Intersection of “Tokku” Special Zone, Robots, and the Law: A Case Study on Legal Impacts to Humanoid Robots

Weng, Yueh Hsuan; Sugahara, Yusuke; Hashimoto, Kenji; Takanishi, Atsuo

doi:10.1007/s12369-015-0287-x

Cited by 43 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, the possibility to test robots in their operating fields rather than in laboratories would allow situating robots in their environments, namely in designing socially as well as legally 'embedded robots that are structurally coupled with their surroundings' [48]. As regards to this, deregulation areas [49] or robotics innovation facilities (RIF) [50] may prove useful. However, in the case of devices to be used in very unstructured and extremely variable and diverse scenarios-like robotic prostheses and exoskeletons-only the diffusion and real use of the device-and subsequent accidents caused-will provide more reliable data [33].…”

Section: Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As far as the first is concerned, a deeper understanding of the functioning of the device is required, that may only be achieved through extensive testing in a realistic environment. The use of RIFs [49] or deregulation areas [50] may prove essential to this end. Moreover, adequate risk assessment methods, which include both hard and soft risks, need to be developed for evaluating new robots [57].…”

Section: The Liability Regime Of Robots: Who Pays For Damages When Romentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On Robots and Insurance

Bertolini

Salvini

Pagliai³

et al. 2016

Int J of Soc Robotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does a robot producer, owner or user need insurance policy? What kind of risks derive from the use of robots? Are there any differences between insuring a robot and another product? And finally, who should bear the burden of paying the insurance premium? The objective of this article is to provide the reader with an overview on the issue of risk management of robotic applications through insurance contracts. Indeed, insurance products are essential for an effective technology transfer from research to market. As of today, the production, use and diffusion of robots, determines risks that can hardly be identified and assessed both with respect to the probability of their occurrence and to the consequences they might bring about. Thence, innovation causes existing insurance products to be inadequate, and often times, it leaves insurance companies in the complex position of needing to elaborate new solutions in the absence of complete information. This article discusses the reasons for those hindrances and identifies the essential issues that lawyers, economists and engineers need to address in their future research in order to overcome current limitations and ultimately develop efficient and adequate risk management tools. B Pericle Salvini

show abstract

Section: Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Liability Regime Of Robots: Who Pays For Damages When Romentioning

confidence: 99%

On Robots and Insurance

Bertolini

Salvini

Pagliai³

et al. 2016

Int J of Soc Robotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This may lead to a stalemate in the progress of innovation. One proposal that has been advanced is that of creating "special zones" for testing robotic technologies under the cover of special legislation (Weng et al 2015). Second, the challenge arises of providing appropriate training to professionals and laypeople who may have to use or interact with autonomous robotic systems.…”

Section: Major Trends and Challenges In Autonomous Robotic Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evaluation Schema for the Ethical Use of Autonomous Robotic Systems in Security Applications

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionInformation technology has become a decisive element in modern warfare, in particular when armed forces of developed countries are involved. Modern weapon systems would not function without sophisticated computing power, but also the planning and executing of military operations in general heavily rely on information technology. In addition, armed forces, but also police, border control and civil protection organizations increasingly rely on robotic systems with growing autonomous capacities. This poses tactical and strategic, but also ethical and legal issues that are of particular relevance when procurement organizations are evaluating such systems for security applications.In order to support the evaluation of such systems from an ethical perspective, this report presents an evaluation schema for the ethical use of autonomous robotic systems in security applications, which also considers legal aspects to some degree. The focus is on two types of applications: First, systems whose purpose is not to destroy objects or to harm people (e.g. rescue robots, surveillance systems); although weaponization cannot be excluded. Second, systems that deliberately possess the capacity to harm people or destroy objects -both defensive and offensive, lethal and non-lethal systems. The cyber-domain where autonomous systems also are increasingly used (software agents, specific types of cyber weapons etc.) has been excluded from this analysis.The research that has resulted in this report outlines the most important evaluations and scientific publications that are contributing to the international debate on the regulation of autonomous systems in the security context, in particular in the case of so-called lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS). The goal of the research is twofold: First, it should support the procurement of security/defense systems, e.g. to avoid reputation risks or costly assessments for systems that are ethically problematic and entail political risks. Second, the research should contribute to the international discussion on the use of autonomous systems in the security context (e.g

show abstract

“…Sometimes, even the law is not prepared to accommodate new types of technology right away, e.g. driverless cars [4]. An instrument that could link robot development and legislation, therefore, could be of help to roboticists -an ROBIA in Fig.…”

Section: The Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They are conceptual regions or districts for experimental testing for robotic technologies that include experimental regulations for socio-economic revitalization and special regulatory measures, e.g. preferential treatment in taxation [4].…”

Section: The Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

HRI and the Future of Law

Fosch‐Villaronga

Heldeweg

2017

Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following Sinek's what-how-why model, this project is about the creation of a dynamic regulatory instrument that co-evolves with robot technology development (what), using a robot and a regulatory impact assessments and evaluation settings (simulation and living labs) for empirical testing (how), for three reasons (why): (1) to provide the robot users with a comprehensive protection (not only focused on technical matters); (2) to provide roboticists with a practical tool to know what regulations have to take into consideration into the life-cycle process of the robot; and (3) to fill the existing regulatory gaps caused by the fastness of the technological progress and avoid over-/under-regulated scenarios.

show abstract

Intersection of “Tokku” Special Zone, Robots, and the Law: A Case Study on Legal Impacts to Humanoid Robots

Cited by 43 publications

References 16 publications

On Robots and Insurance

On Robots and Insurance

An Evaluation Schema for the Ethical Use of Autonomous Robotic Systems in Security Applications

HRI and the Future of Law

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About