Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp
197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.39 N° 68
Enero
Junio
2021
Recibido el 15/10/2020 Aceptado el 08/02/2021
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 39, Nº 68 (Enero - Junio) 2021, 596-611
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
Criminal Aspects of Robotics Applications
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.3968.38
Fedor Romanovich Sundurov *
Ildar Rustamovich Begishev **
Zarina Ilduzovna Khisamova ***
Igor Izmailovich Bikeev ****
Elvira Yuryevna Latypova *****
Timur Radikovich Ishbuldin ******
Abstract
Direct and indirect criminological risks of the use of robotics
are analyzed and issues of responsibility of the manufacturer
(developer)and/or owner (user) of robotics are discussed for
acts committed with their participation. This essay discusses
promising areas of legal research related to robotics and its
corresponding legal regulations. The denition of robotics is based
and proposed as all categories of robots in their broadest sense, regardless
of their purpose, degree of danger, mobility or autonomy, as well as cyber-
physical systems with articial intelligence in any form. It is proposed to
recognize socially dangerous acts committed with the use of robotics as
crimes committed in a generally dangerous way, if there are grounds for
doing so. It is concluded that the commission of acts through robotics is
capable, in certain cases, of creating a plurality of crimes in the form of a
real aggregate. The expanding powers of State security bodies, which can
* Professor in Law, Faculty of Law, Department of Criminal Law, Kazan Federal University, Kazan,
Russia (Russian Federation). ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9871-1924. Email: kafedra.
ksu@yandex.ru
** Ph. D. in Law, Senior Researcher, Kazan Innovative University named after V.G. Timiryasov, Kazan,
Russia (Russian Federation). ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5619-4025. Email: begishev@
mail.ru
*** Ph. D. in Law, Department of Planning and Coordination of Research Activities, Head, Research
Department, Krasnodar University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation,
Krasnodar, Russia (Russian Federation). ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0561-8718. Email:
alise89@inbox.ru
**** Doctor of Law, Department of Criminal Law and Procedure, Kazan Innovative University named after
V.G. Timiryasov, Kazan, Russia (Russian Federation). ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1365-
4615. Email: bikeev@ieml.ru
***** Ph. D. in Law, Department of Criminal Law and Procedure, Kazan Innovative University named after
V.G. Timiryasov, Kazan, Russia (Russian Federation). ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7390-
4962. Email: elatypova@ieml.ru
****** Master of Law Laboratory Assistant, Department of Criminal Law and Procedure, Kazan Innovative
University named after V.G. Timiryasov, Kazan, Russia (Russian Federation). ORCID ID: https://
orcid.org/0000-0003-3102-1931. Email: t.ishbuldin@yandex.ru
597
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 596-611
carry out the functions of state policy development, legal regulation, control
and supervision in the eld of robotics application, have been veried.
Keywords: robotics; digital technologies; legal regulation; criminal
liability; Articial intelligence.
Aspectos criminales de las aplicaciones robóticas
Resumen
Se analizan los riesgos criminológicos directos e indirectos del uso de
la robótica y se discuten las cuestiones de responsabilidad del fabricante
(desarrollador) y/o propietario (usuario) de la robótica por los actos
cometidos con su participación. Este ensayo discute las áreas prometedoras
de la investigación jurídica relacionadas con la robótica y su normativa legal
correspondiente. La denición de robótica se fundamenta y propone como
todas las categorías de robots en su sentido más amplio, independientemente
de su nalidad, grado de peligro, movilidad o autonomía, así como los
sistemas ciber-sicos con inteligencia articial en cualquier forma. Se
propone reconocer los actos socialmente peligrosos cometidos con el uso
de la robótica como delitos cometidos de forma generalmente peligrosa,
si existen fundamentos para ello. Se concluye que la comisión de actos
mediante la robótica es capaz, en determinados casos, de crear una
pluralidad de delitos en forma de agregado real. Se ha comprobado la
ampliación de las competencias de los órganos de seguridad del Estado,
que pueden llevar a cabo las funciones de desarrollo de la política estatal,
la regulación legal, el control y la supervisión en el campo de la aplicación
de la robótica.
Palabras clave: robótica; tecnologías digitales; regulación legal;
responsabilidad penal; Inteligencia articial.
Introduction
Robotics both around the world and in Russia, directly correlates not
only with the introduction and use of digital technologies in production, but
also opens up new opportunities for the spread of threats to law and order
and national security. The progress of digital technologies is an order of
magnitude faster than the reaction of legislation and prevention from law
enforcement agencies.
