Comparative Law Review

Comparative Law Review

Electronic animals; comparative investigation on the possibility of using ‎the framework of animal responsibility toward artificial intelligence in ‎Iran and U.S.‎

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Seyed Amirali Hosseini 1
Seyed Alireza Hashemizade 2
1 Department of Private Law, Department of Law, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, ‎Iran
2 Department of Law, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran
10.22059/jcl.2024.374755.634626
Abstract
In the near future, artificial intelligence (AI) will bring about transformations in fields such as economics, medicine, engineering, and more. Despite the remarkable services AI provides for humans, it will also cause damages. Since the development of AI is recognized as a necessity, legal systems must ensure that AI neither leads to catastrophic damages nor leaves victims uncompensated in case of harm. Thus, identifying the nature of AI and, consequently, establishing an appropriate liability system is essential, though it presents numerous challenges. The unique characteristics of AI, such as autonomous decision-making and learning, make its nature both complex and ambiguous. This article examines the possibility of applying the rules governing animal liability to AI, given the functional and inherent similarities between AI and animals. A comparative and descriptive-analytical study of Iranian and American law indicates that the rules of animal liability can also be applied to AI; however, this theory is not without its flaws.
Keywords
Artificial Intelligence
‎nature of artificial ‎intelligence
civil ‎responsibility of the animal ‎owner
electronic animals.‎
Subjects

  1. الف) فارسی

    -   کتاب‌ها

    1. ابوذری، مهرنوش (1400). حقوق و هوش مصنوعی. تهران: نشر میزان.
    2. محمودی، عباسعلی (۱۳۵۱). نطق و شعور جانوران یا اسراری از زندگی حیوانات، تهران: نشر بعثت.
    3. مکارم شیرازی، ناصر) ۱۳74.( تفسیر نمونه. ج 5، چ 26، تهران: دارالکتب الإسلامیه.

     

    -   مقالات

    1. بادینی، حسن؛ شعبانی کندسری، هادی؛ رادپرور، سجاد (1391). مسؤولیت محض؛ مبانی و مصادیق. .مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، 3 (1)، 19-36.
    2. حکمت‌نیا، محمود؛ محمدی، مرتضی؛ واثقی، محسن (1398). مسئولیت مدنی ناشی از تولید ربات‌های مبتنی بر هوش مصنوعی خودمختار. حقوق اسلامی، 16 (60)، 231-258.
    3. ذاکری‌نیا، حانیه (1402). ماهیت و مبنای مسئولیت مدنی ناشی از هوش مصنوعی در حقوق ایران و کشورهای اتحادیة اروپا. مجلۀ علمی حقوق خصوصی، 20 (1)، 135-152 doi: 10.22059/jolt.2023.356703.1007186
    4. رجبی، عبداله (1398). ضمان در هوش مصنوعی. مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، 10 (2)، 449-466.
    5. عطازاده، سعید و انصاری، جلال (1398). بازپژوهی مفهوم مسئولیت کیفری هوش مصنوعی در حقوق اسلام، ایران، امریکا و آلمان. پژوهش تطبیقی حقوق اسلام و غرب، 6(4)، 55-86. doi: 10.22091/csiw.2020.4821.1661
    6. محمدی، مهدی؛ ابدالی، مهرزاد؛ اکبرینه، پروین (۱۳۹۷). مبانی مسؤولیت مدنی ناشی از فعل شیء (ساختمان و حیوان) در حقوق ایران و فرانسه بر اساس قانون مدنی ۲۰۱۶ فرانسه. پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، 22 (1)، 107-134.
    7. ولی‌پور، علی و اسماعیلی، محسن (1400). امکان‌سنجی مسؤولیت مدنی هوش مصنوعی عمومی ناشی از ایجاد ضرر در حقوق مدنی. اندیشۀ حقوقی معاصر، 2 (3)، 1-8. doi: 10.22034/lth.2021.248596
    8. یزدانیان، علیرضا و نیازی، عباس (1396). بررسی تطبیقی مسئولیت مدنی ناشی از حیوان در حقوق اسلام و غرب. پژوهش تطبیقی حقوق اسلام و غرب، 4 (4)، 167-192. doi: 10.22091/csiw.2018.2250.1232

     

    ب) عربی

    1. شهید ثانی (1316 ق). مسالک الافهام فی شرح شرایع الاسالم، تهران: نشر کتابفروش.

     

     

    ج) انگلیسی

    -    Books

    1. Abouzari, Mehrnoosh (2020). Law and Artificial intelligence, Tehran: Mizan publishing house (In Persian).
    2. Chopra, Samir & White, Laurence F. (2011). A legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents 130.
    3. Shahid Sani (1316). Masalak al-Afham in Shari'e al-Islam, published by Kitaborush, Tehran (In Persian).
    4. Mahmoodi, abasaali (1972). the speech and consciousness of animals or secrets from the life of animals, Tehran: Ba'ath publishing house (In Persian).
    5. Makarem Shirazi, Nasser (1996). Exemplary commentary, Dar al-Katb al-Islamiyya, twenty-sixth edition, vol. 5 (In Persian).
    6. Mccorduck, Pamela (2004). Machines Who Think a Personal Inquiry into the History and Prospects of Artificial Intelligence, 2nd Edition.
    7. Turner. J. (2019). Robot rules: Regulating artificial intelligence. Palgrave Macmillan.

