Preview

BRICS Law Journal

Advanced search

Legal regulation of technologically improved people in the United States and China

https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2022-9-4-4-20

Full Text:

Abstract

As humanity improves its use of technologies that can replace parts of a biological organism with ones containing mechanical or electronic components, it raises important legal and political issues. For example, the successful implantation of devices in human bodies could lead to the emergence of new cognitive and motor abilities, thereby resulting in the creation of a new class of people. Undoubtedly, this new class of people with extraordinary abilities would require a legal and governmental response. However, the question that arises is what legal rights might be given to these people, considering that they are more similar to machines than to men or women. The following legal aspects are of the utmost importance: the legal rights and responsibilities of cyborgs; the regulation of access to neuroprosthetic devices by third parties; and the limitation of the illegal use of the damaging capabilities of cyborgs. This article examines a number of laws and regulations from various jurisdictions in the United States, the European Union, South Korea and China that apply to cyborg technologies, with a particular focus on a legal doctrine that applies to neuroprostheses.

About the Authors

V. Morozov
Tyumen State University
Russian Federation

Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Criminal Law Disciplines



V. Chukreev

Russian Federation

Deputy Prosecutor of the Sverdlovsk Region



D. Rizayeva
RUDN University
Turkmenistan

Associate Professor



References

1. Barfield W. & Williams A. Cyborgs and Enhancement Technology, 2(4) Philos. 4 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies2010004

2. Blitz M.J. Freedom of Thought for the Extended Mind: Cognitive Enhancement and the Constitution, 4 Wis. L. Rev. 1049 (2010).

3. Bublitz J.C. & Merkel R. Crime Against Minds: On Mental Manipulation, Harms, and a Human Right to Mental Self-Determination, 8(1) Crim. L. Philos. 51 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-012-9172-y

4. Cheng H. et al. The Rise of Robots in China, 33(2) J. Econ. Perspect. 71 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.2.71

5. Goodman M. Future Crimes: Everything Is Connected, Everyone Is Vulnerable and What We Can Do About It (2015).

6. Roberts H. et al. The Chinese Approach to Artificial Intelligence: An Analysis of Policy, Ethics, and Regulation, 36(1) AI Soc. 59 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00992-2

7. Sententia W. Neuroethical Considerations: Cognitive Liberty and Converging Technologies for Improving Human Cognition, 1013(1) Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 221 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1305.014

8. Tribe L. Rights of Privacy and Personhood, 8 Const. L. (1988).

9. Ziegler-Graham K. et al. Estimating the Prevalence of Limb Loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050, 89(3) Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 422 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.005


Review

For citations:


Morozov V., Chukreev V., Rizayeva D. Legal regulation of technologically improved people in the United States and China. BRICS Law Journal. 2022;9(4):4-20. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2022-9-4-4-20

Views: 321


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2409-9058 (Print)
ISSN 2412-2343 (Online)
X