Later, on July 21 and 28, 2022, I took part in two webinars in English, which were presented by colleagues and lawyers from the USA, the EU, and Canada on subjects related to the protection of people during military operations in Ukraine.

​

I testify and confirm the fact that English has become the language of international communication, including in the academic field. The sources of my research on the legal nature of Artificial Intelligence comprise the publications of scholars from the USA, the EU, and even the PRC, and all the experts as well as I do (for three years now) work in English.

​

SECTION 2. The effective synergy between Artificial Intelligence and legislation in the spheres of transport, social protection of people and the provision of administrative services through the prism of the development of Polina Prianykova’s Scientific Doctrine ‘Smart city – Smart country – Smart planet’.

​

2.1. Novelties in transport and first problematic factors. 

​

First and foremost, in analogy to the words once said by a Stoic philosopher, Marcus Aurelius, we have to define the nature of Artificial Intelligence, the notion of the novelty which is developing in quantum jumps. Although the general term for AI has not been accepted all over the world, the definitions given by some organizations reflect the complexity of the technology in varying degrees. Taking into consideration the updated notion of the aforementioned modern phenomenon given by the European Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence, “AI refers to systems designed by humans that, given a complex goal, act in the physical or digital world by perceiving their environment, interpreting the collected structured or unstructured data, reasoning on the knowledge derived from this data and deciding the best action(s) to take (according to pre-defined parameters) to achieve the given goal. AI systems can also be designed to learn to adapt their behavior by analyzing how the environment is affected by their previous actions” [3]. Undoubtedly, to figure out how sophisticated the innovations with AI deployed are, the granular approach has to be applicable in order to keep up with advancements. Moreover, Artificial Intelligence can also be considered a scientific discipline where techniques of novelty integration are studied.

​

AI has been gradually growing in strength by taking place at the EU market and nowadays has already gathered its momentum in becoming a real cluster of the unprecedented revolution in systems of transport. The transformation many of us, perhaps, have not drawn attention to due to the pandemic that started. 

​

However, the Digital Day in April 2017, in Rome has provided an impetus for the intensification of the cooperation on testing connected and automated vehicles by creating ten 5G cross-border corridors according to the Letter of Intent, signed by 29 European countries, including not only the Members of the EU, but the European Economic Area,  with an aim to decrease the level of accidents on the road, streamline traffic efficiency and, hence, ensure the stable level of safety, considering the reduction in traffic congestion as well as minimizing the emission of greenhouse gases [4]. 

​

Moreover, judging by the ‘View on 5G Architecture’, published by the 5GPPP Architecture Working Group in October 2021, the systems of 5G have already been implemented now, being widely available in major urban areas and are going to reach less populated areas in the not-too-distant future [5].  This also implies the fact that such opportunities will make automated vehicles grow in their favorability and, thus, make the EU a definite world leader in the deployment of transport mentioned above.

​

Notwithstanding the actuality that the EU is chasing noble and important objectives for society – achievement of ‘so-called Vision Zero, i.e., no road fatalities on European roads by 2050’ [6], the legislation of the ‘Acquis Communautaire’ still is not in a position to provide us even with a proper regulation on the liability for the use of automated vehicles. Consequently, many ‘grey areas’ in the identification of breaches of law arise and compliance with primary principles of fundamental human rights is becoming a challenging task for the legislators. It is noteworthy that even in the Communication from the European Commission ‘On the road to automated mobility’ it has been stipulated that “the long-term effects of driverless mobility on the transport system, the economy, the environment and on existing jobs are still largely unknown” [6]. That is why we are bearing a strong necessity for a sector-specific approach that would help the government assess the all-encompassing consequences of the aforementioned practices implemented, taking into account certain regulatory provisions which would be substantial rather than declarative, corresponding to contemporary realities and needs. 

​

Hence, it has to be emphasized that the actions of the legislatures pertaining to the law adaptation and its specific alteration on the recognition of AI should be well-conceived and prompt, starting with the general law on AI and specifying the subject with sectoral laws as the field to regulate is vast and still developing. Moreover, it is significant to draw parallels between the forms of liability where we give prominence to criminal liability in particular. 

