When I began in my academic research on the crimes of artificial intelligence and mechanisms to confront them at the international and national levels, I did not imagine that I would collide with these gray spaces of the legal vacuum, which surrounds what is called today with “smart errors”, what was initially seemed to me a virtual exercise on paper, has become a living scene that passes from the details of reality, intersects with the lives of individuals, and knocks on the doors of legal and social security With disturbing questions: What if the robot erred? Who pays the price in this silent equation?
Accidents caused by algorithms are no longer just fictional scenarios. In 2015, a German worker died under a robotic arm inside the Volkswagen factory, there was no directly responsible human beings, but a programmed system that was not calculated in a way that was not calculated, in front of this incident, the European Parliament moved, and in 2017 issued a report recommended that the compulsory insurance be imposed on independent robots, and the creation of A legal record of its own, and the establishment of a compensation fund in the event of an official human party absence, the major insurance companies interacted, such as Allianz and Munich Re, and launched polyps intended for damage associated with artificial intelligence, as reports in 2023 indicate that approximately 63% of European insurance companies have specialized insurance products for this type of risk. In the Gulf states, where the region is witnessing an amazing acceleration in digital transformation projects, this type of insurance is still in the process of absence, robots have entered the areas of security, health, education and services, but our legislation has not yet obligated its operators to any insurance that is fortified from its potential mistakes, and from my specialty in this field, I do not only see a regulatory void, but a legal vulnerability Ethical, it may lead to silent violations of the rights of individuals without the presence of responsibility or the availability of compensation.
When we discuss the issue of compulsory insurance, we are not only talking about financial accounts or administrative arrangements, but about the core of human rights protection, the right to life and physical safety, are rights that cannot be risked in the face of a “non -human mind”, and if the robots create risks to these rights – as is the case in some cases of algorithm defects – the legal and moral duty requires states and their institutions. An effective compensation, and a transparent commitment, which is not left to the market mood or legislation gaps.
This urgent need promotes us to rethink the Robot site from the legal system: Do we see it as a tool? Or a legal act is not human? Traditional jurisprudence distributes responsibility to the user, factory, or programmer, but it is unable to explain the error when it is issued from a “Khwarizmi’s decision”, and for this, some studies invite to give the robot an electronic legal personality, linking with an insurance record, and subject to accountability.
Perhaps the South Korean model is worth noting, as Neubility, in cooperation with the insurance company, Dongbu, launched polyps covering smart delivery robots, its compensation reaches 700,000 dollars in the event of damage, and although the Gulf states are making great efforts to enhance human rights and keep pace with technical development, this type of insurance is still expected to be activated within a comprehensive legislative framework that guarantees safety Digital and human safety at the same time.
Through my in -depth research experience in this field, it became clear that the future of justice is not built in the court halls alone, but rather in the extent of the ability of legal systems to predict, not only the reaction, and to contain the risks of technology before it turns into damage, and here, the role of insurance companies becomes part of the legal and social protection network, not just a financial authority as a kind of international mechanisms to confront the crimes of artificial intelligence, we do not We only need to program robots on accuracy, but to program our laws to expect, prevent, and fair.
And when the robot is mistaken in the absence of a system that recognizes its mistake and holds it responsible, the one who pays the price is not the machine … but the human being.
* Media and academic researcher
