The article describes the main issues of tort liability regulation in the context of the principle of justice and its implementation into the legislation and law enforcement practice of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The comparative method of the study revealed critical differences in the provisions of Russian and Chinese tort law. The analysis of the domestic and foreign scientists’ works and judicial practice in disputes on compensation for harm contributed to findings and results related to the forms of justice implementation in these countries. The authors argue the dominance of procedural form of justice implementation in the Russian legal system but distributive form in the Chinese legal system. Positive and negative aspects of both forms are discussed. The reform of Chinese civil law which completely changed legal regulation of tort liability and excluded many of the controversial provisions of the previous PRC law on liability for offenses required new theoretical studies aimed at evaluating new laws. Comparison of the new tort law of the People’s Republic of China and the tort law of the Russian Federation is especially acute in connection with the objective to integrate the BRICS member countries against the background of the increasing conflicts in international arena. Optimization of legal norms by choosing the most effective model for the principle of justice would improve the protection of victims’ rights. In particular, the authors conclude that it is necessary to integrate the Russian and Chinese approach for determining the compensation and defining clear criteria for resolving disputes. In addition, possibility of the tort liability parties to agree on the procedure, time frame and amount of compensation should be set out under the law.
The law has a number of structures, the use of which, by analogy with the law, is possible in the conditions of the gradual introduction of autonomous robots into economic turnover. Will today's legal regulation be able to handle the issues of preventing harm with robots increasingly wide-spreading and increasingly autonomous. Analyzing and summarizing modern views of scientists regarding the concept of a source of increased danger, the practice of applying the relevant legal norms, as well as the analysis of legal provisions related to autonomous robots, we draw conclusions that it is impossible to classify autonomous robots as traditional sources of increased danger and it is objectively needed to identify them as independent objects of law autonomous sources of increased danger or sources of superdanger. The work substantiates the necessity of exempting the owners of such sources from increased responsibility (liability without fault) from the moment the robot starts working autonomously. It substantiates the necessity of creating a comprehensive system that ensures the safe operation of autonomous robots, which includes mandatory state certification of such objects, obtaining special permits by the owners of such objects, and mandatory insurance of risks. The proposed changes to the structure to prevent harm, consisting in the consolidation of certain provisions prohibiting activities in case the operating conditions of autonomous sources of increased danger are violated, in the proclamation of the presumption of guilt of the owner will create optimal conditions to minimize offenses.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.