​

Concerning the establishment of criminal liability for the use of AI in the spheres of transport, it is important to note that this term refers to responsibility for a crime and the penalty imposed for it. The problem we touch upon is intrinsically intertwined with the challenges that arise while defining who is liable for the use of AI and the necessary recourse for the aggrieved parties. Thus, one of our aims is to state some policy actions proposed at the EU level in more concrete terms, building and harmonizing a new liability regime for AI specifically deployed into transport systems, guaranteeing the protection of people, and ensuring preventative measures for new types of crimes [7].

​

In order to comply with such a state of affairs, Artificial Intelligence has to be recognized not only as an object of a crime but as a subject thereof, meaning that it should be legally identified. Moreover, there have been ideas that suggest the possibility of a new term perpetuation – ‘electronic personhood’, the first attempts of venturing such opinions are even dating back to the last century [8]. However, nowadays the introduction of the term aforementioned has generated much more vigorous and sparked discussions about whether such practice is prudent and efficient. Additionally, it has led to some claims that conferring the ‘electronic personhood’ on the phenomenon may equate the natural person with an artificial subject and, hence, the legal personality would be endowed, raising a certain dissonance and the following diffusion in establishing the liability. Diversified allegations may be indicative of a totally new age for legal systems throughout the world per se. 

​

In our research, we admit the possibility for the notion of ‘electronic personhood’ to become accepted, but only on the condition that it would not violate or impinge on human rights. What is more, it does not prescribe the eventuality of granting AI inventions with consciousness which is an inseparable part of the complexity of a human’s constitution. Such praxis may testify to the fact that AI technologies would become ‘tangible’, thus, identified by law. Besides, in modern realities natural or legal persons have to be responsible for the AI novelties as the stage of development of the last is being enhanced: the ‘joint liability’ among human beings and cutting-edge machines envisages the balance among both parties. We recognize and support humanity’s right over innovations, but on a legal platform where these novel technologies may be reprogrammed, dismantled, or annihilated in case the evidence proves that the technology is defective.

​

It is important to accentuate the expected fact that some inventions may be given a prospect of the further development of AI, able to gain sanity, mobility, room for learning, reasoning, and formulating intentions and wishes. Although we are not the representatives of such theories’ adherents, in our academic work we have to mention that, apparently, the scientists would not turn their back on an opportunity for conducting experiments with AI akin and hence, the introduction of intelligent and autonomous transport systems is predictable in particular. At any rate, the feasible foreseeability of the damage caused by such results of the technological genesis should be evaluated in order to recognize the exact inventions as sources of increased danger. Nevertheless, the corresponding state of affairs gives rise to the question: “Would we and the specifically built law systems be able to handle issues that may emerge as a consequence of the super-intelligent inventions (we ceded more control to the latter once) that are given the right to decide about the life and death of human beings?”. That is why society and the government have to define the red lines for the use of AI novelties in order for the borders not to hinder technological progress, but to become a stimulus for exercising control over the innovations with an aim to preclude the collapse of the global order.

​

Specifying the liability for the use of various types of novel vehicles, it is vital to outline the difference between these machines. First, we are going to take into consideration the glossary provided by the European Parliamentary Research Service in its Briefing where an automated vehicle is prescribed to be a particular type of vehicle which is equipped with the technology available to assist the driver so that elements of the driving task can be transferred to a computer system [9].

​

As in this case the human override is still required and feasible, the driver should be able to take the vehicle under control whenever the system identifies such a necessity or particular circumstances demand because, nevertheless, the driver carries an increased risk of harm to others. Hence, if the evidence proves that an accident with severe consequences was precipitated by the fault or negligence of the driver, that person has to be subjected to strict liability for the damages resulting from the vehicle’s use. 

​

However, the circle of responsible persons may expand provided that the AI-technology specialists assert, considering the junctures, the probability of the automated vehicle’s malfunction due to the fault of the manufacturer or the software developing companies. Moreover, as it is drawn attention to in the report ‘Liability for AI and other emerging digital technologies’ by the Expert Group on Liability and New Technologies, “strict liability of the producer should play a key role in indemnifying damage caused by defective products and their components, irrespective of whether they take a tangible or a digital form” [10].