In our opinion, a special advantage for committing criminal offenses
with the use of robotics is a triad of reasons, including:
598
Fedor Romanovich Sundurov, Ildar Rustamovich Begishev, Zarina Ilduzovna Khisamova, Igor
Izmailovich Bikeev, Elvira Yuryevna Latypova y Timur Radikovich Ishbuldin
Criminal Aspects of Robotics Applications
• simplicity and ease of use of robotic devices.
• anonymity or lack of physical contact between the subject and the
instrument of the crime - the robot.
• the speed of implementation and operation of robotic devices.
Why do we emphasize speed? In answering this question, we will
probably refer to a professional in his eld, the most “media person” in the
eld of robotics - Elon Musk, the founder and head of Tesla: “Speed is the
perfect weapon. And I don’t mean the speed of my cars. It is about the speed
of robots and the speed of their creation and renewal” (Forbes, 2018: s/p).
In this regard, it is difcult to disagree with this opinion, since now no one
is impressed by robots - vacuum cleaners and window cleaners, since the
creation of absolutely anthropomorphic or, from a physiological point of
view, humanoid robots is coming to the fore.
1. Materials and methods
The materials for the work were articles posted in scientic journals and
on sites on the Internet.
The methodological basis of the study is a systematic approach to the
study of complex, multidimensional phenomena, which is traditional for
Russian researchers. When processing the factual material, a set of scientic
research methods were used, namely abstract-logical, comparison, content
analysis and correlation analysis.
2. Results and discussion
The problem of criminal-legal regulation of relations in the eld
of application of robotics both in foreign countries and in the Russian
Federation remains unresolved at the moment. In this regard, it is necessary
to develop a set of measures to prevent negative, socially dangerous
manifestations of the use of robotics and the norms governing the state
response to them.
Based on the foregoing, we believe it is necessary to supply the following
problem in this area: are there mechanisms for legal regulation of robotics?
(Begishev and Khisamova, 2018).
Let us analyze attempts to legislatively regulate robotics issues.
Science ction writers and various scientists since the last century have
made attempts to “write the laws of activity” of robotics. The most famous
of them are A. Azimov with his “Three Laws of Robotics” (Asimov, 1942),
one of the leaders of the world famous Microsoft company - S. Nadella
599
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 596-611
and its “Ten Laws Of Articial Intelligence” (Boyle, 2016) and, in fact, K.
Chapek - the creator the word “robot” (Čapek, 1920). From the point of view
of the latter, for example, the relationship between humanity and robotics
will have to be regulated by some international judicial organization that
equally recognizes both the robot and the person as a subject of law.
Their ideas, many of which are controversial, are very important for
understanding the problem, but have not received legal development. And
social reality, in particular the eld of robotics, needs regulation, including
criminal law.
There have also been attempts at self-regulation by scientists who are
directly related to the creation of robotics. So, in 2017, when it became
obvious that the issue requires regulatory legal regulation, almost four
thousand scientists in this eld signed the so-called “Twenty-three
Azilomar Principles” (Asilomar AI Principles, 2017) of the International
Institute for Future Generations, among which, for example, the following:
benet, controllability, reliability, rejection of the “arms race” with the help
of robotics, safety for others and ethical responsibility of the creator.
This concept of principles, of course, does not carry any normative
content, however, this is still a laudable attempt by the creators of
robotics to develop common approaches, as well as to draw attention from
government authorities to the need to resolve these issues. As a result, there
began, albeit a Brownian, movement on the part of various states towards a
normative legal understanding of new phenomena.
In the same year, bills on the issues under consideration appear in
four states at once. The leaders are the Russian Federation, the People’s
Republic of China, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Republic of
Estonia. The latter, in our opinion, very hastily decided to become a pioneer
in this area and gained a bitter experience by legalizing the rules “On the
movement of robots – couriers”
7
. As a result, quite soon, the Baltic police
had to identify and suppress the activities of robots - drug couriers.
Among international organizations, the rst, at the beginning of 2018,
to develop the project “On Robotics and Articial Intelligence” began the
advisory body of the European Union - the European Parliament, which in
a couple of months adopted the corresponding Resolution
8
.
