​

Polina Prianykova’s Scientific Doctrine on AI Implementation into the Worldwide Legislation,

inter alia in Criminal Law anent the Governmental Assistance in the Migration Process and the Assessment of Risk Development on part of Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

​

Our modern world is constantly changing and evolving, and many people, in their aspiration to achieve happiness and inner peace, leave their homes and go abroad, migrating to other corners of the globe. Within the scientific World advocate program COMPATRIOT, we have carried out the research on common tendencies of the problems of the criminal nature that arise for migrants and travelers in particular and put forward a few notions on how to address the aforementioned issues with the help of AI.

​

Moreover, it has to be noted that in this day and age it is almost impossible for novel technologies to be constrained by the Earth’s gravity. Hence, in the 21st century, we are all becoming witnesses of the deployment of innovations designed as aerial mechanisms that are used for various reasons. As placing Artificial Intelligence at the legal fold respectively requires a comprehensive approach, miscellaneous spheres the sophisticated technology is being implemented thereinto have to be analyzed and the adequate liability has to be prescribed.

​

Keywords: World advocate program COMPATRIOT, governmental assistance to migrants and travelers abroad, regulation of AI, criminal liability for the use of AI, unmanned aircrafts, drones, governmental monopoly on AI, regulation of innovations, drones and AI. 

Formulation of the relevance of the scientific article. Shedding light on the first subject of this scientific work, we have to put the emphasis on the fact that every citizen has to be provided with the governmental assistance from the country of his residence which consists in protection from the criminal encroachments as well as in getting help with communication in that regard in the host country and obtaining the respective legal assistance, using Artificial Intelligence in particular. 

​

Enlightening the second subject of research, it has to be stipulated that the use of compact aerial vehicles for various purposes, for instance, recreational or commercial, has become ordinary and generally accepted these days. However, when we touch upon the subject of automated mechanisms which operate on their own, making particular solutions about flight’s direction and hence powered by Artificial Intelligence, this issue definitely sparks controversy. In comparison to human-operated mechanisms the provisions thereon have already been stipulated to a certain extent, automated vehicles might seem quite similar externally until some legal issues get in this ‘novelties’ prompt implementation race’. As the liability for the use of drones is stated ‘non liquet’, this fact disintegrates the illusion of the AI’s image as a useful tool to deploy, largely as a result of declarative stipulations that do not provide the technology developers and implementors with the respective redlines for AI and the inertia of the legislators.

​

The emphasis is primarily put on the significance of the proper regulation of such technologies, bearing in mind that AI, in many forms, may be endowed with the ‘electronic personhood’ and further be not only the object but virtually the direct subject of law, being the perpetrator of offenses and crimes. The ethical and legal concerns also rise due to the fact that some unscrupulous individuals may shift responsibility to AI. Thus, we consider certain provisions that have to be elaborated and enacted, regarding our previous research ‘Cybercrime as an obstruction for the deployment of AI into miscellaneous transport systems (the taxonomy of criminal liability for the use of AI is included)’ [2], particularizing the legal fold for the aerial transport. 

​

Recent research and publication analysis. During our study, a great cluster of information has been analyzed and taken into consideration. First of all, the World advocate program COMPATRIOT and the results of its activities are enlightened [3]. References to our previous scientific articles are given with a view to pursuing specific ideas on the regulation of AI, inter alia the establishment of the governmental monopoly on the implementation and use of AI as a part of the Scientific Doctrine on AI implementation into the worldwide legislation by Polina Prianykova [1,2]. Secondly, the legislation of the European Union, the United States of America, and the People’s Republic of China anent the establishment of the legal fold for unmanned aircraft systems is given due attention [4 – 14]. What is more, the latest cutting-edge novelties such as fully autonomous drones are taken into account [15 – 17], and, on our part, it is accentuated that the last have to be regulated in particular.

​

Presentation of the main body of the article. 

I. The issue of human rights protection from criminal encroachments is extremely relevant in every country around the globe. During the years 2020 and 2021, I was taking an active part in the scientific World advocate program COMPATRIOT [3]. 