​

It is also vital to note, that the liability may usually be held by the party which has greater control over the machine with AI deployed. Meanwhile, an autonomous vehicle is capable to perform all driving functions eliminating any human intervention therein and being supposed to reach the highest known level of automation (also categorized by SAE as Level 5) [11]. 

​

Although nowadays these innovations are being tested, they could be on the market in a few years, judging by the constant acceleration of technological progress. In this regard, some changes in establishing the criminal liability may arise as the driver would be superseded by the operator (in some cases, the operators), a person who is in control of the risk connected with the operation of emerging digital technologies and who benefits from such operation. There exists a certain taxonomy between the aforementioned: a fronted operator, a person, who decides on how to use the innovation in particular and mainly benefits from the use of it; a backend operator, who defines the features of the technology and bears a greater responsibility for exercising control over the operational risks [10].  Hence, the traditional practice of defences and some statutory exceptions from strict liability have to be reviewed and complemented by provisions on the new types of possible liability holders.

 

It has been stipulated that “in particular in the context of autonomous cars, that while the vast majority of accidents used to be caused by human error in the past, most accidents will be caused by the malfunctioning of technology in the future” [10]. Thus, the manufacturer would bear higher risks of becoming liable for accidents where its autonomous systems are involved. Besides, due to the complex structure of producers, the concept of liability is still vague to define (whether it refers to the vicarious or strict) and has to be comprehensively studied. Notwithstanding the coherent fact that the producer is most likely to hold responsibility in case of a fault in its vehicles, the driver/owner/operator decides how and when to use the autonomous transport, for which purposes, and directly benefits from it. Hence, the joint and solidary liability has to be taken into consideration and given more prominence thereto.

​

Also, we suppose that in our academic work some scenarios when an owner or the dealer company may also be criminally liable for giving permission to use his or her transport system or to supply the vehicles (regardless of their level of automation), being aware of the fact that the people, they provide the AI-technologies to, intend to use these innovations for the purposes which may pose a threat to the society, inter alia including the illegal trade of drugs and weapons, and even murders and terrorist attacks. Thus, the whole process of AI-implemented vehicles’ invention, further deployment, dealership, and use thereof has to be supervised and controlled by the state.

​

Considering the liability for the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, drones, in particular, the aspects of criminal liability have even more sophisticated and unclarified taxonomy. Perhaps, the liability holders may be similar to the ones in cases pertaining to autonomous driving. Although drones are often associated with their part taken in military actions, nowadays they are also digested in realms of advertising and retail, telecommunications, development of the infrastructure, weather forecasting, journalism, gaming, and live entertainment, etc.

​

It is quite evident that such technologies also continue to gain momentum and the ad-hoc provisions have not been proclaimed. Meanwhile, people are still not protected from the situation of the drone falling to the ground and the ensuing injuries. Hence, an owner or the operator may be strictly liable if someone decides to use the drone despite foreseeable adverse weather conditions which proscribe the use of the innovations; in addition, the person may hold the responsibility not only for the risks intertwined with operating drones but also for the not undertaken attempt to stop the use of the device during the storm. The manufacturer also can be liable for the damages in case the drone’s software is faulty or the design and the parts of the system do not enable the operator to perform the responsibilities prescribed. 

​

Furthermore, the vehicles mentioned above can be additionally fitted with a function of connectivity, implying the fact that the machine would be able to establish a link with other devices or the infrastructure via the Internet. This means that the innovations would ‘communicate’ with each other, creating an intelligent and responsive composition of vehicles with low latent, smooth and secure data flows, where the traffic is intended to be administered and balanced. 

​

In the European Union, at least three large-scale projects are planned to become successful – L3PILOT, an extensive test of various automated driving functions for passengers; AUTOPILOT, a blueprint where real connected and automated eco-systems are envisaged; ENSEMBLE, an enterprise aimed to save fuel and reduce the carbon footprint by virtue of compliance with a truck platooning strategy [6]. 

