Principle Of Liability Research Articles

Impact of differences between the Nuclear Law Act and the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage on the Terms and Conditions of Nuclear Civil Liability Insurance

The focus of this article is that Polish legal provisions on civil liability for nuclear damage do not reflect the provisions of the Vienna Convention in all aspects. However, due to some limitations hereof, the considerations presented deal only with some selected issues that may affect the availability of nuclear third party liability insurance, and will be divided into two parts.The aim of the first part is to consider the major differences between the provisions of the Nuclear Law Act and the Vienna Convention, which include, among others, different deadlines for seeking compensation for nuclear personal injury and/or methods for satisfying such claims. Since both issues refer to personal injury, the notion of the latter is analysed, bearing in mind that certain discrepancies between the Polish Act and the Vienna Convention can also be noted.The second part discusses terms and conditions of third party nuclear liability insurance, entities specializing in offering such insurance, including nuclear pools and nuclear mutual insurance companies, as well as obstacles that may prevent third party nuclear liability insurance from being offered on the Polish market as compulsory insurance.This article covers only the rules relating to civil liability for nuclear personal injury resulting from the operation of a nuclear power plant, with those rules being considered primarily from the perspective of the insurance practice. The principles of civil liability for the transport of nuclear material from nuclear facilities, the operation of research reactors or of radioactive waste storage facilities have not been taken into account, as both insurers’ approach and terms and conditions of insurance covering said activities may vary slightly when compared with nuclear power plants.

소위 ‘약한 인공지능(AI)’ 영역에서의 민사책임에 관한 연구

Now, the core of the discussion is how artificial intelligence (AI), as a rapidly developing advanced technology, can solve many of the most difficult problems facing humanity beyond solving severe social problems. Therefore, the true value of artificial intelligence (AI) as a cutting-edge technology is to solve huge problems facing humanity, such as social problems such as gun violence, food shortages, incurable diseases, and global warming caused by carbon emissions, and to contribute to human development. The concern, though, is that no one knows exactly how current artificial intelligence (AI) works. In other words, it is similar to developing a bomb that does not know when it will explode without a safety device.
 Already, artificial intelligence (AI) is causing damage by providing false information. So, if we don't know how to control better artificial intelligence (AI) when it appears, dangerous things can happen. Therefore, there will be a need for international norms on artificial intelligence (AI), which will be made possible by international treaties. The European Union has already enacted the AI Act as the first regulatory law on AI. This contains stronger regulations on the AI industry than in the United States or Asia. In particular, the Act stipulates the obligation to display AI-generated content. Thus, the EU's AI regulation law can be evaluated as legislation designed to ensure the safety of AI-generated products, such as cars and toys. In addition, in September 2022, the European Union (EU) issued a directive on AI accountability. It focuses on the legal principles of compensation for damages caused by artificial intelligence (AI). 
 Legislation on punitive damages for deepfake harms is required. As a civil liability, the victim's damages should be recognized not only for mental damages, but also for aggravated damages for monetary damages, if any. As such a legislative measure, so-called punitive damages should be introduced for malicious and deliberate use of artificial intelligence (AI) as a perpetrator. In the so-called risk liability of artificial intelligence (AI), the operator of artificial intelligence (AI), which has enormous profits through the operation of the risk source, will have to bear the risk liability as a no-fault liability. Korea's product liability law has embraced this principle of risk liability. In order for product liability law to apply to artificial intelligence (AI), there must be a defect in the artificial intelligence (AI) installed in the product.

