The IBA Global Employment Institute (GEI) was formed in early 2010 for the purpose of developing a global and strategic approach to the main legal issues regarding human resources for multinationals and worldwide institutions. In addition to regularly updating existing reports, the advisory board publishes new reports concerning current legal issues every year.
This year, the advisory board presents its first report on ‘Artificial Intelligence and Robotics and Their Impact on the Workplace’. The Working Group, coordinated by GEI Vice-Chair for Multinationals Gerlind Wisskirchen, focuses on future trends concerning the impact of intelligent systems on the labour market (Parts A and B) and some corresponding legal problems (Parts C to J).
Artificial intelligence (AI) will have a fundamental impact on the global labour market in the next few years. Therefore, the authors discuss legal, economic and business issues, such as changes in the future labour market and in company structures, impact on working time, remuneration and on the working environment, new forms of employment and the impact on labour relations.
Will intelligent algorithms and production robots lead to mass unemployment? By way of some examples, the authors show how AI will change the world of work fundamentally. In addition to companies, employees, lawyers and society, educational systems and legislators are also facing the task of meeting the new challenges that result from constantly advancing technology.
Please note that it is not the intention or purpose of the IBA Global Employment Institute’s report to describe the law on any particular topic; its aim is to illustrate certain changes and trends on the future labour market. References to a particular law are neither intended to be a description or summary of that law nor should they be relied upon as a statement of the law or treated as legal advice. Before taking any action, readers should obtain appropriate legal advice.
“Autonomous vehicles will revolutionize society in the near future. Computers, however, are not perfect, and accidents will occur while the vehicle is in autonomous mode. This Article answers the question of who should be liable when an accident is caused in autonomous mode. This Article addresses the liability of autonomous vehicle by examining products liability through the use of four scenarios: the Distracted Driver; the Diminished Capabilities Driver; the Disabled Driver; and the Attentive Driver.
Based on those scenarios, this Article suggests that the autonomous technology manufacturer should be liable for accidents caused in autonomous mode because the autonomous vehicle probably caused the accident. Liability should shift back to the “driver” depending on the nature of the driver and the ability of that person to prevent the accident. Thus, this Article argues that an autonomous vehicle manufacturer should be liable for accidents caused in autonomous mode for the Disabled Driver and partially for the Diminished Capabilities Driver and the Distracted Driver. This Article argues the Attentive Driver should be liable for most accidents caused in autonomous vehicles. Currently, products liability does not allocate the financial responsibility of an accident to the party that is responsible for the accident, and this Article suggests that courts and legislatures need to address tort liability for accidents caused in autonomous mode to ensure that the responsible party bears responsibility for accidents.”
With a view to developments in robotics and artificial intelligence, the Committee on Legal Affairs deemed it time for the European Union to take action in respect of the legal and ethical issues raised by these new technologies. To this end, the JURI Committee set up a working group in 2015 with the primary aim of drawing up “European” civil law rules in this area (lege ferenda). While respecting the European Commission’s right of initiative, on 31 May 2016 this group delivered a draft report (Initiative – Article 46 of theEP’s Rules of procedure) setting out a series of recommendations on civil law rules on robotics1. This draft includes a motion for a European Parliament resolution, accompanied by an annex containing detailed recommendations for the content of a possible legislative proposal. It also includes an explanatory statement which points out that the aim of the future instrument is to lay down the “general and ethical principles governing the development of robotics and artificial intelligence for civil purposes”.
Scientific research on these emerging technologies seems to imply that they will change the face of society. Therefore, even if robots are not yet commonplace, the time has come to legislate.
Once a new legal and ethical sector surfaces, a general approach to the big theoretical questions needs to be found in the first instance, so as to eliminate any misunderstanding or misconceptions about robotics and artificial intelligence.
When we consider civil liability in robotics, we come up against fanciful visions about robots. Here we must resist calls to establish a legal personality based on science fiction. This will become all the more crucial once the liability law solutions adopted in respect of autonomous robots determine whether this new market booms or busts.
Developments in civil robotics and artificial intelligence also call for reflection on the big ethical questions they raise. This analysis is complicated by the fact that it is difficult to predict what sometimes remains an experiment. In this regard, it is essential that the big ethical principles which will come to govern robotics develop in perfect harmony with Europe’s humanist values. The “Charter on Robotics”, which was introduced in the draft report, moves in this direction.