​

The essence of the program in the first phase lies in providing informational assistance to our compatriots abroad and studying these issues profoundly. The practice has shown that the logistics of information flows serves as an efficient platform for the provision of services, including the ones in the legal sphere. The experimental part of the Program (which, in fact, has the character of philanthropy) lasted exactly one year: from 06/01/2020 to 06/01/2021. For free (pro bono), we helped dozens of our fellow citizens who found themselves in unpleasant and difficult situations abroad: we also coordinated with lawyers who provided services in their country of residence in a language understood by our compatriots. With an aim of popularizing WAP COMPATRIOT, we created an eponymous YouTube channel, where we were sharing many thematic videos (now this issue has been put on pause).

​

We familiarized ourselves with the work of foreign colleagues in the farthest corners of our world and established fruitful cooperation therewith. Moreover, we have taken part in the UNBA Contest on the topic of providing legal services pro bono. All the work mentioned above has been done by us for free, charitably, at the cost of our personal time. Concluding the first (experimental) part of the WAP COMPATRIOT, we encountered the objective fact: our initiatives are relevant, vital, and needed by people! Nevertheless, this activity has to become governmental and get a permanent platform for its deployment, for instance, on the basis of the Ministry of foreign affairs in order to help the citizens outside Ukraine. Besides, it is there that Artificial Intelligence is possible to be implemented and used, and it basically has to be!

​

As an International Human Rights Defender on AI, I have elaborated on this conception and allege that it is necessary to create an ad-hoc department managed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of every country. This novel division shall be in charge of the modeling of the respective informational program (powered by AI) that would provide compatriots with legal assistance set out in a plain language and organized by their native country. In such a way, these people would be under an additional ‘shield’ of help and support that, first of all, may prevent criminal encroachments in particular.

​

What is more, such practice concerning the implementation of innovative programs, for instance, in form of chat-bots on governmental websites or applications, may serve as a useful tool for the formation of statistics about the most frequent issues compatriots come across in one or another country. Hence, the figures may be analyzed and points of growth in the provision of help to migrants and travelers abroad shall be considered. Bearing in mind the notion of the significance of international cooperation, these specialized departments would have to exchange information about the problems their citizens encounter with the respective divisions all around the globe (in their turn, they would act likewise), creating a powerful system of guaranteeing and protecting fundamental human rights and liberties. 

​

II. The use of drones that we have mentioned afore has become quite popular for different reasons, including their exploitation as surveillance cameras or even transportation of goods. In this part of our scientific article, we are going to touch upon the subject of the regulation of drones supervised by natural persons as well as by Artificial Intelligence. 

​

In this realm, certain provisions have already been enacted. For instance, in the European Union, the legal framework for the safe operation of civil drones has been introduced and set forth in the respective Easy Access Rules for Unmanned Aircraft Systems claimed to cover ‘Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947, and the related acceptable means of compliance (AMC) and guidance material (GM), as well as Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 on unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and on third-country operators of UAS’ [4,5]. It is significant to note that for the area of applicability of the relevant regulations, the term ‘operation of unmanned aircraft systems’ does not comprise indoor UAS operations, meaning that the operations in closed spaces such as houses, buildings, mines, caves, etc. are not covered. However, these provisions may raise several questions concerning the use of drones in closed but crowded places such as stadiums or exhibition halls. It is noteworthy to highlight that the document defines at least two parties that may operate the drone – the operator, in most cases the person who is registered and responsible for the UAS (normally, it is the owner of the vehicle itself), and the remote pilot, the one who actually controls the drone. The drone operator can concurrently be the remote pilot [6].