The legal personality of this body is very specic, since, despite the
use of the word “Parliament” in its name, its acts are always advisory in
nature, since only the European Commission has normative powers, which
7 Courier robots law. Estonian Law on Amendments to the Road Trafc Act. URL: https://robopravo.ru/
estonskii_zakon_o_robotakhkurierakh
8 European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission
on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)). URL: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/
document/TA-8-2017-0051_EN.html
600
Fedor Romanovich Sundurov, Ildar Rustamovich Begishev, Zarina Ilduzovna Khisamova, Igor
Izmailovich Bikeev, Elvira Yuryevna Latypova y Timur Radikovich Ishbuldin
Criminal Aspects of Robotics Applications
did not react to this Resolution in any way, citing the fact that its exclusive
competence of the Member States of the European Union.
The most acceptable from the lawmaking and law enforcement point
of view for the Russian Federation, albeit with certain reservations, are
two initiatives in this area. First, this is a draft federal law prepared by
D.S. Grishin, the founder of Grishin Robotics, one of the leaders of the
Mail.Ru Group
9
company, and secondly, this is the Model Convention on
Robotics and Articial Intelligence from the Research Center for Problems
of Regulation of Robotics and AI
10
. The basis for these developments was
the three “laws – principles” of robotics A. Azimov formulated in the last
century:
1. A robot cannot harm a person or, by its inaction, allow harm to a
person;
2. The robot must obey all orders given by a person, except for those
cases when these orders are contrary to the First Law;
3. The robot must take care of its safety to the extent that it does not
contradict the First or Second Laws (Asimov, 1942).
Based on the analysis of these proposals, we see that their authors
propose the following - the creation on the basis of the three named rules
new ones concerning the interaction of robots and robotics with other
objects and subjects.
Comparing the animal and robotics, they point to the possibility of the
latter to perform certain independent actions, declare that creation of a
Unied State Register of Robotics, application of legal liability norms to
the owner and (or) user of a source of increased danger in the event of a
tort from robotics. However, at the same time, the question is debatable,
according to what criterion this or that robotics will be classied as sources
of increased danger.
The authors identify the following forms of possible options for the
activity of robotics, which seems to be socially dangerous:
- designing a killer robot specically for committing an offense;
- disabling software and hardware functions that block the possibility
of harm to humans;
- designing a robot that can harm a person;
- designing a robot without realizing that it can be used to harm
humans
11
.
9 Grishin law. URL: https://robopravo.ru/uploads/s/z/6/g/z6gj0wkwhv1o/le/My74kFFZ.pdf
10 Model convention. URL: https://robopravo.ru/uploads/s/z/6/g/z6gj0wkwhv1o/le/phjic35g.pdf
11 Dmitry Grishin, co-founder of Mail.ru Group, developed the concept of a law on the legal status of
robots. URL: https://habr.com/en/post/369981/
601
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 596-611
In this regard, we also consider it important to cancel that some issues
related to the regulatory regulation of robotic devices are already being
resolved at the state level
12
.
A particular example of robots - unmanned aerial vehicles (hereinafter
referred to as UAVs) are already regulated by law, which is good news. So,
for example, in case of violation of the rules for the use of UAVs and UAVs,
administrative liability is provided, and in cases of photo and video lming
with the help of these robotic devices, one can become accused in cases of
high treason and the like.
However, this is only the rst step in the framework of criminal regulation
of aspects of the use of unmanned vehicles (robotic vehicles) (Korobeyev
and Chuchaev, 2018; Chuchaev, 2019; Korobeyev and Chuchaev, 2019;
Chuchaev and Malikov, 2019).
We also consider it necessary to note that the issue of amending the
legislation on the issues under consideration is already ripe. A more
detailed and in-depth regulatory regulation of the issue is needed than is
done in the already existing regulatory legal acts and their projects. From
an engineering point of view, metrics and standards should be developed to
determine the level of intellectualization of robotics.
From a legal point of view, including from a criminal law point of view,
it is necessary to work out a number of issues, among which the most
important are the following:
1. conceptual and categorical apparatus of robotics;
2. mechanism for resolving issues of responsibility for committing
socially dangerous acts using robotics;
3. criminological risks of using robotics;
4. identication, suppression, disclosure and prevention of socially
dangerous acts related to robotics;
5. identication and identication of persons who have committed or
are preparing these acts.
With regard to the terminological apparatus, we propose to amend
the international standard ISO 8373: 2012 “Robots and robotic devices –
Vocabulary”
13
and the national standard of the Russian Federation adopted
in accordance with it GOST R 60.0.0.4-2019 / ISO 8373: 2012 “Robots and
12 Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of May 25, 2019 No. 658 “On approval of the
Rules for accounting for unmanned civil aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of 0.25 kg to 30 kg
imported into the Russian Federation or manufactured in the Russian Federation” // SZ RF. 2019. No.