“Driverless cars have made the jump from fantasy to the physical realm.Technology has evolved to the point where autonomous cars will be a common sight in the very near future. The benefits of autonomous cars are plentiful: increased safety for car passengers, who no longer have to fear drunk, reckless, or distracted drivers, increased productivity for passengers who can use the travel time to accomplish tasks, decreased reliance on fuel as the cars often incorporate solar panels and automatically adjust speed to maximize fuel efficiency, and decreased traffic congestion as the cars can identify upcoming trouble spots and take alternate routes to avoid delay. However, this innovative technology brings with it an unaddressed legal issue: how will legal liability be assessed when these cars collide with other cars, pedestrians, or property? Current law surrounding liability for automobile accidents largely bases liability on the actions of the driver. Similarly, looking to the liability law governing computers does not address the issue either, as the laws base liability on the actions of the operator of the computer system, and the scant laws related to autonomous computer systems apply only to commercial transactions. This article proposes that the solution to this legal issue lies in treating autonomous cars like man’s best friend, the dog. Dogs and computers are both treated as chattel under tort law, and are similar in that they can act independently, yet are considered property of another. The laws governing canine ownership show that applying strict liability to autonomous car owners accomplishes the dual purpose of fairly assessing liability without hampering the widespread adoption of this marvelous technology.”
Drones and other remote controlled vehicles can seem different from real autonomous vehicles; but, military competition conditions force old weapons to develop quickly. In 2013, US president Obama vocalised that drone wars only fulfilled the conditions of war theory, while Amnesty International was concerned about these deadly weapons were capable of war crimes.1
Despite there are different views regarding drones, basically, we can define drones as the robotic structures which can act autonomously, take decisions for killing. Besides the US Army which has the predominance, the further spread of the use of the drones in war zones, within the other countries, produces some concern in some circles.
First of all, going over this topic through the international humanitarian law, can be helpful. There are a lot of charters on this topic on international grounds. Today, United Nations is considered to be competent authority on the evaluation in the justification of to the way a war is engaged and the way the war is conducted.2 Principles of “Jus ad Bellum” (to be right in the reason for engaging in war) and “Jus in Bello” (to be just in the way the war is conducted) are the justifications on what the UN bases on, the point of using drones on battlefields.3
Some authors do not accept using autonomous weapons on the battlefields due to problems that may arise in determining the responsibility. Since robots do not have the sufficient visual perception ability levels yet, their application of proportionality and discrimination principles will also be insufficient as it will be difficult to distinguish between civilian’s vs military personnel, as well as. Besides, it is also expressed that the assessment on whether to use lethal force or not, cannot be executed by autonomous robots.4Although the decision made by a robot, that does not have emotions, is to expected to be more objective, the intuitive control of a human should not be turned a blind eye.
The procedure in the liability for the actions of a robot in the battlefield is argumentative. In the present day, it is not possible for robots to be judged for their actions. On the grounds of command liability principle, commanders can be held responsible of a wrongdoing committed by their subordinates. But, commanders may not predict the actions of robots in all cases. In the case of programmers, determining all of possibilities about autonomous machine is not probable. and when you consider the manufacturers, they need to have reported any dangerous situations that might occur. The possibility of bringing a law suit to the manufactures by the victims of war crimes would be of a low probability because of living in difficult conditions, though the action can be considered liability of manufacture,
At the first sight, it can be considered that there will be fewer casualties at the battlegrounds, due to maintaining fewer soldiers. But, it is possible that the civilian death tolls might increase, because this situation can make easier for governments in their decisions to enter wars. Besides, this condition can cause wide spreading of the terrorism. It also causes elevations in the adrenaline levels of the operators at remote control rather than cool-presence of mind, when a target is hit, hence it can also effect healthy decision-making mechanism.5
Despite determined by 1990 dated Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by United Nations Law Enforcement Officials6 and 1979 dated United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials7, it is stated that, the principles of “use of force being compulsory, being last resort and being proportional” might not be carried out by the robots, which cannot be fulfilled by killer robots. As a result of this, it will be in question, if the neglection of right to live, which is the prerequisite requirement of other fundamental Rights, will be on the carpet or not. 8 Besides, some authors mention that transfer of authorization about the arbitrament of life or death to robots may impair solely the human dignity and hence invade a person’s fundamental rights.9
Besides the hesitant views about the drones, there are also some other authors assert that some sensors installed in the systems can supply more information (like the possible target’s identity, aim, past, position and activities) before the operator’s decision, , and this can result the improvement in the ethical quality of the war. 10 According to Ronald Arkin, there must be a two-stage control procedure that must be attained before the robot fires. First of all, the robot will assess whether the attack is contradictious to the principles of international humanitarian law and armed conflict rules, if there are no conflicts and if the attack is necessary within the frame of operational commands, robot may continue to the second step. 11
To sum up, there are different views about topic: at the first glance, it can be considered as a positive effect on reducing death tolls of humans; but, because of the uncertainty on the liability of damages, we should approach more hesitantly and the numbers of robots in the battlefields should not be increased without the legal arrangements.