​

However, such status quo specifies the inextricable interconnection between the vehicles the regulation thereof has not been stipulated at an adequate level per se. This ‘non liquet’ may entail serious consequences, particularly reflected in further liability shifting or cyberattacks which are acquiring even more nebulous features and origins. It is quite natural that for unscrupulous IT experts, cyberattacks on novel vehicles would be an actual ‘tidbit’ to launch. 

​

It is sufficient to imagine only the situation when a perpetrator infiltrates the data center of connected and automated mobility and sends a command to the entire cross-border corridor of vehicles to accelerate, or deploys an instruction to turn right or sends a command to power the drones. We cannot allow such a state of affairs to prevail as it may threaten people’s lives, shake the foundations of the stability and safety on the roads and lead to the evolution of novel forms of terrorist attacks.

​

It is also significant to put the emphasis on the fact that the criminals involved in the abovementioned terroristic activities have to be strictly liable for the crimes, moreover, such acts can be assessed to have an international nature as they pose a threat to the world order and hence, if the outlaw is trying to conceal in another country different from the one he committed a crime in, the mentioned perpetrator has to be on the international wanted list, given a red notice and handed over to INTERPOL’s area of activity. It should be pointed out that during the Europol-INTERPOL Cybercrime Conference held in November 2021, a common thread was to highlight the fact that “cybercrime is an urgent global security risk” and “law enforcement and the private sector need to take strong, collective action” [12]. Furthermore, the main goals stipulated in the Concept of the development of Artificial Intelligence in Ukraine are attuned to the tactics aforementioned [13]. 

​

That is why the mechanisms of monitoring anomalous activities or disruptions in systems of transport have to be recorded and analyzed in order to prevent their further malfunctioning. There is also a great necessity to determine the number of places where certain technologies cannot be used (e.g., eliminating the use of drones above crowded places, giving a particular focus to kindergartens, schools, and parks; minimizing autonomous driving on unmodernized roads). Moreover, special programs which may encourage IT experts to work on detecting the innovations’ defects have to be popularized and supported by the governmental organizations in order to ameliorate the features of the machines, making their software indestructible in case of external interference aimed to change the main principles of their functioning. 

​

Hence, if automated vehicles do not have a certain immunity from hackers and their malicious software, the whole future of these technologies would be jeopardized and the question may arise whether our world has a necessity to continue the implementation of technologies, faceless for the legislature. Elon Musk, CEO of ‘Tesla’ and founder of ‘SpaceX’ once accentuated, “AI is far more dangerous than nukes. Far. So why do we have no regulatory oversight? This is insane” [14]. Although nuclear war is considered to be the most calamitous, the implications of the unregulated cutting-edge technologies with AI implemented could equally result in a further catastrophe. The aforementioned challenges can be conquered and prevented by an exceptional solidary global response, inter alia in the forms of a comprehensive regulation on AI, deployment of the consequential world governmental security software for innovations, and a clear strategy for how to eradicate the cases of cyberattacks. 

​

Summarizing the aforementioned, it can be acknowledged that we are standing on the threshold of novelties’ introduction that would prove that the world changes are inexorable. Consequently, the law system is undergoing a sea change and has to keep pace with the times. Unfortunately, the criminal liability for the use of AI transport systems has not been established at an adequate level not only in the EU but globally. Thus, solely under well-defined regulative provisions on AI, the fundamental human rights would be inviolable, the system of law – be unambiguous, while a legislature – be able to see blindfolded and judge even in challenging circumstances as Themis, a symbol of justice, known and appreciated worldwide.

 

2.2. Governmental provision of human rights and freedoms social protection during the revolution in the technological sphere. 

 

Artificial Intelligence may serve as a versatile tool able to assist governmental institutions with a respective insight and high velocity of data processing; it can as well make its own deductions and further proposals based on the information and patterns it detects. That is the reason for the notion that the implementation of the relevant mechanisms is imminent and has already materialized in modern days – the tendency that in commercial space such innovations also started being widely used might have also served as a certain catalytic agent for the government’s interest in AI. For example, the novelty is able to meet the basic needs of the public pertaining to getting prompt feedback on the questions asked and hence, may alleviate the pressure on the employees of public services.

