Record STMT-W238DB6Soft law

AI versus robot: in search of a domain for the new European civil law

Position paper State lawEuropean Unionin force

This academic paper analyzes the European Parliament's 2017 Resolution on Civil Law Rules on Robotics through a legal-cognitive-linguistic lens. The authors conclude that relying on a definition of 'robot' to determine the regulatory scope is flawed and that future civil law norms should instead be rooted in the concept of artificial intelligence.

Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.

Who issued it

Informa UK Limited (Taylor & Francis Group)Industry · GB

Publisher

National Science Centre, PolandAcademic

Funder

Legal forceSoft law

Under whose authorityState law

Judged fromfull text

Who it governs

Researchers and academicsNational governmentRegulators

Researchers, legal scholars, and policymakers studying the intersection of civil law, robotics, and artificial intelligence.

Sectors

Research and science · legal research

What the document contains

What's covered

The paper examines the European Parliament's 2017 Resolution on Civil Law Rules on Robotics, evaluating its definitions and assumptions regarding robots versus artificial intelligence through legal and cognitive linguistic theories.

What's missing

It does not provide binding legislation, enforceable regulatory frameworks, or an official legislative text.

Key takeaways

The definitional method is not the best approach for determining the scope of robotics and AI regulation.
The European Parliament's Resolution incorrectly assumes that civil law solutions should differentiate between AI and robots while making robots focal.
Any new legal norms should be rooted in the concept of artificial intelligence rather than the concept of a robot.
A cognitive-linguistic analysis shows that legal categorization of emerging technologies requires appropriate conceptual mapping.

Outline

· Abstract
· Keywords
· Disclosure statement
· Notes on contributors
· Main text and analysis
· Notes and references
· Funding

Issued2 July 2020

Length2,595 words

FormatNot recorded

Scoperegional

How it scores

Pending review

Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.

Accountability

1/5

Clear responsibility for AI outcomes

His main research interests are, among others, personal goods, unjust enrichment, liability for damage and inheritance law.

Notes on contributors

screening score · 2026-10-24

Fairness

0/5

Non-discrimination and equitable treatment

screening score · 2026-10-24

Human Dignity

0/5

Respect for the inherent worth of persons

screening score · 2026-10-24

Human Oversight

1/5

Humans remain in control of consequential decisions

Since a person remains part of the decision-making process, the robot cannot really be said to be autonomous.

screening score · 2026-10-24

Privacy

1/5

Protection of personal data and private life

‘Alexa, What Should We Do about Privacy? Protecting Privacy for Users of Voice-activated Devices’

screening score · 2026-10-24

Transparency

0/5

Openness about how AI systems work and are used

screening score · 2026-10-24

Enforcement

0/5

Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force

screening score · 2026-10-24

Impact Assessment

0/5

Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use

screening score · 2026-10-24

Topics

Physical AI Governancecontext

civil_law robotics artificial_intelligence legal_definition liability