Justice Academy of Turkey Journal, Year:7, Issue:29, January 2017
“In many areas of the daily life, robots are already used and in the future this use will increase. We will see robots being widely utilized in the fields of medicine, in the military and in industry such as: in the care of patients, the elderly and children, as well as performing general work tasks around the home. Definitely the use of robots will save on workforce costs and time but inevitably, legal issues will ensue. Problems expected to arise will concern the responsibility relating to the robots’ behaviors, protection of privacy and security, intellectual property rights and ethics. At present, our country has no regulation relating to robots, but it is clear that there is going to be a need to either amend existing regulations or enact special codes specific to robots.”
“Research is at the point where we might have to confront the possibility of what computer scientists call “strong AI” in the coming years. A strong AI could be intelligent by most reasonable definitions of the word, and possibly have a subjective experience. It stands to reason that we must seriously consider whether such a machine should have its will recognized, protected, and enabled . That is to say, such a sufficiently advanced machine might be said to carry responsibilities, and rights, on its own, as a legal person.
This question is wrapped up in significant philosophical and technical questions o f acceptability and feasibility . The novelty of this Essay is that it provides a p ositive reason to grant such rights with a basis in technical law , along with a concrete definition and justification for personhood . The organizing principle this Essay arrives at is: Personhood exists to protect conscious individuals from suffering and allow them exercise their wills, subject to their intelligence.
This Essay examines several documents across a variety of fields, as well as historical records. Examples such as corporate law, personhood law, slavery law, and standing law demonstrate that t he story of personhood is a history of grappling with what is fully conscious, and how to allow these consciousness’s to exercise their will and avoid pain . However, because law was made by and for humans , by examining the law surrounding animal welfare an d humans in a vegetative state, one finds that the law privileges humanity. Hence, our laws imply that a computer, if it is intelligent enough, should be considered conscious; however, our laws as they are would arbitrarily not provide it personhood simply because it is not made of flesh and blood.”
Ronald E. Leenes Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society; Tilburg Law School
Federica Lucivero University of London – Department of Social Science, Health and Medicine (SSHM)
November 28, 2014
“Speculation about robot morality is almost as old as the concept of a robot itself. Asimov’s three laws of robotics provide an early and well-discussed example of moral rules robots should observe. Despite the widespread influence of the three laws of robotics and their role in shaping visions of future robo-dense worlds, these laws have been neglected as futuristic by hands-on roboticists who have been busy with addressing less abstract questions about robots’ behaviour concerning space locomotion, obstacles avoidance, automatic learning, among others. Between morality and function lies a vast gap. When robots enter our everyday lives they will have to observe social and legal norms. For example, social robots in the hospitals are expected to observe social rules (they should not interrupt a mourning family) and robotic dust cleaners scouring the streets for waste as well as automated cars will have to observe traffic regulation. In this article we elaborate on the various ways in which robotic behaviour is regulated. We distinguish between imposing regulations on robots, imposing regulation by robots, and imposing regulation in robots. In doing this, we distinguish regulation that aims at influencing human behaviour and regulation whose scope is robots’ behaviour. We claim that the artificial agency of robots requires designers and regulators to look at the question of how to regulate robots’ behaviour in a way that renders it compliant with legal norms. Regulation by design offers a means for this. We further explore this idea through the example of automated cars.”
Driverless Vehicles and Brought/ Will Bring Legal Issues
Doc. Servet Yetim
Ankara Bar Association Journal Issue 1. 2016
“Autonomous Vehicles, described as an autonomous, driverless or robotic vehicle, is smart vehicles, in which the vehicle mechanics are combined with the communication technologies, uses advanced control systems, supplied with independent decision maker abilities by analysing interior of the car and environmental data. These vehicles, which made progress by successful test drivers has been made, by twelve firms, many of them are auto manufacturers, in advanced countries, first of these is targeting to introduce to market in 2018 by Google Corp., are forerunner of great transformation on the world population. As for this transformation any country of the world is not ready right now. These advancements cause gigantic transformations primary in automotive sector. Added value of electronic in autonomous vehicle has got ahead of the mechanic. This advancement will provide basis to monopolization in favour to the countries for those who are leader in software development and beside this establish smart cities.
