Artificial Intelligence law at Artsakh
Artsakh, officially known as the Republic of Artsakh (formerly Nagorno-Karabakh), is a self-declared independent state in the South Caucasus, recognized by very few or no UN member states. Its legal system is heavily influenced by Armenian law due to historical and cultural ties, but it has developed its own regulations for domestic governance. However, when it comes to Artificial Intelligence (AI) law, Artsakh does not yet have a comprehensive or dedicated legal framework regulating AI. Instead, issues related to AI—such as data privacy, liability for autonomous systems, and cyber governance—would generally be addressed under existing civil, criminal, or administrative law.
Given the lack of formal AI-specific legislation, we can examine hypothetical cases in Artsakh that illustrate how AI-related issues might be handled under the current legal framework. These cases focus on liability, privacy, ethics, and state regulation.
1. Autonomous Vehicle Accident Liability
Case Summary:
A company in Artsakh develops an autonomous delivery vehicle that uses AI for navigation. During a delivery, the vehicle malfunctions and collides with a pedestrian, causing injury. The injured party sues both the company and the software developer, claiming negligence.
Legal Issue:
Since Artsakh lacks AI-specific liability laws, courts must interpret the case using civil liability laws. The key questions are whether the developer exercised due diligence, whether the vehicle’s manufacturer provided proper safety warnings, and who bears responsibility for damages caused by autonomous systems.
Outcome:
The court could hold the company jointly liable for damages, citing negligence in testing and deployment. This case highlights the need for AI liability regulations, similar to frameworks being discussed in the EU and other jurisdictions.
2. AI in Surveillance and Privacy Violations
Case Summary:
The Artsakh government installs an AI-powered surveillance system in the capital to monitor public safety. Citizens complain that the AI monitors private areas and processes sensitive personal data without consent. A privacy advocacy group files a complaint alleging invasion of privacy.
Legal Issue:
The case falls under privacy and data protection laws inherited from Armenian legislation. The main legal question is whether AI constitutes a separate legal risk or simply an advanced tool for surveillance. There are also ethical concerns about profiling and automated decision-making.
Outcome:
The court could require authorities to implement safeguards, such as data minimization, anonymization, and transparency. This case illustrates the tension between AI deployment and individual rights in Artsakh’s legal system.
3. AI-Generated Content and Copyright
Case Summary:
An Artsakh-based media company uses an AI system to generate articles and digital content. Another company claims copyright infringement because the AI allegedly copies significant portions of existing works without permission.
Legal Issue:
Artsakh law currently treats copyright under Armenian-influenced intellectual property law. There is no explicit provision regarding AI authorship. The court must decide whether the AI-generated work can be considered original and who holds copyright—the AI programmer, the company deploying the AI, or neither.
Outcome:
The court could rule that the company deploying the AI holds responsibility for infringement, as AI cannot own rights under current law. This case highlights the gaps in intellectual property law regarding AI-generated content in Artsakh.
4. Discrimination in AI Decision-Making
Case Summary:
A bank in Artsakh uses an AI algorithm to evaluate loan applications. An applicant with a minority ethnic background is denied a loan, and investigation shows the AI was trained on biased data, disadvantaging certain groups. The applicant files a lawsuit alleging discrimination.
Legal Issue:
Without AI-specific anti-discrimination laws, the court must rely on existing civil rights or anti-discrimination statutes. The legal challenge is determining liability when the discriminatory behavior is embedded in an algorithm, rather than directly in human decision-making.
Outcome:
The court may hold the bank accountable for failing to audit or supervise AI systems, setting a precedent for organizational responsibility in AI deployment. It underscores the need for regulations requiring bias testing and fairness standards in AI applications.
5. AI in Healthcare and Malpractice
Case Summary:
A clinic in Artsakh uses an AI system to assist doctors in diagnosing patients. The AI recommends a treatment that results in serious complications for a patient. The patient sues the clinic and the AI software developer for medical malpractice.
Legal Issue:
The court must determine whether liability lies with the human doctor, the clinic, or the AI developer. Existing malpractice laws hold healthcare providers responsible for patient care, but there is no legal framework for AI-assisted decisions.
Outcome:
The court may rule that the clinic and supervising doctor are responsible, as AI tools are currently treated as instruments under human control. This case illustrates the urgent need for AI regulation in healthcare, especially regarding accountability and patient safety.
6. Automated Financial Trading and Fraud
Case Summary:
A financial services firm uses AI for automated trading on local markets. Due to a programming error, the AI makes a series of trades that result in substantial financial losses for several clients. Clients sue for damages, alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.
Legal Issue:
The court has to interpret commercial and financial regulations to determine liability. Questions arise regarding whether AI decisions are considered human actions, whether adequate safeguards were in place, and whether the company exercised proper oversight.
Outcome:
The firm may be held liable for damages due to failure to monitor the AI system. This case emphasizes the need for AI governance and risk management frameworks in financial sectors.
Conclusion
While Artsakh currently lacks formal AI-specific legislation, the region can address AI-related disputes under existing civil, criminal, or administrative law. The cases above illustrate key penological and regulatory issues:
Liability for AI-caused accidents (vehicles, healthcare, finance)
Privacy and surveillance concerns
Intellectual property for AI-generated works
Discrimination and fairness in AI decision-making
Human oversight and accountability in AI deployment
The hypothetical cases show that AI law in Artsakh is at an early stage, relying on interpretation of traditional legal frameworks. These cases also demonstrate the urgent need to develop specific AI regulations, including liability rules, data protection standards, ethical guidelines, and transparency requirements.
RELATED Blog
comments