Liability

There is increasing attention given to the concept of trustworthiness for artificial intelligence and robotics. However, trust is highly context-dependent, varies among cultures, and requires reflection on others' trustworthiness, appraising whether there is enough evidence to conclude that these agents deserve to be trusted. Moreover, little research exists on what happens when too much trust is placed in robots and autonomous systems. Conceptual clarity and a shared framework for approaching overtrust are missing. In this contribution, we offer an overview of pressing topics in the context of overtrust and robots and autonomous systems. Our review mobilizes insights solicited from in-depth conversations from a multidisciplinary workshop on the subject of trust in human-robot interaction (HRI), held at a leading robotics conference in 2020. A broad range of participants brought in their expertise, allowing the formulation of a forward-looking research agenda on overtrust and automation biases in robotics and autonomous systems. Key points include the need for multidisciplinary understandings that are situated in an ecosystem perspective, the consideration of adjacent concepts such as deception and anthropomorphization, a connection to ongoing legal discussions through the topic of liability, and a socially embedded understanding of overtrust in education and literacy matters. The article integrates diverse literature and provides a ground for common understanding for overtrust in the context of HRI.

Gerber, J.-F., Adaman, F., Avcı, D., Aydın, C.I., Ojo, G.U., Ozkaynak, B., Rodríguez-Labajos, B., Roman, P. and Yánez, I., 2014.  EJOLT Report No. 13, 108 p.
http://www.ejolt.org/2014/03/socio-environmental-valuation-and-liabilities-what-strategies-for-environmental-justice-organisations/
This EJOLT report focuses on two central issues: the use of evaluation methods and the notion of liabilities, as applied to socio-environmental conflicts and EJO campaigns. The report includes (i) one review chapter of extra-judicial cases having a valuation dimension, (ii) six case studies from four continents involving a close collaboration between activists and cademics, and (iii) one practical theoretical synthesis. Each one of the case studies examines one or more of the following key questions: How are valuation conflicts to be dealt with? How can we evaluate a given ‘development project’? Is it possible to compensate for the liabilities involved? If yes, how? More specifically, two chapters are concerned with environmental impact assessments (oil exploitation in Nigeria and water megaproject in Brazil), two chapters tackle cost/benefit approaches and their limits (forest valuation in India and nuclear power plants in Bulgaria and Turkey), one deals with multicriteria evaluations (oil exploitation in Ecuador), and one analyses a conflict of valuation languages (gold mining in Turkey). Among these case studies, two (Nigeria and India) also discuss the compensatory mechanisms involved as well as their suitability.
When dealing with environmental decision-making or conflict resolution, the approach of standard economics (even when labelled ‘environmental’) is to use a common unit – a monetary numeraire – for all the different values and then to look
for a trade-off between all of them within a market context. This approach assumes the existence of value commensurability. Ecological economists and activists, in contrast, acknowledge value incommensurability. They argue that it is misleading to reduce the diversity of languages of valuation (e.g., livelihood, identity, territorial rights, spirituality, aesthetics) to a single monetary measure that denies the legitimacy of other languages. Indeed, in virtually every socioenvironmental conflict, a variety of valuation languages is deployed. Their inclusion in evaluation processes is particularly important since governments and companies usually try to portray socio-environmental impacts solely as a technical
problem that will be handled with the proper use of technology or monetary accounting. In fact, most of the case studies in this report show that lower-income sectors (especially indigenous people and peasants) do not simply seek a monetary compensation and do worry about local environmental matters. In many cases therefore, monetary compensation is likely not going to be sufficient to resolve disagreements.
More fundamentally, these valuation contests also highlight opposite visions and values about local development, between on one hand (lower-income) locals and on the other, the state and corporate sectors. In view of the differences in material
interests, values and perceptions, it appears that the evolution of most socioenvironmental conflicts will very much depend on the extent to which different languages of valuation are acknowledged and addressed. Generally speaking, this would require, firstly, carrying out a rigorous socio-environmental impacts assessment of the region at stake, and secondly, undertaking an in-depth deliberative multicriteria evaluation.

The benefits of autonomous vehicles (AVs) are widely acknowledged, but there are concerns regarding the extent of the benefits they bring as well as their risks and unintended consequences. In this article, we first examine AVs and different categories of the technological risks associated with adoption of fully autonomous vehicles. We then explore different types of strategies that can be adopted by governments to address these different types of technological risks introduced by AVs. We then explore various governance responses to these risks in different countries. Our analyses reveal that thus far, in most instances governments have avoided stringent measures with the aim of promoting AV developments. As AV developments are still in early stages, the majority of governance responses are non-binding and focused on creating councils or working groups to better explore the implications of AVs at this stage. United States has been active in introducing and enacting AV-specific legislations to address issues related to safety, liability, privacy, and cybersecurity. UK and Germany, in particular, have enacted laws to address liability issues while other countries mostly acknowledge these issues but have yet to implement specific strategies. To address privacy risks, data privacy laws not specific to AVs have been amended in some countries while other countries have decided to rely on existing laws or have made recommendations on privacy principles. Similarly, a wide range of strategies varying from introduction or amendment of non-AV specific legislation to creating working groups and funding research to better explore issues and make recommendations have been adopted. Much less attention has been paid to addressing risks to employment and other issues.

The article focuses on the problem of liability of a judge's for violating the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It is stressed as axiomatic for the theory of law that wrongful acts of the state officials result in responsibility of state regardless of the fault of those officials. The state agencies where the officials are employed are entitled to file regress claims in accordance with the procedure provided by law. In such a case, cancellation or annulment of the wrongful act that had caused damages, should not be regarded as a special precondition for liability of the state official, responsible for adoption of such an act. The precondition of the liability of the official should be his fault. It is essential that the liability of a judge for issuing wrongful judicial acts, regarding his status, has its own peculiarities. First, according to international standards, liability of a judge for delivering an illegal judgment, that had caused financial damage and infringements into personal rights and freedoms, is predetermined by his procedural independence and immunity. Secondly, not only compensation for losses incurred by the state as a result of a wrongful decision or behavior of a judge in the performance of his / her duties is established, but also the state has the right to bring regress claims against a judge who has caused such damages to individuals or legal entities.