     

    -     Articles

    1. Atazadeh, S. & ansari, J. (2020). A Review of Concept of Criminal Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence in the Law of Islam, Iran, USA and Germany. Comparative Studies on Islamic and Western Law, 6 (4), 55-86. doi: 10.22091/csiw.2020.4821.1661 (In Persian).
    2. Badini, H; Shabani Kandsari, H; Radparvar, S. (2012). Strict Liability; Foundations and Instances. Comparative Law Review, 3(1), 19-36 (In Persian).
    3. Calo, Ryan, Artificial Intelligence Policy: A Primer and Roadmap (August 8, 2017). //dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3015350  
    4. Chessman, Christian, Not Quite Human: Artificial Intelligence, Animals, and the Regulation of Sentient Property (June 29, 2018). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3200802
    5. Cheney. Dorothy L. (2011). Extent and Limits of Cooperation in Animals, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 108, No. Supplement 2, 10902–10909. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.110029110
    6. Duffy, Sophia and Hopkins, Jamie, Sit, Stay, Drive: The Future of Autonomous Car Liability (2013). 16 SMU Sci. & Tech. Law Rev. 101 (Winter 2013), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2379697.
    7. Floridi, Luciano & Sanders, J.W. (2004). On the Morality of Artificial Agents, 14 Minds & Machines 349. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MIND.0000035461.63578.9d
    8. Hekmatnia, M; mohammadi, M; vaseghi, M. (2019). Civil Liability for damages caused by robots based on autonomous artificial intelligence. Islamic Law, 16(60), 231-258 (In Persian).
    9. Johnson, N; Zhao, G.; Hunsader, E. et al. (2013). Abrupt Rise of New Machine Ecology beyond Human Response Time, SCI. REPORTS, Sept. 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep02627
    10. Lior, Anat (2020). AI Entities as AI Agents: Artificial Intelligence Liability and the AI Respondeat Superior Analogy (August 31, 2019). 46 Mitchell Hamline Law Review, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3446115
    11. Maltz, Earl. (1988). the Nature of Precedent, 66 N.C. L. REV. 367, 368. https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol66/iss2/5
    12. Mulheron. (2016). Liability for Animals in Principles of Tort Law, 76, 77.
    13. Mulligan, Christina (2018). Revenge Against Robots (August 9, 2017). 69 South Carolina Law Review 579., http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3016048.
    14. Rajabi, A. (2019). Liability of Artificial Intelligence; the Reflection of Developments in the Liability Rules. Comparative Law Review, 10 (2), 449-466. doi: 10.22059/jcl.2019.274782.633787 (In Persian).
    15. Restatement (Second) OF Torts § 506 (AM. Law Inset. 1977) (USA).
    16. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys & Emot. Harm (2010) (USA).
    17. Scherer, Matthew U. (2019). Of Wild Beasts and Digital Analogues: The Legal Status of Autonomous Systems. Nevada Law Journal, Vol. 19,No.1.
    18. Nichols, Hilyard. (2023) the First Byte Rule: A Proposal for Liability of Artificial Intelligences. Forthcoming, William & Mary Business Law Review (20).
    19. Mohammadi M; Abdali M; Akbarineh P. (2018).The Basis of Civil Liability of harms caused bt one’s property (Building and Animal) In Iranian and french law according to 2016 France civil law. CLR; 22 (1):107-134 (In Persian).
    20. Thomas, N.E. (2021). Animal Ethics and Autonomy, Agency and Selfhood. In: Poff, D.C., Michalos, A.C. (eds) Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23514-1_1254-1
    21. Valipour, A. & Esmaeili, M. (2021). Feasibility Study of Civil Liability of Artificial General Intelligence Due to Damage in Civil Law. Contemporary Legal Thought, 2(3), 1-8. doi: 10.22034/lth.2021.248596 (In Persian).
    22. Vladeck, David C. (2014). Machines without Principals: Liability Rules and Artificial Intelligence, 89 WASH. L. REV. 117, 122 Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol89/iss1/6.
    23. Wagner, Gerhard (2023). Liability Rules for the Digital Age Aiming for the Brussels Effect. (January 8, 2023). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4320285
    24. Yazdaniyan, A. & Niyazi, A. (2018). Comparative Study of Civil Responsibility for Animals in Islamic Law and Law of the West. Comparative Studies on Islamic and Western Law, 4(4), 167-192. (In Persian).
    25. Zakerinia, H. (2023). The Nature and Basis of Civil Liability Arising from Artificial Intelligence in Iranian and EU Members’ Laws. Private Law, 20(1), 135-152. doi: 10.22059/jolt.2023.356703.1007186 (In Persian).

     

    -     Cases

    1. Mc Quaker v. Goddard [1940] 1 K.B. 687.
    2. Richmond v. Knowles, 265 A.2d 53 (Del. Super. Ct. 1970)
Comparative Law Review
Volume 15, Issue 2
Autumn & Winter 2024-2025
December 2024
Pages 451-471