SUNIY INTELLEKTNING HUQUQIY SHAXS SIFATIDA TAN OLINISHI VA UNING JINOIY JAVOBGARLIGI O‘RTASIDAGI O‘ZARO BOG‘LIQLIK
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstrak:
Mazkur maqolada sun’iy intellektning huquqiy shaxs sifatida tan olinishi masalasi hamda uning jinoiy javobgarligi o‘rtasidagi o‘zaro bog‘liqlik nazariy va amaliy jihatdan tahlil qilingan. Muallif tomonidan sun’iy intellekt tizimlarining avtonomlik darajasi, ongli qaror qabul qilish qobiliyati va irodaviy erkinlik mezonlari huquqiy subyektlik nuqtayi nazaridan baholangan. Maqolada Yaponiya, AQSh, Yevropa Ittifoqi va Xitoyning milliy tajribalari qiyosiy o‘rganilib, turli huquqiy yondashuvlar asosida sun’iy intellektning huquqiy maqomini belgilash yo‘llari tahlil qilingan. Tadqiqot natijalariga ko‘ra, sun’iy intellektning huquqiy shaxsligi va jinoiy javobgarligi bir-birini to‘ldiruvchi, tizimli va dialektik munosabatga ega bo‘lib, ushbu sohada xalqaro huquqiy standartlar ishlab chiqish zarurligi asoslab berilgan. O‘zbekiston uchun esa Yevropa va Yaponiya tajribasi asosida milliy huquqiy mexanizmlarni shakllantirish bo‘yicha takliflar ilgari suriladi.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
##submission.howToCite##:
##submission.citations##:
Russell, Stuart and Peter Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. 4th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2020. 45-67. // available at: https://lib.ysu.am/disciplines_bk/efdd4d1d4c2087fe1cbe03d9ced67f34.pdf
Solum, Lawrence B., Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences. North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 70, p. 1231, 1992, Illinois Public Law Research Paper No. 09-13, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1108671
Kurki, Visa, A Theory of Legal Personhood (August 13, 2019). A Theory of Legal Personhood (Oxford University Press 2019), Helsinki Legal Studies Research Paper No. 58 (2019), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3446600
Bayern, Shawn J., The Implications of Modern Business-Entity Law for the Regulation of Autonomous Systems (Octobert 31, 2015). 19 Stanford Technology Law Review 93 (2015), FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 797, FSU College of Law, Law, Business & Economics Paper No. 797, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2758222
The official website: European Parliament. European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics. February 16, 2017. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2017-0051_EN.html [accessed on: 21.10.2025].
Pagallo, Ugo. The Laws of Robots: Crimes, Contracts, and Torts. Dordrecht: Springer, 2013. 89-112.
Hallevy, Gabriel (2010) The Criminal Liability of Artificial Intelligence Entities - from Science Fiction to Legal Social Control, Akron Intellectual Property Journal: Vol. 4 Iss. 2 Article 1. Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronintellectualproperty/vol4/iss2/1
Abbott, Ryan Benjamin, The Reasonable Computer: Disrupting the Paradigm of Tort Liability (November 29, 2016). George Washington Law Review, Vol. 86, No. 1, 2018, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2877380 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2877380 .
Duff, Antony. Answering for Crime: Responsibility and Liability in the Criminal Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2007. 23-45.
Diamantis, Mihailis, The Extended Corporate Mind: When Corporations Use AI to Break the Law (July 18, 2019). 97 N.C. L. Rev. 893 (2020), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3422429 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3422429
King, Thomas and Aggarwal, Nikita and Taddeo, Mariarosaria and Floridi, Luciano, Artificial Intelligence Crime: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Foreseeable Threats and Solutions (May 22, 2018). 26 Science and Engineering Ethics 89 (2020) (published version available at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-018-00081-0), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3183238 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3183238
Teubner, Gunther, Rights of Non-Humans? Electronic Agents and Animals as New Actors in Politics and Law (2006). Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 33, pp. 497-521, 2006, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=892962
Roberts, Huw and Cowls, Josh and Morley, Jessica and Taddeo, Mariarosaria and Wang, Vincent and Floridi, Luciano, The Chinese Approach to Artificial Intelligence: an Analysis of Policy, Ethics, and Regulation (September 1, 2019). Roberts, H., Cowls, J., Morley, J. et al. The Chinese approach to artificial intelligence: an analysis of policy, ethics, and regulation. AI & Soc 36, 59–77 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00992-2, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3469784 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3469784
Gless, Sabine and Silverman, Emily and Weigend, Thomas, If Robots Cause Harm, Who Is to Blame? Self-Driving Cars and Criminal Liability (January 29, 2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2724592 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2724592
Danaher, John. Robots, Law and the Retribution Gap. Ethics and Information Technology 18, no. 4 (2016): 299-309.
Scherer, Matthew U., Regulating Artificial Intelligence Systems: Risks, Challenges, Competencies, and Strategies (May 30, 2015). Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Vol. 29, No. 2, Spring 2016, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2609777 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2609777
Bryson, Joanna and Diamantis, Mihailis and Grant, Thomas D., Of, for, and by the People: The Legal Lacuna of Synthetic Persons (September 8, 2017). 25 Artificial Intelligence & L. 273 (2017), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3068082
Coeckelbergh, Mark. Robot Rights? Towards a Social-Relational Justification of Moral Consideration. Ethics and Information Technology 12, no. 3 (2010): 209-221.