Interrelationship of tax liability with the principles of tax law

The article examines the relationship between tax liability and the principles of tax law in the current legislation and regulatory requirements of the European Union. The object of research is social relations that regulate the emergence, change, fulfillment, termination of tax liability in the context of the principles of tax law. The subject of the research is the norms of the Constitution of Ukraine, current tax legislation and other normative acts. During the research, various methods were used, in particular: historical-legal, systematic, comparative-legal, formal-legal, teleological, general scientific methods: analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction. It is indicated that the tax liability is the taxpayer's duty to pay the state a certain amount, which the taxpayer independently calculates and reflects in the tax return. It is noted that the principles of tax law and the principles of tax liability and taxation are mutually related and are reflected in regulatory acts of tax legislation or other regulatory documents. The Tax Code of Ukraine specifies the following principles: universality of taxation; equality of payers before the law, inevitability of liability; presumption of legality of the taxpayer's decisions: fiscal sufficiency; social justice; neutrality of taxation; stability; uniformity and convenience of payment; a unified approach to setting taxes and fees. Separate principles are defined in the Constitution of Ukraine - the principles of rule of law, legality, etc. The legal principle of the economy of taxation is manifested in the requirement for the economic basis of income taxation. In the tax law of the countries of the European Union, the presumption of legality of the taxpayer's decisions is expressed through the rules on the inadmissibility of various forms of tax abuse, which have a codified status. The development of these principles in the tax law of the member states of the European Union has recently taken place in the form of determining the criteria for the application of scientific doctrines in model taxation situations, based on specific court decisions in cases on determining the amount of tax liability.

Perbandingan Pertanggungjawaban Hukum antara Bentuk Badan Usaha Terbatas (PT) dan Perusahaan Perorangan

The aim of the research is to identify the comparison of legal liability between limited business entities (PT) and individual companies. This research uses a normative legal approach with descriptive analysis characteristics. Data collection was carried out through secondary data sources, specifically by applying library research techniques, known as "Library Research." The research results show differences in legal liability between PT and individual companies. PT shareholders have limited liability, while individual company owners have limited liability for the value of their shares, in accordance with the principle of limited liability. In conclusion, this research provides in-depth insight into the legal aspects that differentiate the responsibilities of PT and individual companies. These findings can be the basis for developing legal policies that are more effective in regulating the legal responsibilities of business entities, whether in the form of PT or individual companies. Keywords: Comparison, Accountability, PT, Individual

생성형 AI서비스제공자의 법적 책임과 의무

AI is efficient for humans, but as a black box, AI can't clearly explain its results. In this sense, AI is ambivalent. As an unknown technology, it is difficult to predict how it will evolve, so it is necessary to hold those who develop or provide AI services accountable and responsible. However, we should not regulate the technology, but rather the service or business model. The goal is to ensure that AI services are provided reliably and that the content is not problematic. Even if service providers monitor their services, it is difficult to do so perfectly. Therefore, the law imposes certain obligations on service providers and holds them responsible for their omissions. This is the principle of OSP liability stipulated in the Copyright Act and the Information and Communications Network Act. By entering a safe harbor, OSPs can be immunized in certain cases. The safe harbor regulation has been positive for the development of the internet. Generative AI is often criticized. It's time to consider whether it applies to AI service providers as well. According to the interpretation of the Copyright Act and the Information and Com- munication Network Act, a service provider that provides generative AI services is a service provider that provides a tool for content production. Users give instructions through prompts or utilize it as a tool to create content. To clarify, the user uses the service to create the result that the user intends or desires. The scope of liability for AI services varies depending on the legal nature of the provider. Reviewing the legal status of the AI service provider is important for the activation of AI services. AI is considered a tool, and the rights to its output should belong to the user. Logically, the user is also responsible for the creation of infringing works. Since the service is ultimately created by the user, it is difficult to hold the service provider responsible for the content of the product. However, service providers are subject to a certain duty of care in that they are the developer of the service and the provider of the generative AI service. It is desirable for the development of the AI industry to impose a duty of care that requires certain actions on the part of the service provider for defects in AI, such as the continuous creation of infringing works or the illusion of inaccurate content.

The Corporate ‘Failure to Prevent’ Principle in the UK Bribery Act 2010: Philosophical Foundations of Economic Crime

Abstract This article discusses the new corporate offence of corporate ‘failure to prevent’ bribery found in section 7(1) of the UK Bribery Act 2010 and the nature of consequential corporate liability. It discusses the nature of corporate vicarious liability, strict liability, and the identification doctrine and identifies the philosophical foundations of the principle of corporate failure to prevent bribery. The philosophical foundation of corporate liability emanating from the principle of the corporate offence is not based on the principles of corporate vicarious liability, strict liability or the identification doctrine. Liability attaches directly to the corporation because the rationale behind the legislation is to eliminate the culture of corporate bribery both domestically and extra-territorially. Section 7(2) affords a corporation a legal defence against its failure to prevent bribery if it can demonstrate that it had implemented adequate procedures to prevent individuals associated with it from undertaking such behaviour.

