats for new and demanding tasks in the AI era. Bogisic’s work and wisdom can inspire us all!