22. Art. 2824.
13 ISO 8373:2012. Robots and robotic devices – Vocabulary. URL: https://www.iso.org/standard/55890.
html
602
Fedor Romanovich Sundurov, Ildar Rustamovich Begishev, Zarina Ilduzovna Khisamova, Igor
Izmailovich Bikeev, Elvira Yuryevna Latypova y Timur Radikovich Ishbuldin
Criminal Aspects of Robotics Applications
robotic devices. Terms and denitions”
14
: to replace the concepts of robot
and robotic devices with one more comprehensive category of robotics - all
categories of robots (including smart robots, UAVs, UAVs, robotic agents,
robotic mechanisms and cyber-physical systems, including those with
articial intelligence) in their broadest sense, regardless of their purpose,
degree of danger, mobility or autonomy, as well as cyber-physical systems
with articial intelligence in any form, regardless of the presence of an
indication in the name of the concept of “robot” and related (Naumov and
Neznamov, 2017).
The use of a general category to designate the specied list of mechanisms
seems to be useful for jurisprudence, since it clearly denes the scope of the
required legal regulation, which is characterized by a certain isolation and
autonomy. In our opinion, it will also be in demand in criminology, since it
is able to isolate a segment of crime, which has great specicity. In addition,
the above standards were put into effect in 2012 and changed only once - in
2016, although the most intense peak in the development of robotics began
in 2017. Based on this, it is easy to understand that the eld of robotics has
“gone” far ahead of these standards.
There are two approaches to legal liability and issues related to the
liability of robotics:
1. Objectively imputed responsibility - the ability to bear robots of a high
level of development - with the legal status of an electronic person,
responsible for the tort caused by them when they make decisions
autonomously or otherwise independently interact with third parties
(Khisamova and Begishev, 2019).
2. Risk management approach (responsibility of a person who could
minimize risks). Responsibility should be proportional to the actual
level of instructions given to the robot and the level of its autonomy.
This is complemented by compulsory insurance of robot users and
the creation of a compensation fund (Khisamova and Begishev,
2019).
In our opinion, approaches of this kind associated with a departure
from the classical domestic system of recognition of robotics and articial
intelligence as a subject of law, and attempts to endow these phenomena
with legal personality in the near future have no prospects for practical
implementation (Sukhodolov et al., 2020; Bikeev et al., 2019; Khisamova et
al., 2019; Begishev et al., 2020; Simmler and Markwalder, 2019; Khisamova
et al., 2019; Simmler, 2019; Hallevy, 2010; Kirpichnikov et al., 2020).
14 GOST R 60.0.0.4-2019 / ISO 8373: 2012. Robots and robotic devices. Terms and Denitions. URL:
http://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200162703
603
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 596-611
The actualization of issues related to criminal liability for committing
socially dangerous acts with the use of robotics, unfortunately, correlates
with the already existing real practice of causing harm to society. The rst
example was the collision of a woman with an unmanned vehicle (hereinafter
- BTS) of the UBER company in early 2018 in the United States of America
(Hallevy, 2015). Among the most widespread use of robotics for committing
crimes, both in terms of the number of units and the damage caused, is the
example of the use of UAVs and UAVs by illegal armed formations of the
Republic of Yemen for the massive bombing of oil reneries - strategic and
critical facilities of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
15
.
This example shows how and how, at minimal cost, a criminal can
get the most benecial effect for himself. In this example, the entire oil
production of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which is strategically important
and budget-forming for it, was cut by half for a week. In addition, this
attack caused damage to other objects: there were human casualties, other
material losses.
We also agree with the fear expressed by the director of the FSB of
Russia A.V. Bortnikov, which states that international terrorist and other
extremist organizations in the near future will more intensively use robotics
to achieve their goals (Bergen and Newcomer, 2018).
The following methods of relatively primitive use of robotics also pose
signicant dangers:
1. the use of BTS for the implementation of a terrorist act - hitting
pedestrians in crowded places by initial programming it, for example,
a car.
2. violation of information and other infrastructure.
3. the use of already existing anthropomorphic robots purchased both
legally and on the black market.
4. the use of military or converted from civilian into military
exoskeletons.
5. other cases of illegal use of robotics.