Some issues of disciplinary responsibility of judges: experience in Uzbekistan and abroad

This article examines in detail the principles of disciplinary liability of judges, the procedure for initiating disciplinary proceedings against a judge, types of disciplinary sanctions and their application, as well as the procedure for appealing decisions on the application of disciplinary sanctions, based on the experience of advanced foreign countries. The author analyzes the need to adopt the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On the status of judges in the Republic of Uzbekistan”, taking into account the positive experience of foreign countries. In addition, the article develops substantiated proposals aimed at improving theoretical and legal documents on the disciplinary liability of judges.

Conducting a Comparative Analysis of Medical Negligence Laws in Ghana's Courts Act 1993 (Act 459) and Other African Common Law Countries Concerning Artificial Intelligence Systems

This comparative legal analysis examines gaps in medical negligence liability principles and healthcare AI governance policies across Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa. Applying structured analytical frameworks, it maps longstanding laws focused on human provider standards of care against modern contexts of rising algorithmic and robotic assistance needing tailored accountability. By identifying jurisdictional deficiencies in adapting existing negligence rules to emerging technologies, targeted recommendations to update century-old statutes through enumerated amendments are proposed for aligning law with clinical disruption. This forward-looking modernization of reasonableness constructs and negligence duties represents an original jurisprudential contribution strengthening accountability in AI integration protecting patient welfare. Significance emerges for developers, policymakers and adopters in forming clear guidelines and statutory updates essential for responsible health AI innovation as Africa undergoes profound practice transformation. In conclusion, deliberate legal reforms affirm enduring human dignity commitments amidst technological upheaval through precision scaffolding, catalyzing ethical adoption rooted in regional values.

Development of nuclear industry: The roles of international civil liability legal regime for nuclear damage

As International Atomic Energy Agency has stated in its Handbook on Nuclear Law, "Even in situations for which the highest standard of safety has been achieved, the occurrence of nuclear accidents cannot be completely excluded." Therefore, the international legal framework for nuclear damage compensation liability has been evolving since the establishment of Nuclear Energy Agency of Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD NEA) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Over the years, various international treaties have been enacted to address the compensation of nuclear damage and to establish liability regimes for nuclear incidents. To date, these treaties have established a series of legal principles of nuclear damage liability, such as the sole liability principle, the strict liability principle, the financial guarantee principle etc., which have been developing since establishment. This paper offers an overview of the historical development of the principles of these international treaties for nuclear damage liability and thus draws upon both primary and secondary sources, including treaties, official documents, academic literature, and reports by international organizations. The paper reveals that with the awareness of protecting public's rights having been significantly strengthened, the range of compensation has been broader, the matters of immunity from liability for operators of nuclear power plants have been reduced, the limitation of the compensation amount has been higher etc. In conclusion, the international legal regime for nuclear damage liability has been showing a shift from protecting the development of the nuclear industry to a joint protection of both public health and rights and the nuclear industry.

The Subject of Liability and Imputation Principle of Tort Liability for Generative Artificial Intelligence

The Subject of Liability and Imputation Principle of Tort Liability for Generative Artificial Intelligence

Manipulating Auto-Insurance Systems to Minimize Car Accident Rates Among U.S. Teens

