CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Digitalization, Law, and RegulationEthics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Law

A governance framework for the development and use of artificial intelligence: lessons from the comparison of Japanese and European initiatives

Kozuka, Souichirou·2019·Uniform Law Review
DOI 10.1093/ulr/unz014
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

When a new type of technology emerges, law and lawyers often face two, contradictory demands. On the one hand, some rules of the existing law are found to be an impediment to the development and application of the technology. In such cases, changes to the relevant law are demanded. On the other hand, developers of the technology often claim that the absence of an established rule, often a rule on the liability, creates a lack of predictability and deters further development of the technology. The result will be the demand for clear guidance about what may be done and what should not be done. This is true with the recent development of technology for artificial intelligence (AI). While it is not the first time that AI has attracted the public’s attention, many people have come to see its most recent development as highly promising.1 As the expectation becomes greater, however, the demands on law as described above have also grown stronger. Take the autonomous vehicle (more precisely, a vehicle with sensors and an AI system on board to manoeuvre it) as an example. Since the manufacturer wanted to test such an autonomous vehicle on the public road, the traffic rules under the conventions on road traffic (the 1949 Geneva Convention and the 1968 Vienna Convention) posed a problem as they require a human driver to sit in the vehicle and control it.2 As a result, the Vienna Convention has been amended, and the governments are now discussing the amendments to the Geneva Convention. Also problematic appears the so-called trolley problem, which questions what the ‘right’ decision should be when saving one person would result in harming several others.3 An engineer coding the AI system for an autonomous vehicle may wish to avoid the blame of creating an illegal system and request lawyers to provide the solution.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ulr/unz014

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is no clear consensus on how AI should best be defined.

    “Despite—or perhaps because of—the increased attention that AI and its developed methods are receiving in multidisciplinary research, media, and policy work, there is no clear consensus on how AI should best be defined.”

    From On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines (2020) · cites this paper as [19]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kozuka, S.
Affiliations
Gakushuin University (JP)
Corresponding author
Kozuka, Souichirou
ORCID
Kozuka, Souichirou
Venue
Uniform Law Review
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2019-06-01
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
315-329
ISSN
  • 1124-3694 (ISSN-L)
  • 2050-9065
DOI
10.1093/ulr/unz014
OpenAlex
W2948103287
Cited by
25
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3
FWCI
13.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor, 8 d)
Locations
Uniform Law Review (publishedVersion)
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (15H01917)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
Keywords
AI governance, autonomous vehicles, road traffic law, Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, trolley problem, legal uncertainty, technology regulation, Japan-Europe comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review