Based on the above examples, it is worth recognizing that robotics is a
very specic instrument for committing crimes. Since robotics is recognized
as a source of increased danger, we consider it necessary to recognize
15 Attack on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia: what we know. URL: https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-
49709610
604
Fedor Romanovich Sundurov, Ildar Rustamovich Begishev, Zarina Ilduzovna Khisamova, Igor
Izmailovich Bikeev, Elvira Yuryevna Latypova y Timur Radikovich Ishbuldin
Criminal Aspects of Robotics Applications
socially dangerous acts
16
committed with the use of robotics as crimes
committed in a generally dangerous way. This approach will directly affect
the qualication of crimes, for example, under Part 2 of Art. 105 of the
Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in which this method is directly
named in the disposition as a qualifying feature of the act.
If there is no indication in the norm of this method, we propose, when
imposing punishment by the court for intentional crimes committed with
the use of robotics, to take this circumstance into account as an aggravating
feature under clause “k” Part 1 of Art. 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Federation: “committing a crime using specially manufactured technical
means”, regardless of who and when the robotics was created.
Taking into account the fact that digital technologies are used in robotics,
then for certain manipulations with it, responsibility under Art. 274 and
274.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Egorov, 2018).
The presence in the criminal law of separate norms providing for liability
for crimes in the eld of computer information (Ibragimov and Suragina,
2017), in our opinion, should not exclude the possibility of criminal
prosecution for committing socially dangerous acts with the use of robotics,
since situations may arise in which there will be multiplicity of crimes in the
form of a real aggregate.
It should be noted that many crimes can be committed using the
capabilities of robotics:
• socially dangerous acts infringing on human life and health.
• socially dangerous acts that infringe on the constitutional rights and
freedoms of man and citizen.
• socially dangerous acts that infringe on public relations, protect the
economy from criminal encroachments.
• socially dangerous acts that infringe on state power, service, and
their interests.
• socially dangerous acts that infringe on public safety and public
order.
• socially dangerous acts that infringe on the foundations of the
constitutional order and the security of the state, etc.
When deciding who should be responsible for harm caused by the use of
robotics, we believe unequivocally that the manufacturer (developer) and
16 Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January
26, 2010 No. 1 “On the application by courts of civil legislation regulating relations on
obligations due to harm to the life or health of a citizen” // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2010. No.
24.
605
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 596-611
(or) the owner (user) of robotics will be liable, of course, only in cases of
subjective imputation of guilt.
However, already today, robotics of a new generation has a rather
complex technological architecture, consisting of many software and
hardware complexes, or it can be created using open-source codes
(Begishev and Bikeev, 2020). In the situations considered, establishing
the manufacturer (developer) and owner (user) of robotics is increasingly
difcult. To overcome these difculties in law enforcement, it seems possible
to establish a system of standardization and certication of activities for the
creation and commissioning of robotics (Tsukanova and Skopenko, 2018).
It is believed that the basis for resolving these issues will be the expansion
of the powers of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation,
namely, such a subdivision as the Service of Special Communications and
Information, which will also carry out the functions of developing state
policy, regulatory and legal regulation, control and supervision in the eld
of the application of robotics, the preparation of legislation in the eld of the
creation and use of robotics, the development of legal models for preventing
the criminal behavior of robotics, in particular, the determination of the
criminological risks of its use (Begishev and Khisamova, 2018).
We argue for this provision by the fact that in the practice of foreign
countries, for example, in the United States of America, the rule on
the control and regulation of issues related to robotics and articial
intelligence is already widely applied. Service of Special Communications
and Information and the National Security Agency - a division of the US
Department of Defense, which is part of the intelligence community as an
independent intelligence agency, engaged in electronic reconnaissance and
protection of electronic communication networks - are very identical bodies
from a general functional point of view, we believe that the regulation of
such relations in the Russian Federation on the part of the Service of Special
Communications and Information will be fully justied and correspond to
the meaning of the existence of this structure (Khisamova and Begishev,
2019; Bokovnya et al., 2019; Begishev et al., 2020; Begishev et al., 2019;
Bokovnya et al., 2020; Begishev et al., 2019; Bokovnya et al., 2020;
Bokovnya et al., 2020; Bokovnya et al., 2020).
3. Summary
Having analyzed the trends in the eld of creation and use of robotics, we
came to the conclusion that it is necessary to highlight two criminological
risks inherent in this activity - direct (direct) and mediated (indirect)
(Begishev and Khisamova, 2018).
606
Fedor Romanovich Sundurov, Ildar Rustamovich Begishev, Zarina Ilduzovna Khisamova, Igor
Izmailovich Bikeev, Elvira Yuryevna Latypova y Timur Radikovich Ishbuldin
Criminal Aspects of Robotics Applications
1. The immediate criminological risk of using robotics is a risk that
directly correlates with the effect on a person and a citizen of a
particular danger caused by the use of robotics.