         

Virtual assistants. A bright example can be provided by mentioning the established practice in IP Australia, an agency of the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. On their official website, a specific chatbot called ‘Alex’ was deployed, it is stated to have been borrowed from the Australian Taxation Office and is considered to be ‘a government helper’ by the Digital Transformation Agency in particular. This virtual assistant answers questions related to intellectual property rights, specifically operating on the IP Australia online platform. It is the first aide that can provide citizens with relevant information and has proved to be involved in around 40 percent of the interactions between the organization and its customers. The respective call centre has benefitted from the implementation of the chatbot as it seems to have decreased the burden of the employees being constantly engaged in more than 12 000 calls per month, giving answers to the questions ‘Alex’ can find in the blink of an eye. Hence, in about 2 years, the program has contributed to the office’s breakthrough, taking over more than half of the queries, and confirming the proportionality and importance of the implementation thereof [15].

         

Answering our request, ‘Alex’ confirmed that it is “still learning” and “doesn’t know everything just yet” [16]. However, we may presume that virtual assistants similar to the aforementioned chatbot will only grow in popularity, being constantly developed. It might sound quite controversial, but there also exists an opinion that people still tend to prefer real-human virtual assistance to AI. This can be explained by the fact that chatbots sometimes fail to give the experience of a real conversation, due to their idiosyncrasy of simultaneously being friendly but quite alienated. Undoubtedly, service providers are aware of this situation, and we may suggest that nowadays virtual assistants would be given greater attention in order for the services to continue taking advantage of chatbots’ deployment.

         

Draftsmanship. Many documents have standardized templates which can be analyzed by the AI and subsequently be used for drawing up various references. What is more, innovative mechanisms may not be solely efficient for citizens getting the necessary certificates, but notably the governmental institutions. The employees of the public services always have to know about the recent amendments in the legislation, what language and phrases are commonly used and accepted etc. Nevertheless, it is vital to note that the process of reviewing the drafted documents is time-consuming and if AI was utilized, the burden on these organizations would be substantially reduced and the public servants could focus on other significant tasks. What is more, there exists a high probability that such applications would become a real ‘tidbit’ for individuals, e.g. attorneys or notaries. 

         

Unequivocally, Artificial Intelligence has already been used in similar cases, but if the government of each country adopted its own version of the program specializing in drafting and reviewing certain documents, and in the long-term entrenched its own exclusive right to avail itself thereof, moreover, give license to competent legal practitioners, the application would become a credible assistant in compiling and processing vast amounts of data. In addition, as the novelty has to be centrally supervised and updated by governmental institutions, it may rule out the possibility of mala fides. Certainly, such innovations may seem to be complementary at first sight, but, taking into account the fact that people tend to get used to good things quickly, we cannot exclude the likelihood that users may start relying on these apps more and more. Thus, the government has to establish its sole right to create these inventions and exercise control over the updates, in order for the app to remain reliable.

 

Investigations. Facial recognition, monitoring of online platforms and services, detection of suspicious activity on social networking sites – if this data is collected and analyzed, being guided by the notion of a granular and centralized approach applied, public services may get much more solutions to cases they encounter with; law-enforcement agencies would be provided with the supernova innovation as AI is watchful and, undoubtedly, perceptive. Moreover, if the technology’s algorithms are evolving, it would be able to become more resilient and adaptable, gaining more experience in a particular field.       

        

Nowadays, AI has significantly contributed to campaigns for finding missing children, including even long-pending cases. Technology has shed the light through the abyss of hopelessness and desperation. Taking into consideration the progress of the launch of the ‘Tuanyuan’ system, which means ‘Reunion’ in Chinese, its success is truly promising. Being created by an e-commerce giant ‘Alibaba Group Holding Ltd’, the program is aimed at sharing information about missing children timely; it is connected to various media platforms and, when the competent authorities, e.g. police officers, are informed about the missing person, they are “authorized to release information about missing or abducted children on mobile apps”. After that, ‘Tuanyuan’ sends notifications about such cases – citizens, in their turn, become aware of these facts, their vigilance is raised and, if they become witnesses of kidnapping, they may also help the police by providing the latter with up-to-date details about the incident [17].

