Prospects for the Convergence of the Legislation of the EAEU Countries Regarding the Legal Regulation of Artificial Intelligence[Перспективы Сближения Законодательства Стран Еаэс В Части Правового Регулирования Искусственного Интеллекта]

This study is devoted to the analysis of the prospects for the convergence of the legislation of the EAEU countries regarding the legal regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). Aim. To identify the need and identify the prerequisites for supranational legal regulation of AI in the EAEU. Tasks. To list the features of AI that necessitate supranational legal regulation in the context of analyzing the consequences for the purposes of the EAEU. To make a classification and analyze the prerequisites for the formation of the will of the EAEU member states to bring together the legislation of the EAEU countries in terms of legal regulation of AI. Methods. The problem-theoretical, formal-legal, logical, system-structural method and the method of comparison are used. Results. The study showed that such features of AI technologies as the ability to cause cross-border harm and the ability to autonomous processes require a) the establishment of legal limits for delegating human authority to a machine that are uniform for the EAEU states, which is achieved by establishing administrative responsibilities for participants in the life cycle of AI systems and applications; b) developing a unified approach to eliminating the “responsibility gap” for the harm caused by AI and its legal consolidation in the law of the EAEU, which is achieved through supranational regulation of AI on these issues. The lack of “uniform norms” regarding the distribution of responsibility for harm produces legal conflicts that contribute to the creation of obstacles to the functioning of internal markets and asymmetries in the development of AI within the EAEU. The results of the analysis of the prerequisites for the formation of the will of the EAEU member states to bring together the legislation of the EAEU countries in terms of legal regulation of AI allow us to state the absence of prerequisites for a unified policy of the EAEU countries in the creation and use of AI, and consequently, the prospects for the convergence of legislation in the field of public relations through the formation of supranational legal regulation. However, the EAEU law does not contain obstacles to the implementation of a unified AI policy in the future. Conclusions. The specifics of AI technologies require supranational legal regulation of AI, at least in matters of allocation of responsibility for harm caused by AI in order to avoid legal conflicts that contribute to the creation of obstacles to the functioning of internal markets and asymmetries in the development of AI within the EAEU. Despite the current lack of prerequisites, the EAEU law does not contain obstacles to the convergence of the legislation of the EAEU countries in terms of legal regulation of AI in the event of such a decision