​

The taxonomy of the civil drone operations is stipulated, in accordance with the criterion of risk taken: the ‘open’ category which addresses the lower-risk safety drone operations, and thus, the certification of the drone is not required, although the remote pilot has to complete the training and examination before the flight; the ‘specific’ category where it is prescribed that the UAS operator ‘shall be required to obtain an operational authorization pursuant to Article 12 from the competent authority in the Member State where it is registered; and the corresponding ‘certified’ category, where the risk is considerably high and hence, the respective certification of the operator and the aerial vehicle as well as the licensing of the remote pilot, if applicable, is required [5,6,7,8]. The operators also have to display the number of any unmanned aircraft, except for certain provisions intrinsically intertwined with the operation of drones of an ‘open’ category [5].

​

It should be noted that the UAS operations that fall within the ‘certified’ category comprise the following conditions they are conducted in: over assemblies of people; involves the transport of people; involves the carriage of dangerous goods, that may result in high risk for third parties in case of an accident. Unequivocally, the aforementioned certification has its own exceptions, e.g. stipulated in Guidance material 1 Article 6 ‘Certified’ category of UAS operations in the henceforth provision ‘the transport of dangerous goods is in the ‘certified’ category if the payload is not in a crash-protected container, such that there is a high risk for third parties in the case of an accident’ [5].

​

Hence, it can be recapitulated that unless the drones are ‘certified’, they do not need to be registered whereas the drone operator/owner must register himself in any case [7]. Nevertheless, it has to be emphasized that this fact integrates the exception in terms of the person’s registration in the next instances: if the drone ‘weighs less than 250g and has no camera or other sensor able to detect personal data; or even with a camera or other sensor, weighs less than 250g, but is a toy (this means that its documentation shows that it complies with ‘toy’ Directive 2009/48/EC)’ [7]. The aforementioned particularities may also spark controversy, for example, supposing that the aerial vehicle that weighs less than 250g has been classified as a toy erroneously and hence, it might become a deleterious tool in hands of malicious individuals who understand that, due to the absence of their registration and certainly the drone’s number itself, the toy would not be recognized as a source of risk and the liability gap would only start expanding. Undoubtedly, competent institutions such as market surveillance authorities do assess such classifications, but unfortunately, as it often happens, the problems find their solutions after some precedents occur, but the proper prevention of such cases – that is what has to be ideally achieved [8].

​

Concerning the regulation of drones with an enhanced level of automation, it may be noted that these aspects still demand a granular approach, concretizing the liable parties as well as acceptance of the fact that legal personhood might also be conferred on the evolving AI. In the EU regulation, an autonomous operation is deemed to be ‘an operation during which an unmanned aircraft operates without the remote pilot being able to intervene’ [5]. Nevertheless, it does not rule out the possibility of the algorithm fault that emerged in a respective center where the technological mechanisms were developed or the attacks of hackers on specific data centers or the drone singly. However, the redlines for the use of such innovations are still vague and have to be stipulated and enacted parallel with the compound liability strategy. 

​

Some aspects of regulatory policy in respect of unmanned aircraft systems have also been established in the US. According to Skyward, a company that specializes in the development of software and certain services for the drones, the barriers to operating with drones have been ‘significantly lowered’ in terms of their commercial use since 2016, 14 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 107 was established [9]. Basically, the innovations are classified into two main categories – for recreational and commercial purposes. The first are aimed for fun and enjoyment, and, in general, ‘a person may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration’ if the operation adheres to respective limitations. What is more, these purposes shall include educational and research objectives when the unmanned aircraft is used by an institution of higher education [10]. The person has to be 13 years and older to fly the drone recreationally (if the individual is under 13, a person who meets these requirements, for instance, a parent or legal guardian, has to register the UAS) and at least 16 years of age to fly commercially. All the drones that weigh more than 0.55 pounds (250g) and are used for recreational purposes have to be labelled as well as all the drones for commercial purposes, regardless of weight. The price for this registration is $5 and the obtained registration number must be visible on the outside surface of the drone (it can be engraved as well as written with a permanent marker or sticker with a permanent label) [11,12]. If the drone weighs more than 55 pounds (25kg), a specific registration process has to be followed, notwithstanding the aim of its use. The fines for the civil cases and criminal incidents for unregistered unmanned aircrafts are claimed to vary from $27,500 up to $250,000 [11].