جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "loss compensation" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

Artificial intelligence can have countless benefits for humanity, one of which is fully self-driving cars. With the entry of various branches of information technology, it is necessary to provide its non-technical infrastructure, such as explaining the legal aspects of the upcoming issues. Artificial intelligence can have countless social benefits, but at the same time, they may cause harm. The requirement for proper protection of consumers is that before the introduction of new technology along with the preparation of road infrastructure and legal infrastructure, it is also reviewed and modified. This research specifically and case-by-case deals with the civil responsibility of deep learning of artificial intelligence in a fully self-driving car. Who will be responsible when the AI in the self-driving car does not act according to the instructions given by the manufacturer or software developers, and the AI acts outside the framework of its instructions, according to deep (reinforcement) learning? How can artificial intelligence or those involved be held responsible by relying on the general rules of civil responsibility? After examining and pondering the laws, we find that several people, including the software designer, the self-driving car manufacturer, and the technical supervisor, may be identified as responsible, and the results of this research show that they are not up-to-date and blame-oriented. Iran's civil liability system is related to the civil liability of artificial intelligence operators.

The legal system of Islam, relying on evidence such as verses of the Holy Quran, narrations and numerous legal rules, issues a verdict to compensate for spiritual damage. In the Iranian law too, along with the advancement of society and the emergence of new ideas, the legislator has provided the grounds for accepting spiritual losses. However, considering air crashes and their losses, we face a distinction based on the Warsaw Convention and practical procedures for dealing with these types of cases. This research explains the legal principles of the legitimacy of the compensation for the spiritual loss. It is concluded that the distinction between the moral losses rooted in physical damage and the mere spiritual damage, along with material losses, has created problems in dealing with cases of air crashes. This study will review these problems.

The principle that loss must be compensated by the one who imposed it, is agreed upon in almost every legal system. The crisis management organization (CMO) establishment act forces the government to compensate the losses due to the natural disasters (as an instance for crisis) against the people affected. However, all damages due to natural disasters are not caused by government performance and thus it could not be assumed as civil liability in the exact sense of the word. It is rather a legal enforcement in order to perform its role in the response and recovery stages of the crisis management process, based on which the government is responsible to prepare the minimum requirements needed for improving the quality of lives of the affected community. In case that the government fails in performing its role in any of the four-staged crisis management process, which results in any damages or loss for the people in the affected community, and if this is due to any shortage in the facilities or equipment provided, it is the government that is responsible for compensating the loss.

The law scholars have been seeking, especially in the area of commitments, to enact verdicts that support the individuals’ ownership. The results of supporting ownership in the laws of contracts have been theories like will’s governance and contract’s adulation and, in the extra-contractual requirements, efforts for restoring the victim into a prior state. The veneration of ownership in the course of time caused the accumulation of capital by the individuals and, resultantly, the impression of the economic theories on the science of law. The economic theories are so rooted in the domain of the commitments that they give rise to the emergence of theories like the contract’s administration against its adulation in the laws of contracts and the instrumentalist theories in the non-contractual commitments. The acceptance of the economic phenomena as a legal challenge caused the issues like contract moderation, buoyant price and/or the option-related provisions such as the option of refusal to be looked at from a new perspective. In the present article, the author intends to analyze the single article “about the elimination of invasion and compensation of losses imposed to properties” as well as the note 3 to article 8 of the law on “the compulsory insurance of the losses caused to third persons as a result of the accidents stemming from vehicles” as examples that are completely influenced by the economic conditions and are apparently against the preliminary legal regulations meanwhile dealing with the foresaid important challenge.

Family is the oldest human institution that emerged as a result ofsocial, emotional and legal solidarity between groups of humanbeings who are linked together via marriage bond. The efforts of themembers of the groups bring about credit and social dignity for thefamily institution which is regarded as their shared spiritual capital.This capital has been recognized by Islamic social teachings as wellas by Islamic law; accordingly, moral and legal rules, both publicand private, have been stipulated by the Islamic law in order tosupport this valuable capital. One such rule is that of la zararwa lazirar. This rule, based on a hadith narrated by MurratibniJundab, isused to recognize any spiritual damage on family as being a case forzarar (incurring loss) or zirar (inflicting loss upon others) in orderto confirm a verdict and hence compensate for any such damage orloss on family. Also, in view if the spirit of this rule, any damagecompensation for an individual or a group is legally recognized.Since establishing a legal person status for family appears legallydifficult, any individual members of the family (as natural persons)may sue for any damage to their dignity and emotions in the familywithin the context of this same rule.