         

According to China’s Ministry of Public Security, since the launch of the campaign elucidated afore, more than 350 long-pending cases involving child abduction have been resolved, and 890 suspects have been caught [18]. What is more, 10,932 abducted children have been found [19]. This reunion has been particularly unexpected and seemed to be a ‘miracle’ as some of the injured parties turned out to be separated from their families for more than 20 years (the statistics provided identify that this gap reaches the figure of 60 years and above for 110 victims) [18].  

         

Another successful practice vital to note comprises the AI algorithms interconnected with the facial recognition mechanisms. The police in China are using the system to identify and track the missing children; the technology builds up the image of the victims by taking the information available in the database. Jointly, the law-enforcement authorities managed to rescue 10 children out of 13 who were abducted between 2006 and 2014 within the territory of the country; 7 victims were traced with the help of Artificial Intelligence in particular. Although the leader of the criminal group was arrested in 2014, the police could not find the abducted [17]. Things began to change in 2017 when the program was introduced into the Sichuan Provincial Public Security Department and started serving as a real virtual helper (with an accuracy claimed to be greater than 96 percent) in investigations [20]. 

        

It should be outlined that similar facial recognition systems have been deployed in other countries, inter alia in India and the US. However, the use of such technology has been deemed to be alarming in view of certain privacy concerns. In response to this fact, the spokesman of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) in India stated the following, “If such a type of software helps trace missing children and reunite them with their families, nothing can be better than this.” [21]

         

In the US, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is claimed to have an organization that serves as an assistant that uses novel technologies, basically, the nonprofitable National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. It is deemed to use advanced AI mechanisms in order to process vast amounts of data related to suspicious online activity and hence report the collected facts to the relevant law-enforcement agency [22]. 

         

What undermines the claim that the aforementioned practices are credible and perspective is the fact that they have been formed during the times of transitional period for the legislation and regulation of AI because there are only a few steps taken to start the latter being drafted. Hence, as the most intelligent and highly developed systems are owned by non-profitable or commercial entities, the clout they concentrate in providing the governmental institutions with their assistance may impede the enactment of particular legal provisions and culminate in the use of the foregoing influence as a leverage for the government. Such a state of affairs puts into jeopardy not only the sovereignty of the system but the compliance with fundamental human rights and the protection thereof. Hence, as a part of the Doctrine (Scientific doctrine on AI implementation into the worldwide legislation by Polina Prianykova) [23], it is significant to put the emphasis on its key notion – establishing the governmental monopoly on the implementation and use of Artificial Intelligence.

         

Governmental ‘regulatory oversight’ [14] has to be clear-cut, solid, and immune to any manipulation on behalf of influential corporations. Thus, the government has to act immediately, it may be started with the relevant resolution of the UN that, in its turn, will become a binding instrument for countries all around the globe and, hence, for the businesses that use the technology with AI implemented there will be nothing left but to come to newly established terms of the use of AI in a civilized way. Moreover, it would preclude the high probability of certain technological isolation for countries that may have decided to adopt the ad-hoc legislation first: as in such a state of affairs, popular online services could have left the market of these countries. 

​

Hence, the global governmental monopoly on AI may presume that the novel form of the aforementioned innovation may subordinate miscellaneous algorithms that have been elaborated with different aims for functioning in online platforms and services – making the users spend more and more time on their application or get particular details of the personal data of individuals, encourage customers to make purchases, etc. However, the objective of the governmental AI will be different – to ensure that the functioning of algorithms in such novelties complies with standards of the rule of law that may be general and specific, depending on the particularities of the law system of each country. It is in this case that if the platforms and services want to target the users of a particular country, they first have to adapt to the rules on AI and get a special license that will also let the governmental AI access their system and operate therein.

​

Undoubtedly, this tactic is unprecedented and not less innovative than AI itself, but it will serve as a real helper in the long term, by assisting in investigations and preventing violations of law. It should be noted that pursuant to the aforementioned course of action, we may exercise control over the innovations, harmonizing the legislation with AI, creating a tangible mechanism that would boost technological progress and establish a protective barrier for the human rights of people of the world.

​

2.3. ‘Smart city – Smart country – Smart planet.’

​

Proposals for the development of Polina Prianykova’s Scientific Doctrine on the creation of the Constitution of Artificial Intelligence.

         

The prevalence of various technologies in modern times is apparent and witnessed these days. As such processes as digitalization accompanied by concurrent environmental protection and preservation are gaining relevance and are considered to be of paramount importance, many respective strategies and visions of how to face the corresponding issues that arise are being put forward. Besides, on our political and simultaneously economic agenda, we encounter challenges pertaining to the clear understanding of innovations and the provision of the latters’ judicious application and hence, some criteria and implications may not have been considered in the aforementioned policies. 

​

Hence, it is vital to put the emphasis on the fact that AI, almost being a ubiquitous and inseparable element of trailblazing digital projects, has to be estimated properly by applying a consequential granular approach – this is one of the aspects enlightened in our previous research [24]. Undoubtedly, the European Union has contributed to defining the notion of AI, characterizing it not only from the vista of technology but as a scientific discipline in particular [25].

​

From the perspective of information technology, AI represents a sophisticated system or, as prescribed in the European Commission’s Proposal for the Artificial Intelligence Act, even a ‘family of technologies’ which include different learning algorithms able to optimize the functioning of a wide spectrum of spheres and industries, especially the economics is viewed to be provided with an upgrade never known before. Taking into consideration the natural interest of the EU in maintaining high-ranking leadership positions in the branch of technologies, it has adopted measures to achieve its long-term goals and expressed an opinion to provide a pertinent regulation in order to adhere to the Union’s fundamental rights and principles [26]. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, as municipalities are designated for establishing the direct connection with the people, the deployment of novel intelligent systems bears a great impact on the society’s level of trust towards the local authorities and the government itself, and, without a question, on the development of the whole area such technological implementation encompasses. 

​

In such a state of affairs, we shall focus on voluminous spheres where AI, as a spark of fire that has remained untamed thus far, burst into.

​

Advisory case processing. That is how this aspect was named in the corresponding study by the Nordic Council of Ministers [27]. Besides, the Nordic region is also characterized as one of the most digitally advanced in the world, including a well-developed network of municipal institutions. The main aim of the applicable technology laid in giving advice concerning the cases the municipality officers had to solve and make a decision thereon. What is more, new and less experienced case officers were introduced with such novel tactics first as the municipalities thought that AI could form specific algorithms and advise them, building its strategy on precedents. 

​

However, such a practice may raise a certain controversy. In the event of an excessive reliance on AI which provides the officers with the analysis of previous decisions in cases, eventually, it would lead to the eradication of individuality and unambiguity. If the aforementioned practice was established and applied in particular, it would become the start of the obsolesce and the increscent emergence of the claw-back provisions that no longer comply with modern realities; in addition, it could result in the decrease of the level of professionalism and competency of municipality’s employees and the violation of the EU values. 

​

Hence, in order to strike a balance, provide the people with a just resolution and preserve working spaces that have already been supposed to become affected by digitalization, municipalities should have recourse to AI when there is a strong and emergent need to find a specific correlation and conduct a comprehensive review, but on the condition of the retention of critical thinking and the decision being non-detriment to the rule of law. This way, in pursuit of so-called efficiency and mobility, the Municipal law would not forfeit its objectives.