This paper explores various auto insurance systems and their impact on teenage driving behaviors and crash rates. The manipulation of auto insurance systems can be effective in minimizing car accident rates among teenage drivers in the United States. Auto insurance systems encompass the regulations governing insurance coverage for motor vehicles, influencing driving behaviors through incentives, penalties, and risk perceptions. The primary auto insurance systems in the U.S. are fault-based, no-fault, add-on, and choice-based systems, each with distinct implications for driving behaviors and road safety. The leading cause of death for teenagers in the U.S. is car accidents, underscoring the urgency of implementing effective strategies to mitigate crash risk among this demographic. The literature review details the factors influencing crash risk among teenagers by highlighting behavioral science theories, and the factors contributing to elevated crash risk among teenage drivers. A meta-analysis was conducted, revealing correlations between insurance system types, driving behaviors, and crash rates among teenagers. Findings suggest that fault-based auto insurance systems, due to their tort liability principles, are the most effective auto insurance systems in promoting safe driving habits among teenage drivers. The fault-based system increases accountability, mitigates moral hazard, and incentivizes cautious driving practices, thereby reducing crash rates. This research provides compelling evidence supporting the adoption of fault-based insurance systems as a critical measure to minimize car accidents among teenage drivers in the United States.

유럽연합 인공지능책임 지침안의 주요 내용, 전망 및 입법적 시사점

This paper was written for the purpose of examining the background and main contents of the proposal of the EU artificial intelligence liability directive and confirming the future prospects and their legislative implications. Academics, consumer organizations, AI-related businesses, and religious organizations are expected to continue to express various opinions on ethical debates about artificial intelligence, the scope of legal regulations, and remedies for infringement of legal interests. Legislative efforts need to be strengthened to reconcile the conflicting interests of promoting the AI industry and protecting consumers. In addition, the improvement of laws and regulations that can respond appropriately to the pace of development of AI technology and industry will be an important task. In addition, given that the size of the AI-related industry in the global market is expanding significantly and competition between countries is intensifying, it is necessary to enact domestic laws that can harmonize with international norms and AI-related laws in the EU and the United States. The principles of civil liability stipulated in the European Artificial Intelligence Liability Directive, and legal measures such as disclosure of evidence or presumption of causality to protect consumers from damage caused by high-risk AI systems, are expected to be important legislative data for enacting the domestic civil liability law related to artificial intelligence.

Liability without Fault – an Exception to the General Rule of Private Law

The principle of Fault liability is a general rule for the substantive branch of private law - civil law, and liability without fault - the so-called Strict liability, as it is referred to in Anglo-American law, is an exception to this rule. Both the provisions of the national and unified law provide for the exemption of releasing the participant in civil circulation from liability due to natural or social circumstances because it would have been impossible to have foreseen or avoided the incident if he had shown the necessary foresight and diligence because of the extraordinary and insurmountable nature of this circumstance. It should be noted that such circumstances in the scope of liability without fault cannot ensure the release of a person from responsibility. A creditor participating in a legal relationship, in the event of a delay in receiving performance, or a debtor because of exceeding the deadline to fulfill the obligation, regardless of their fault, bears the risk of performance of the obligation. Also, the owner of the source of increased danger is responsible for the damage caused to another person by the object or activity considered as a source of danger, regardless of his fault. Civil liability insurance is considered as a deterrent to no-fault liability, regarded as an injustice allowed by law. On the one hand, it socializes the risk for the person liable for the damage, on the other hand, it is found as a means of balancing the interests of the victim.

The Contribution of Limited Liability Principle and Crowdfunding Concept to Access Finance

Especially in the early 19th century, states have been in search of finding finance for large projects such as dams, bridges and road construction that they could not finance on their own. As a result of evaluations, it was concluded that the necessary financing could be provided by limiting the liability of investors and then the limited liability principle, which is one of the prime building blocks of modern business life, has been legally accepted. Thanks to limited liability also small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups have become more easily able to access the equity capital they need. However, although the limited liability principle makes it easier to reach equity capital, it makes it difficult to access debt capital (credit), especially in times of crisis. For this reason, alternative finance models such as crowdfunding emerged in the early 2000s to facilitate startups' access to debt capital. In this article, the contribution of the limited liability principle and crowdfunding to access capital are examined.