By using autonomous vehicle, people will share some part of their secrets/ personal data with these vehicles electronic systems, the vehicles also will share these data smart traffic systems, software firms, vehicle manufacturers and local authorities under content of autonomies vehicle components. Due to driver factor will be removed, many chaos will occur on the matter of legal and criminal liability of vehicle owner, local authorities that will provide infrastructure services, manufactures of the vehicle mechanic and electronic system and software developer at the accidents that may occur. When the protecting keeping personal data, certification and determining the internet access standards, the facts of reconstructing insurance systems, requiring global jurisdiction power in solving the problems are evaluated all together, it is unavoidable result that the countries should cooperate each other for solving the problems in getting smaller world against the commercial power impositions, unfair competition and monopolization.”
Trends in the Market for the Robot Industry in 2012 Summary of Survey Results
July 18, 2013 Industrial Machinery Division, Manufacturing Industries Bureau, Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
1. Market for Industrial Robots
The global market for industrial robots has grown by about 60% in the last five years in monetary terms. The market size in 2011 was 8.497 billion dollars (662.8 billion yen), of which Japanese enterprises accounted for a share of 50.2%. The global market in a broad sense including electronic packaging robots was about 13.369 billion dollars (1.0428 trillion yen), of which Japanese enterprises accounted for a share of 57.3%.
Although the Japanese market has decreased by about 25% in the last five years in terms of the number of robots, it has maintained its position as the world’s biggest market overall as of 2011.
The Chinese market has quadrupled in the last five years, growing to a size close to that of the Japanese market in terms of the number of robots.
2. Imports and Exports of Industrial Robots
Exports of industrial robots from Japan have increased by about 80% in the last five years due to the global market expansion of industrial robots.
With the rise of the Chinese market, Germany and ROK have increased exports to China more than tenfold in the last five years, and Japan has more than quadrupled such exports, anticipating fiercer competition in the Chinese market.
The industrial robots in operation in Japan accounted for about 48% of those in operation around the world ten years ago, but the share has declined to about 27%. In terms of the number of robots, Japan showed a decline by 54,000 (15.0%) as well. On the other hand, the percentages for ROK, China, and Germany have increased from 5.5% (41,000 robots) to 10.8% (124,000), from 0.2% (2,000) to 6.4% (74,000), and from 13.1% (99,000) to 13.6% (157,000), respectively.
The number of industrial robots used per 10,000 employees in the manufacturing industry in the last nine years in Japan has remained flat, at about 340, while the numbers in ROK, China, and Germany have increased from 126 to 347, from 1 to 21, and from 172 to 261, respectively.
4. Industrial Demand for Industrial Robots around the World
As for industrial demand for industrial robots, the automobile industry and the electrical and electronics industry account for the majority, followed by the metal and machinery industry, and the plastics and chemicals industry.
Looking at the number of sales by industry in major countries and regions in 2011, China reached first place (18.8%) for the automobile industry, while Japan stood at fourth (12.2%) after Germany and the United States.As for the electrical and electronics industry, ROK overtook Japan to gain first place, with the two countries’combined share reaching 67.1% of world sales. As for the metal and machinery industry, China reached first place (17.8%).
5. Trends concerning Industrial Robots in the Chinese Market
The Chinese market for industrial robots has increased by an annual average of 41% since 2001, resulting in a 32-fold expansion in the last decade. It has already become the biggest market in the world for industrial robots for the automobile industry. For the electrical and electronics industry as well, it is expected that the use of industrial robots will increase, reflecting the rise in labor costs.
Looking at the countries from which China imports industrial robots, Japan ranked first overwhelmingly (70.6%) and is still on an upward trend. Although exports from China have still been low, it is necessary to keep a close watch on future movements because the number of robots exported in 2011 increased by 132% year on year.
The importance of the Chinese market for Japanese manufacturers of industrial robots and electronic packaging robots has increased every year. The percentage of exports to China among total exports from Japan has increased from 8.5% to 20.5% in the last four years.
You can reach in all of report on Japanese or English from these links: