Uniformity of Terminology and Limits of Assessment of its Features and Functions in the Development of the Concept of Criminalization of Acts involving Unmanned Vehicles

Unmanned aerial vehicles, regardless of their purpose and type, are of considerable interest to a legal scientist, law enforcement officer and legislator. The number of mentions of unmanned vehicles and their types in regulatory legal acts is large; however, academic papers constantly raise the issue of multiple terms and concepts existing in the field of unmanned technologies. Moreover, many papers on criminal law regulation raise the same question. Since the issue of unmanned aerial vehicles regulation is not the first one of a kind to be discussed among legal academia, the paper attempts to consider the problem by extrapolating from existing experience. In particular, the author suggests turning to the theory of technologies and using them as a starting point to answer the question of whether it is possible to identify a single system of signs of high generality for unmanned vehicles. Accordingly, is it possible to sufficiently abstract from the particular features of products and services in order to construct a general term? Using unmanned vehicles available on the market as an example, the author shows the breadth of variation in the functions of these vehicles and how this can lead to legal conflicts and the strengthening of particular cases when trying to build a general norm. Based on the analysis, the author draws a conclusion regarding the problem posed in the title of the article.

1. Ayala FJ. The biological roots of morality. Biology and philosophy. 1987;2:235-252.

2. Berezina EA. Autonomous motor vehicles: the legal experience of Singapore, China and South Korea. Aziatsko- Tikhookeanskiy region: ekonomika, politika, pravo. 2022;24(3):100-123. (In Russ.).

3. Boldyrev V A. The period of technological neutrality of the legislator and digital technologies. In: Justice at the present stage. New challenges: Proceedings of the National Practical Conference. Chita; 2022. Pp. 47–50. (In Russ.).

4. Buchanan T, Sainter P, Saunders G. Factors affecting faculty use of learning technologies: Implications for models of technology adoption. Journal of Computing in Higher education. 2013;25:1-11.

5. Carroll LSL. A comprehensive definition of technology from an ethological perspective. Social Sciences. 2017;6(4):126-134.

6. Chugani HT. Biological basis of emotions: Brain systems and brain development. New perspectives in early emotional development. Miami: Johnson & Johnson Pediatric Institute; 1998. Pp. 5–16.

7. Fokin MS, Ryazanov NS. Current issues of criminal law regulation of wrongful use of unmanned vehicles. Aktual’nye problemy rossijskogo prava. 2018;1(86):103-110. (In Russ.).

8. Januszewski A, Molenda M. (eds). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. New York; 1968.

9. Lyndon J. et al. Contact lens technologies of the future. Contact Lens and Anterior Eye. 2021;44(2):398-430.

10. Korobeev AI, Chuchaev AI. Unmanned Vehicles: New Challenges to Public Security. Lex russica. 2019;2:9-28. (In Russ.).

11. Kuchina YaO. Criminal law and digitalization of public relations: On the reflection of digitalization processes in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the science of criminal law. In: Criminal law: Development strategy in the 21st century. Proceedings of the XVII International Scientific and Practical Conference. Moscow; 2020. Pp. 130–135. (In Russ.).

12. Kuchina YaO. Legal regulation of cloud technologies (computing). Moscow: Yurlitinform Publ.; 2019. (In Russ.).

13. Mamychev AYu, Gayvoronskaya YaV, Miroshnichenko OI. Modern doctrinal, legal and ethical problems of the development and application of robotic technologies and artificial intelligence systems (on the example of autonomous uninhabited underwater vehicles). Territoriya novykh vozmozhnostey. 2018;3(42):135-150. (In Russ.).

14. Suhler C, Churchland P. The neurobiological basis of morality. The Oxford handbook of neuroethics. 2011;33-58.

15. Trachtenberg AD. Information technologies for the state: Disruptive or supportive innovations? Voprosy politologii i sotsiologii. 2013;1(4):14-20. (In Russ.).

16. Volti R. Society and technological change. New York: Martin’s Press; 1995.

17. Wilson EO. The biological basis of morality. The Atlantic Monthly. 1998;281(4):53-70.