Evaluating Airline Liability and Compensation in Indonesian Aviation

This study investigates the regulatory framework and legal implications of airline liability in the context of air crash victims' rights in Indonesia, focusing on the enforceability of release and discharge agreements imposed by airlines. The research adopts a normative legal method, employing legislative and conceptual approaches to scrutinize primary and secondary legal materials related to aviation accident compensation. The primary sources include the Indonesian Aviation Act No. 1 of 2009, Article 141, and the Minister of Transportation Regulation PM 41 of 2011, alongside the Warsaw Convention of 1929. Secondary sources comprise academic literature, including books, journals, and research reports. The data were analyzed qualitatively, evaluating the extent to which the concepts of release and discharge align with the prevailing legal principles of transportation liability. The findings reveal that the Indonesian aviation regulations mandate airlines to compensate for deaths, permanent disabilities, or injuries resulting from air accidents, including to the heirs, with a cap set at Rp1.25 billion per passenger. However, the legal strength of release and discharge statements is considered weak, as they are not explicitly regulated, potentially disadvantageous to victims forced to sign as a precondition for compensation, and contrary to consumer protection laws prohibiting the shift of airline responsibilities to consumers. The study recommends a thorough government review of these release and discharge provisions to ensure alignment with national aviation laws, consumer protection statutes, and civil codes, emphasizing fairness and the protection of victims' and heirs' rights. This research contributes to the discourse on aviation liability in Indonesia, highlighting the need for legal reforms to uphold justice and certainty in airline compensation practices.Highlights:
 
 Weak Legal Foundation: Release and discharge agreements in Indonesia's aviation sector lack explicit legal backing, undermining their enforceability.
 Conflict with Consumer Laws: These agreements often contradict consumer protection laws by shifting airline responsibilities to consumers.
 Need for Legal Reform: There is a pressing need for regulatory review and reform to align compensation practices with fairness and legal standards.
 
 Keywords: Aviation Liability, Compensation, Release and Discharge, Consumer Protection, Legal Reform

Civil Liability of Arbitrators in Virtual Arbitration in Cyberspace

Arbitration is one of the most common methods of peaceful dispute resolution in domestic and international disputes out of state courts. Today, the issue of international commercial arbitration has become more important among businessmen due to the speed of processing, and saving the costs imposed on the parties to resolve disputes, and therefore, the access of global communities to new communication technologies has caused the issue of arbitration to be brought up and become relevant in the virtual global space. Therefore, the arbitrator accepts duties according to the arbitration agreement concluded between the parties, which in case of non-fulfillment of the aforementioned contractual obligations and duties, and as a result, causing both material and moral damage, and establishing the relationship of causation, will result in his civil liability. In general, the legal system of common law has accepted the principle of immunity (exemption) from liability for international arbitrators, and the principle of civil liability of arbitrators has been accepted in the legal systems of written law and the arbitration system of Iran. Now, the question that arises in my mind is, what effects and rulings does the civil liability of the arbitrator in virtual arbitrations bring? In response, it should be said that due to the lack of approval of independent, clear, comprehensive, and consistent laws and regulations regarding the civil liability of the arbitrator in the virtual arbitration in cyberspace in the domestic and international spheres, and that virtual arbitration has the same effects as traditional arbitration in terms of substance and they are distinguished from each other only in formal issues and formalities governing the proceedings, it seems that the issue of civil liability of the arbitrator in traditional and virtual arbitrations in terms of effects and rulings do not differ much from each other.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PRINCIPLE OF STRICT LIABILITY AS A BASIS FOR CORPORATE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY IN ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENSES

Implicitly, the provisions in the Environmental Protection and Management Law (henceforth UUPPLH- Undang-Undang tentang Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup) regarding the principle of strict liability, as stated in Article 88 and its explanation, only regulate strict liability as a civil responsibility. The UUPPLH does not provide provisions on whether the principle of strict liability can be applied as a model for criminal liability, particularly for legal entities or corporations recognized as legal subjects in criminal law (rechtperson). This research aims to analyze and examine the implementation of the principle of strict liability in the UUPPLH and to analyze that violations of environmental offenses under the UUPPLH by corporate legal subjects can be subjected to strict liability as criminal responsibility. The criminal responsibility adopted by Law Number 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management still adheres to the principle of fault. Therefore, in applying the strict liability principle in court, it is only used for civil claims, and its use in criminal law enforcement is minimal, as evidenced by several court decisions. In conventional criminal law, criminal liability is based on fault, commonly known as the principle of no punishment without fault (geen straf zonder schuld). However, the principle of strict liability, as liability without fault, is also recognized as a fundamental principle in criminal responsibility.