These risks include:
- intentional commission of a socially dangerous encroachment
on human life and health by a robotic device; freedom, honor,
and dignity of the individual; constitutional human and civil
rights and freedoms; public safety; peace and security of
mankind, which entailed socially dangerous consequences, as
well as other public relations protected by criminal law from
criminal encroachments.
- deliberate actions with software, which is an integral and
integral part of the use of a robotic device, resulting in socially
dangerous consequences.
2. Indirect criminological risk in the use of robotics - the risk associated
with unintended hazards in the context of the use of robotic devices.
These risks include:
- random errors in the software of the robotic device (errors
made by the manufacturer (developer) of robotics);
- errors made by a robotic device in the course of its operation
(errors made by robotics).
Proceeding from the foregoing, the thesis put forward by a number
of scientists about the existence of high criminological risks of the use of
robotics, consisting both in the intellectual technology itself and in the
weak theoretical elaboration of the issue both in jurisprudence as a whole
and in the sciences of the criminal cycle (Begishev and Khisamova, 2018),
is conrmed.
Conclusions
Summing up the research carried out, we will formulate its main nal
provisions.
The promising areas of legal research related to robotics and the
corresponding legal regulation are highlighted.
The denition of robotics is substantiated and proposed as all categories
of robots in their broadest sense, regardless of purpose, degree of danger,
mobility or autonomy, as well as cyber-physical systems with articial
intelligence in any form, regardless of the presence of an indication in the
name of the concept of “robot” and related to it ... The use of this category
607
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 596-611
seems to be useful for jurisprudence, since it clearly denes the specic area
of the required legal regulation. In our opinion, it will also be in demand in
criminology, since it is able to single out a separate segment of crime.
It is proposed to recognize socially dangerous acts committed with the
use of robotics as crimes committed in a generally dangerous way, if there
are grounds for that.
It is concluded that the commission of acts using robotics is capable, in
certain cases, of creating a plurality of crimes in the form of a real aggregate.
Expansion of the powers of the Service of Special Communications and
Information, which can carry out the functions of developing state policy,
legal regulation, control and supervision in the eld of robotics application,
has been substantiated.
The direct and indirect criminological risks of using robotics are
analyzed, and the issues of responsibility of the manufacturer (developer)
and (or) owner (user) of robotics for acts committed with its participation
are discussed.
At the same time, we consider it important to note that other legal aspects
of the regulation of robotics issues, such as the identication, suppression,
disclosure and prevention of socially dangerous acts related to robotics, as
well as the identication and identication of persons who committed or
prepare these acts, form a new model legal regulation of public relations
in the area under consideration, as well as enrich from a theoretical
and practical point of view the science of the criminal cycle: criminal
law, criminology, operational investigative activities, criminalistics,
prosecutorial supervision, penal law and criminal procedure.
Acknowledgements
The work is performed according to the Russian Government Program
of Competitive Growth of Kazan Federal University.
Bibliographic References
ASIMOV, Isaac. 1942. Runaround. Astounding Science Fiction. New York, USA.
BEGISHEV, Ildar R; BIKEEV, Indesa. I. 2020. Crimes in the eld of digital
information circulation. Kazan: Publishing house “Knowledge” of Kazan
Innovation University. Kazan, Russia.
BEGISHEV, Ildar R; KHISAMOVA, Zarina I. 2018. “Criminological Risks of
Using Articial Intelligence” In: All-Russian criminological journal. Vol.
12, No. 6, pp. 767-775.
608
Fedor Romanovich Sundurov, Ildar Rustamovich Begishev, Zarina Ilduzovna Khisamova, Igor
Izmailovich Bikeev, Elvira Yuryevna Latypova y Timur Radikovich Ishbuldin
Criminal Aspects of Robotics Applications
BEGISHEV, Ildar R; KHISAMOVA, Zarina I; MAZITOVA, Guzel I.
2019. “Criminal Legal Ensuring of Security of Critical Information
Infrastructure of the Russian Federation” In: Revista Gênero & Direito.
Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 283-292.
BEGISHEV, Ildar R; KHISAMOVA, Zarina I; MAZITOVA, Guzel I. 2019.
Information Infrastructure of Safe Computer Attack. Helix, Vol. 9, Vol.
5, pp. 5639-5642.
BEGISHEV, Ildar R; KHISAMOVA, Zarina I; NIKITIN, Sergio. 2020. “The
Organization of Hacking Community: Criminological and Criminal Law
Aspects” In: Vserossiiskii kriminologicheskii zhurnal = Russian Journal
of Criminology. Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 96-105.
