Artificial intelligence: legal status or legal regime?

Publication type Article
Status Published
Affiliation: Vavilov Institute for the History of Sciences and Technology, RAS
Address: Moscow, Russian Federation
Occupation: Leading Researcher, Department of Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Criminology
Affiliation: Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Address: Russian Federation
Journal nameGosudarstvo i pravo
EditionIssue 10

In Russia, like elsewhere in the world, artificial intelligence, robots and robotic technologies have been introduced into various fields of economy, and state and public life. The variety of spheres of application in which artificial intelligence in different forms is currently used and will be used in future, have implications for the legal system and require adequate legal developments that would take into account the features of these fundamentally novel and previously unknown technologies. The solution of this complex task, in its turn, involves theoretical understanding of multiple conceptual issues that can affect the success or failures of legal regulations in the area of public relations under consideration. The article considers Asimov’s laws of robotics and ethical norms that have been proposed for artificial intelligence in the Concept of development of regulation of relations in the sphere of artificial intelligence and robotics technologies for the period till 2024. The authors discuss the subject of criminal law assessment of robots’ behavior, and propose the understanding and definitions of notions like “ethics” and “lawfulness” of robots’ behavior, “ethical violations”, “offences”, “guilt” and “responsibility” of robots. The authors also analyze anthropomorphism as one of the strategies of social robotics, its pros and cons. The authors conclude that legislation should use as a starting point the functions of artificial intelligence and it should be uniform towards all emerging forms. At present stage of development, it is necessary to have a legal regime established for robots (artificial intelligence), while the legal status for them is the matter of future, when they will acquire real autonomy and will be able to carry out their own free choice of behavior.

Keywordsartificial intelligence, robot, Asimov’s laws of robotics, anthropomorphism, “ethics” of robot, “lawfulness” of robot’s behavior, “guilt” of robot, “responsibility” of robot, legal regulation, criminal law assessment
Publication date24.11.2022
Number of characters49491
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 1, views: 358

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Baturin Yu. M. Hamlet as a robot: the basics of legal regulation of artificial intelligence should be sought in the well-forgotten past of Soviet legal science: materials of the Fourth International Scientific and Practical Conference “Bachilov Readings” (February 5 - 6, 2021) / ed. by T.A. Polyakova, A.V. Minbaleev, V.B. Naumov. Saratov, 2022. P. 265–274 (in Russ.).

2. Bakhteev D.V. Artificial intelligence: ethical and legal foundations. M., 2021. P. 8 - 28, 118–124 (in Russ.).

3. The impact of scientific and technological progress on legal life. M., 1988. P. 114 (in Russ.).

4. Zilberman N.N., Stefantsova M.A. Social robot: approaches to the definition of the concept // Modern studies of social problems (electron. scientific jornal). 2016. No. 11 (67). P. 297–312 (in Russ.).

5. Katerny I.V. Causal explanations of the “sinister valley” effect in robotics: theories and research data // Quality and life. 2017. No. 4 (16). P. 88, 89 (in Russ.).

6. Models of legal regulation of the creation, use and distribution of robots and systems with artificial intelligence / under the general editorship of V.B. Naumov. SPb., 2019. P. 13 - 32, 53 - 67 (in Russ.).

7. Petrovsky N.A. Analogies in jurisprudence and law enforcement practice // Herald of the Adygea State University. 2005. Iss. 3. P. 128, 131 (in Russ.).

8. Polyakova T.A., Minbaleev A.V., Krotkova N.V. Development of the science of information law and legal provision of information security: formation of the scientific school of Information Law (past and future) // State and Law. 2021. No. 12. P. 102, 103. DOI: 10.31857/S102694520017761-8 (in Russ.).

9. Seredkina E.V. Philosophical foundations of applied anthropomorphism in social robotics // Technologos. 2020. No. 4. P. 56 - 63 (in Russ.).

10. Stolbova N.V., Seredkina E.V., Myshkin O.S. How sinister is the “Sinister Valley” really? Experience of discourse deconstruction // Herald of the Perm University. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology. 2022. Iss. 1. P. 94 (in Russ.).

11. Filimonov V.A., Chernyavskaya V.S. Catastrophes of subjective assessments and their models: on the issue of instrumentalization of diagnostics of the “sinister valley” effect // Territory of new opportunities. Herald of the Vladivostok State University of Economics and Service. 2021. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 170 - 178 (in Russ.).

12. Shevchenko L.L. Metaphor as a means of modeling the conceptual system of the author: dis. ... Candidate of Philology [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: URL: (accessed: 06/15/2022) (in Russ.).

