?
Эволюция роботов и право XXI века
The aim of this article is evaluation of the legal regime of robotics in Russia and abroad, and determination of the directions of the development of legal regulation of this sphere of robotics on its basis. This aim determines the objectives of the research. A dialectical method of science allowed the authors to conduct analysis and evaluation of the legal regime of robotics. Using a historical method, the authors identified tendencies of the evolution of robotics and particularities of the legal regime of robots in Russia and abroad. A comparative legal method allowed the authors to give evaluation of already existing regulatory initiatives, to determine social, legal, ethical problems and risks, to suggest possible models of regulating the sphere of robotics. The authors come to following conclusions. Nowadays, it is too early to raise the issue of giving robots a legal status. At present, even the most "advanced" intellectual robots should be admitted as "sui generis property". In the frame of this model, which seems revolutionary enough itself to the authors of this article, it is possible to decide practical problems arising with evolution of robots. Artificial intelligence becomes more and more advanced, that is why in the nearest future the question on subjectivity may be not only a theoretical matter, but a practical problem for the legal system. It is apparent that there is a question for law to create a new subject of law. Meanwhile, it is highly likely that at one point of technological evolution it will be necessary to head down the way of creation of a legal person (legal entity in its classical understanding). Throughout the construction of legal entity it is possible to endue any phenomenon (natural object, creature, fictional subject) with subjectivity. Every functional well developed electronic/ mechanic individual should have a "tutor", which will allow to deal with problems of legal representation. For certain categories of robots there should be qualified persons responsible for a range of duties of public nature. The authors come to a conclusion that it is necessary to find a delicate balance between advantages and socio-economic risks of robotics in the context of legal regulation. We should not build a society where a robot is a norm and man is an exception.