BEGISHEV, Ildar R; LATYPOVA, ElviraYu; KIRPICHNIKOV, Danila V. 2020.
“Articial Intelligence as a Legal Category: Doctrinal Approach to
Formulating a Denition” In: Actual Probs. Econ. & L.. Vol. 14, No. 1,
pp. 79-91.
BERGEN, Mark; NEWCOMER, Eric. 2018. Uber Halts Autonomous Car Tests
After Fatal Crash in Arizona. Bloomberg. Available online. In: https://
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-19/uber-autonomous-
car-involved-in-fatal-crash-in-arizona. Consultation date: 22/03/2020.
BIKEEV, Igor; KABANOV, Pavel; BEGISHEV, Ildar; KHISAMOVA, Zarina.
2019. Criminological risks and legal aspects of articial intelligence
implementation. Proceedings of the International Conference on Articial
Intelligence, Information Processing and Cloud Computing. Sanya,
China.
BOKOVNYA, Alexandra Yu; BEGISHEV, Ildar R; KHISAMOVA, Zarina
I; NARIMANOVA, Nelli Rashidovna; SHERBAKOVA, Lyudmila
Mikhailovna. 2020. “Legal Approaches to Articial Intelligence Concept
and Essence Denition” In: Revista San Gregorio. Vol. 1, No. 41, pp. 325-
336.
BOKOVNYA, Alexandra Yu; KHISAMOVA, Zarina I; Begishev, Ildar R.
2019. “Study of Russian and the UK Legislations in Combating Digital
Crimes” In: Helix. Vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 5458-5461.
BOKOVNYA, Alexandra Yu; KHISAMOVA, Zarina I; BEGISHEV, Ildar R;
LATYPOVA, ElviraYu; NECHAEVA, Evgeniya V. 2020. Computer
crimes on the COVID-19 scene: analysis of social, legal, and criminal
threats. Cuestiones Políticas. Vol. 38, No. 66, pp. 463-472,
BOKOVNYA, Alexandra Yu; KHISAMOVA, Zarina I; BEGISHEV, Ildar R;
SIDORENKO, Elina L; ILYASHENKO, Alexander N; MOROZOV, Andre
609
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 596-611
Yu. 2020. “Global Analysis of Accountability for Fake News Spread
About the Covid-19 Pandemic in Social Media” In: Applied Linguistics
Research Journal. Vol. 4, No. 7, pp. 91-95.
BOKOVNYA, Alexandra Yu; KHISAMOVA, Zarina I; VASYUKOV,
V.F; BEGISHEV, Ildar R. 2020. “Assessment of
Potential Risks of Regional for Global Financial Security”
In: Cuestiones Políticas. Vol. 38, No. 66, pp. 156-166.
BOYLE, Andre. 2016. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella lays out 10 Laws of AI
(and Human Behavior). GeekWire. Available online. In: https://www.
geekwire.com//microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-10-laws-ai/. Consultation
date: 22/03/2020
ČAPEK, KRUR. 1920. Rossum’s Universal Robots. Praga, Czech Republic.
CHUCHAEV, Andrea. I. 2019. “Robomobiles and personal safety: criminal law
problems” In: Criminalist. Vol. 1, No. 26, pp. 94-98.
CHUCHAEV, Arnedo I; MALIKOV, Serva V. 2019. “Responsibility for causing
damage by a highly automated vehicle: state and prospects” In: Actual
problems of Russian law. Vol. 6, No. 103, pp. 117-124.
EGOROV, Iildar. 2018. Attacks in the network and. Rossiyskaya Gazeta. Federal
issue. Moscow, Russia.
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION. 2017. With recommendations
to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)).
Available online. In: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/
document/TA-8-2017-0051_EN.html. Consultation date: 22/03/2020.
FORBES. Laws of robotics. How to regulate articial intelligence / A. Neznamov.
2018. Available online. In: https://www.forbes.ru/tehnologii/355757-
zakony-robototehniki-kak-regulirovat-iskusstvennyy-intellekt.
Consultation date: 22/03/2020.
FUTURE OF LIFE INSTITUTE. 2017. Asilomar AI Principles. Available
online. In: https://futureoife.org/ai-principles/. Consultation date:
22/03/2020.
HALLEVY, Gabriel. 2010. “The criminal liability of articial intelligence entities-
from science ction to legal social control” In: Akron Intell. Prop. J. Vol.
