Chair of the panel
The present study is part of such works, as it examines the connection between AI and criminal law. The presentation deals with AI-related general definition attempts and the main characteristics and a brief identification of the more frequent fields in application of AI. Furthermore, we will discuss most relevant issues from the aspect of criminal law (in a broader sense). The core of the talk is to identify the current substantive criminal legal matters regarding to AI. For example, the notions related to the subject of criminal liability, we present the relevant problems concerning the concept of a criminal offence and criminal sanction and the special part of the Act C of 2012 on the Criminal Code. Then we examine those cases where AI is an object of the offence. We do so in the hope that this work may not only inspire further scientific thinking but also may, perhaps, be used to serve as a support for future criminal legislation.
The recent human rights documents and case law outline two main aspects of right to fair trial: the right to fair judicial and administrative procedures. Artificial intelligences set new challenges for these rights from several perspectives and these challenges address the trust (or distrust) in using AI as well.
On the one hand, it is dubious, whether an artificial intelligence could be subject to the right to fair trial. Could a robot demand legal protection, or could it be liable for its activities or omissions? These orient our attention towards the issues of legal personality and legal capacity of AI.
The other challenge is the judicial work based on artificial intelligences, which means something more, than the online and digital court. The AI could support the judicial decision-making process; could make certain decisions instead of the judge or the law enforcer; or it could help for the parties to estimate, whether it would be worthy to litigate.
Opinions continue to be divided in the scientific community on the practical application of forensic DNA phenotyping (FDP), the new and evolving technique of forensic genetics. Supporters of FDP hold that the true value of this investigatory tool lies in the scientific prediction of the unknown perpetrators (or corpses) externally visible characteristics, the application of which should be measured in accordance with strong legislative guarantees, and should be limited to serious crime, given the current stage of its development. By contrast, its objectors want to exclude FDP from criminal proceedings, claiming that it raises a number of human rights issues, and its actual role in detecting the unknown perpetrator (or corpse) is currently uncertain. This panel presentation approaches the following question from an ontological point of view: Is there room for FDP in the criminal justice system based on the rule of law?
Public international law (PIL) cannot directly address the topic of industrial development of the sovereign states; however, the technological developments shall no longer leave PIL untouched. The technological developments can provide significant advantages and economic as well as ecological gains for the states. Artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly become an important subject to be analysed within the traditionally solid and stable formation of public international law. such as military law, humanitarian law, human rights, law of the sea, law of the outer space, international environmental law and investment law.
The main advantages of AI are numerous, i) AI can guarantee economic advantage and benefit for states; ii) AI can increase the military potential of states and AI can reduce the suffer of civilians in military activities, and iii) AI can promote the solution of the most important challenges, e.g. climate change and many more.