13. Balkin J.M. The Path of Robotics Law // California Law Review Circuit. 2015. Vol. 6. P. 50, 56.

14. Belanche D., Casaló L.V., Flavián C., et al. Service robot implementation: a theoretical framework and research agenda // The Service Industries Journal. 2020. Vol. 40. Iss. 3 - 4. P. 208, 209.

15. Bertolini A. Robots as Products: The Case for a Realistic Analysis of Robotic Applications and Liability Rules // Law, Innovation and Technology. 2013. Vol. 5. Iss. 2. P. 217–219.

16. Calo R. Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw // California Law Review. 2015. Vol. 103. No. 3. P. 529, 531.

17. Coeckelbergh M. Three Responses to Anthropomorphism in Social Robotics: Towards a Critical, Relational, and Hermeneutic Approach // International Journal of Social Robotics. 2021. P. 1 [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: URL: (accessed: 27.05.2022).

18. Duffy B.R. Anthropomorphism and the social robot // Robotics and Autonomous Systems. 2003. Vol. 42. P. 178, 181, 183.

19. Epley N., Waytz A., Cacioppo J.T. On Seeing Human: A Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomorphism // Psychological Review. 2007. Vol. 114. No. 4. P. 864–886.

20. Hallevy G. The Criminal Liability of Artificial Intelligence Entities - from Science Fiction to Legal Social Control // Akron Intellectual Property Journal. 2010. Vol. 4. Iss. 2. P. 174, 186 - 199.

21. Hu Y. Robot Criminals // University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. 2019. Vol. 52. Iss. 2. P. 490, 492.

22. Jones C.P.A. The Robot Koseki: A Japanese Law Model for Regulating Autonomous Machines // Journal of Business and Technology Law. 2019. Vol. 14. Iss. 2. P. 413 - 418.

23. Kaminski M.E., Rueben M., Smart W.D., et al. Averting Robot Eyes // Maryland Law Review. 2017. Vol. 76. Iss. 4. P. 983 - 1025.

24. Laakasuo M., Palomäki J., Köbis N. Moral Uncanny Valley: A Robot’s Appearance Moderates How its Decisions are Judged // International Journal of Social Robotics. 2021. Vol. 13. Iss. 7. P. 1679–1688.

25. Łichocki P., Billard A., Kahn P.H. The Ethical Landscape of Robotics // IEEE Robotics&Automation Magazine. 2011. Vol. 18. Iss. 1. P. 46.

26. Lockey S., Gillespie N., Holm D., et al. A Review of Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Challenges, Vulnerabilities and Future Directions // Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2021. P. 5466.

27. MacDorman K.F., Green R.D., Ho Ch.-Ch., et al. Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces // Computers in Human Dehavior. 2009. Vol. 25. Iss. 3. P. 695–710.

28. Mori M. The Uncanny Valley [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: URL: (accesssed: 06.06.2022).

29. Murphy R., Woods D.D. Beyond Asimov: The Three Laws of Responsible Robotics // IEEE Intelligent Systems. 2009. Vol. 24. No. 4. P. 14.

30. Remembering AIBO. Nippon. Science. Technology. Feb. 2, 2017 [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: URL: (accessed: 02.06.2022).

31. Richards N.M., Smart W.D. How should the law think about robots? // In: Robot Law / R. Calo, A.M. Froomkin, Ia. Kerr (eds). UK, USA, 2016. P. 6, 9, 10, 16 - 19.

32. Salles A., Evers K., Farisco M. Anthropomorphism in AI // AJOB Neuroscience. 2020. Vol. 11. Iss. 2. P. 90, 91.

33. Simmler M., Markwalder N. Guilty Robots? – Rethinking the Nature of Culpability and Legal Personhood in the Age of Artificial Intelligence // Criminal Law Forum. 2019.Vol. 30. Iss. 1. P. 8, 20, 27.

34. Sullins J.P. When Is a Robot a Moral Agent? // International Review of Information Ethics. 2006. Vol. 6. P. 25, 28, 29.

35. Tinwell A., Grimshaw M., Abdel Nabi D., et al. Facial expression of emotion and perception of the Uncanny Valley in virtual characters // Computers in Human Behavior. 2011. Vol. 27. Iss. 2. P. 741–749.

36. Złotowski J., Proudfoot D., Yogeeswaran K., et al. Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and Challenges in Human–Robot Interaction // International Journal of Social Robotics. 2015. Vol. 7. Iss. 3. P. 353.

Система Orphus