4, pp. 171-201.
HALLEVY, Gabriel. 2015. Liability for Crimes Involving Articial Intelligence
Systems. Springer International Publishing. Springer, Germany.
610
Fedor Romanovich Sundurov, Ildar Rustamovich Begishev, Zarina Ilduzovna Khisamova, Igor
Izmailovich Bikeev, Elvira Yuryevna Latypova y Timur Radikovich Ishbuldin
Criminal Aspects of Robotics Applications
IBRAGIMOV, Rustam; SURAGINA, Elina. 2017. “Law of machines. How to
bring a robot to responsibility” In: Corporate lawyer. Vol. 11, pp. 10-17.
KHISAMOVA, Zarina; BEGISHEV, I. R; SIDORENKO, Elina L. 2019. “Articial
Intelligence and Problems of Ensuring Cyber Security” In: International
Journal of Cyber Criminology. Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 564-577.
KHISAMOVA, Zarina; BEGISHEV, Ildar R. 2019. “Criminal Liability and
Articial Intelligence: Theoretical and Applied Aspects” In: Vserossiiskii
kriminologicheskii zhurnal = Russian Journal of Criminology. Vol. 13,
No. 4, pp. 564-574.
KHISAMOVA, Zarina; BEGISHEV, Ildar R. 2019. “Legal regulation of articial
intelligence / Z.I. Khisamova” In: Baikal Research Journal. Vol. 10, No.
2, pp. 2411-2423.
KHISAMOVA, Zarina; BEGISHEV, Ildar; GAIFUTDINOV, Ramil R. 2019.
“On methods to legal regulation of articial intelligence in the world” In:
International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring
Engineering. Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 5159-5162.
KIRPICHNIKOV, Danila; PAVLYUK, Albert; GREBNEVA, Yulia; OKAGBUE,
Hilary. 2020. Criminal Liability of the Articial Intelligence. Available
online. In: https://www.e3sconferences.org/articles/e3sconf/
pdf/2020/19/e3sconf_btses2020_04025.pdf. Consultation date:
22/03/2020.
KOROBEYEV, Alexandr; CHUCHAEV, Albert I. 2018. “Unmanned vehicles
equipped with articial intelligence systems: problems of legal regulation”
In: Asia-Pacic Region: Economics, Politics, Law. Vol. 20. No. 3, pp. 117-
132.
KOROBEYEV, Alexandr; CHUCHAEV, Albert I. 2019. “Violation of the safety of
robotic vehicles as an independent socially dangerous act” In: Criminal
law. Vol. 3, pp. 37-48.
NAUMOV, Vladimir B; NEZNAMOV, Alex. V. 2017. Model Convention on
Robotics and Articial Intelligence rules for the creation and use of robots
and articial intelligence. Law and Information: Questions of Theory and
Practice. Collection of materials of the VII International Scientic and
Practical Conference. Ser. “Electronic legislation”, pp. 210-220.
ROBOTICS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE REGULATORY PROBLEM
RESEARCH CENTER. 2017. Courier robots law. Estonian Law on
Amendments to the Road Trafc Act. Available online. In: https://
robopravo.ru/estonskii_zakon_o_robotakhkurierakh. Consultation
date: 22/03/2020.
611
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 596-611
SIMMLER, Monika. 2019. Maschinenethik und strafrechtliche
Verantwortlichkeit. Handbuch Maschinenethik. Springer VS.
Wiesbaden, Germany.
SIMMLER, Monika; MARKWALDEr, Nora. 2019. “Guilty Robots? –Rethinking
the Nature of Culpability and Legal Personhood in an Age of Articial
Intelligence” In: Criminal Law Forum. Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 1-31.
SUKHODOLOV, Alexander P; BYCHKOV, Artur V; BYCHKOVA, Anna
M. 2020. “Criminal Policy for Crimes Committed Using Articial
Intelligence Technologies: State, Problems, Prospects” In: Journal of
Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences. Vol. 13, No.
1, pp. 116-122.
TSUKANOVA, Elena Yurievna; SKOPENKO, Oleg Romanovich. 2018. “Legal
aspects of liability for harm caused by a robot with articial intelligence”
In: Questions of Russian and International Law. Vol. 8, No. 4A, pp. 42-
48.
www.luz.edu.ve
www.serbi.luz.edu.ve
www.produccioncienticaluz.org
Esta revista fue editada en formato digital y publicada
en enero de 2021, por el Fondo Editorial Serbiluz,
Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo-Venezuela
Vol.39 Nº 68