​

Integrated infrastructures, sustainable and safe mobility, logistics are all the basic components of the idea of so-called ‘Smart cities’ the primary focus thereof is directed at the citizens’ needs. One of AI’s significant aims for municipalities in the aforementioned concept is to provide the government with an accurate assessment of damage (e.g., its prediction, detection, classification, and localization), maintain order on the roads which comprises strengthened, revitalized, and secure transport systems of connected and automated mobility, inter alia resulting in the reduction of overall environmental implications caused by traffic (for instance, decreasing GHG emissions by 90% by 2050) [28]. Hence, the technology would facilitate the level of local stability. Nevertheless, it is worth noting the fact that the relevant legal framework has to be adopted and enacted. Indisputably, some of the EU local communities have already gained benefits from the use of such innovations. For example, Stockholm Municipality deployed AI in order to be proactive in predictions of possible leaks in water and sewer systems, while in Helsinki the technology was tested on its precision in prognosticating the weather and guiding snow ploughs to certain areas with a high probability of snowfall; some similar practices were quite successful [27]. 

​

It is vital to highlight that by expanding the scale of such experiments, the situations, conditions, and circumstances become more complex, especially when we have no general regulatory act. This mobility and certain connectivity in systems of transport prescribe the use of automated vehicles as well as their nexus with each other, establishing specific data centers that would operate and control the traffic as well as the application of aerial vehicles or drones in particular. However, since the taxonomy of the liability for the use of such machines with AI deployed has not been crystallized and stipulated at the level it has to be clarified, the legal lacuna that arises may lead to such a turn of events when the government, including the municipal representatives, would not be in a position to preserve security and sustainability as the level of cybercrime is increasing and the perpetrators would have a higher possibility to intrude into the data centers and hence, cause mass disturbances, specifically on the cross-border corridors which intrinsically intertwine the novel vehicles.

​

Thus, before implementing such global and promising projects, the mechanisms of security measures’ realization should be developed, prescribed, and brought to life. The status quo enlightened above would provide the municipalities in particular with certain strategies that would maintain the stability of the world order, guaranteeing fundamental human rights. 

​

It is significant to note that the list of aspects we touched upon is not exhaustive. Therefore, for the purpose aforementioned, it is necessary to reach an accord between society and trailblazing technologies by establishing a flexible regulation the provisions thereof would not be declarative, but actual and efficacious. In such a state of affairs, all legal branches would serve the people, comply with modernity and reach harmony with innovations in the long term.

​

Having ensured the viability of the concept of the development of ‘Smart Cities’ in the nearest future, it is reasonable to raise the question of bringing not only cities to new modern digital standards, but also towns, villages, and communities, in other words, all settlements in every region of the state. Such a project can be identified as the next stage of the civilizational movement to the level of ‘Smart Country’. And this is a worthy objective for all scopes of activity of the patriotic government for the efficacious protection of human rights and freedoms!

​

And if every state strictly adheres to the UN regulations on AI, then we will be able to see a whole cluster of developed ‘Smart countries’ that will enter the planetary platform of interaction as ‘Smart Planet’.

​

In our opinion, the Doctrine ‘Smart City – Smart Country – Smart Planet’ is not just a scientific project or a quixotic idea, a sort of utopia. If we look closely at modern trends in science and technology, we can observe, to one degree or another, a rapid upgrade of Artificial Intelligence services in all spheres of our lives, and this line begins with smartphones and extends all the way to humanoid robotic beings (cyborgs), and this list is never-ending!

​

Since the technological revolution is definitely approaching, taking major strides (almost running cross-country), it is crucial to ensure the implementation of AI into the legislation of each country no less rapidly, or even faster!

​

At the same time, the course of the ‘Ninth wave’ of novelties and changes in AI programs should be directed therein to be clearly defined. After all, each state has its own scientific potential and appropriate economy for the development of its projects. Each country can choose the path of AI development in accordance with its geopolitical, industrial, etc. interests, and this, in particular instances, is not a positive trend. Ultimately, there are common values and red lines acknowledged and respected worldwide, inter alia established by UN regulations that cannot be crossed in the military sphere, healthcare, environmental protection, and many other areas of our coexistence.

​

In view of the foregoing, in our opinion, the limits of what is permitted should be strictly set, and effective control over their observance should be established in a global sense. This is the lever the Constitution of Artificial Intelligence must become – the body of law at the UN level, mandatory for implementation in every state during research/implementation/use of AI services.