FinanceForFuture: Enforcing a CO2 emitter liability using atmospheric CO2 removal deposits (ACORDs) to finance future negative emissions

The gigantic volumes of carbon dioxide (CO2) removal likely needed to comply with the Paris Agreement beg the question of who should pay for the negative emissions. Incentivizing negative emissions is difficult, as it entails reversing the fiscal attractiveness associated with carbon taxes and emissions trading in favour of the more unattractive need to pay for removals. The inherent difficulty of funding global public goods associated with large private costs will make it hard for future governments to share this burden among themselves. We propose that this problem can be solved by a CO2 emitter liability operationalized through Atmospheric CO2 Removal Deposits (ACORDs). Anyone that emits fossil CO2 to the atmosphere would be obliged to finance the removal of at least as much CO2 from the atmosphere. Linking the liability to ACORDs acknowledges that a major part of the negative emissions needs to be made in the future. The emitters' financial deposits, including earnings, can be redeemed upon certified proof of removal. The ACORDs system would comply with the widely accepted principle of producer liability, i.e., that companies are responsible for the damage caused by their products. The system would also provide additional incentives to reduce emissions and an innovative funding source for coming generations to accomplish negative emissions. Furthermore, inequity and historical emissions can be addressed by gradually increasing overcompensation. The paper also includes a critical assessment of the basis of negative emissions, i.e., the need, the technologies and their potentials, the costs, and the required retention time.

Принцип самостоятельной ответственности юридического лица при несостоятельности (банкротстве): общие правила и исключения

Introduction. The paper discusses the controversial issues of implementing the principle of independent civil liability for a legal entity, which contributes to maintaining the stability of civil turnover and protecting the rights of creditors in the bankruptcy case of a legal entity. The main positions of the researchers in the context of the problem under consideration, as well as the provisions of the key normative legal acts, are investigated. Special attention is paid to the problem of the absolutization of the principle of independent civil liability of a legal entity in a bankruptcy case. The concept of “piercing corporate veil” in the context of the principles of insolvency (bankruptcy) of legal entities in connection with the problems of holding entities is analyzed. Methods. The study used such general scientific methods of scientific cognition as analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, etc., as well as specific scientific legal methods, namely, formal legal, the method of legal interpretation, etc. Results. Based on the analysis of the legislation, doctrinal sources, and law enforcement practice, the point of view on the refutable nature of the presumption of attribution of persons specified in the law to persons controlling the debtor is substantiated. The exceptions to the general rules applied in practice in the implementation of the principle of independent liability of a legal entity in insolvency (bankruptcy) are revealed. The specifics of the implementation of special principles in the bankruptcy case of a legal entity are substantiated. Conclusions. Based on the results of the study, the role of both general legal principles and special principles of insolvency (bankruptcy) is determined when law enforcement agencies identify the relationship between legal entities, including at the pre-bankruptcy stage and during the implementation of other bankruptcy procedures.

Economic Activity in the Church – the Penal Dimension. Comments on the Amendment to Canon 1376 CIC

The 1983 Code of Canon Law does not contain any norms regulating the economic activity of ecclesiastical juridic persons. This does not mean, however, that canon law has no regard for that. The ecclesiastical legislator’s concern for the supervision of economic activity is expressed in the regulation of rather complex ways of managing church property, including the special act of its alienation, and determination of penal sanctions for violating the relevant rules. The penal norm of Canon 1377 that was previously in force, penalizing the alienation of church property without the requisite permission, has now been significantly extended. Pope Francis, reforming Book VI of the Code of Canon Law, expanded the scope and principles of penal liability for economic abuses by redacting Canon 1376 anew. The norm of this provision penalises the offence of misappropriating or preventing the gaining of benefits from church goods (which was previously absent from the Code) and the offence of performing unlawful acts in the administration of church goods (which has been significantly extended). Reflecting on the penal aspect of administration of church property, the article attempts to answer the following questions: What are these offences? What was the legislator’s intention? What is the essence of the penal law reform in the area at hand?