ROBOLAW.ASIA

亚洲机器人法律研究网络

《北大互联网法律通讯》（二）智能交通：ATM 的民事责任问题 - Giovanni Sartor与Giuseppe Contissa教授专访

Giovanni Sartor 与 Giuseppe Contissa 教授 (欧洲大学研究院法律系)

翁岳暄（采访）
欧洲大学研究院法律系

专访对象： Giovanni Sartor教授，欧洲大学研究院法律系教授与ALIAS项目主持人，意大利博洛尼亚大学法学院法律信息学教授，IAAIL国际人工智能与法律学会前主席。Sartor教授于1989年自佛罗伦萨欧洲大学研究院获得法学博士学位，曾担任意大利国家科研委法律信息研究员以及英国贝尔法斯特女王大学法理学教授，2000年取得意大利博洛尼亚大学法学院教席讲授计算机与法律之跨学科前沿问题，2006年出任欧洲大学研究院法律信息学与法学理论教授至今。；Giuseppe Contissa博士，欧洲大学研究院法律系高级研究员与2010年度马克思?韦伯学者。Contissa博士于2006年自意大利博洛尼亚大学获得法学博士学位专攻法律信息学，曾担任美国斯坦福大学法学院Code-X法律信息研究中心研究员以及博洛尼亚大学法学院讲师。

时间: 2012年10月25日下午5点
地点: 佛罗伦萨
语言: 英语

1. 请问目前欧洲大学研究院法律系进行的 ALIAS 项目的具体情况是怎样呢？

我们的ALIAS项目关注的是空中交通管制系统（Air Traffic Management - ATM）的自动化以及其衍生的民事责任问题，同时更一般性的复杂社会技术系统（Socio-Technical Systems）也在我们的研究范围内，它分析现今与未来ATM空中交通管制系统的技术发展以及其所带来的社会冲击，并且评估现行责任分配体系与面向未来的发展建议。我们期望的科研产出有下列几点：（a）作为以一种方法论上的分析工具“The Legal case”将不仅支持ATM空中交通管制系统自动化的推进，并将确保相关层面的法律都能在设计、发展的阶段就被纳入考虑（b）建立“Network of Legal Research in ATM”。我们需要跨学科的研究社群，并且透过集结不同背景成员的科研经验来促进讨论与交叉学科的合作。

The project addresses liability and automation in ATM (Air Traffic Management), and more generally in complex socio-technical systems. It analyses present and future technological developments and their impacts on ATM, assesses current responsibility regimes and proposes future developments. The expected outputs include the following: (a) A methodological tool, ?The Legal case?, that will support the introduction of automation in ATM, ensuring that relevant legal aspects are taken into consideration at the right stage of the design, development and deployment process; (b) a ?Network of Legal Research in ATM?, a multidisciplinary community of practice and meeting place drawing on the collective experience of its members to foster discussion and collaboration across disciplinary lines.

2. 远程操控塔台（Remotely Operated Tower - ROT）作为ATM空中交通管制系统的一个重要部分，在最近几年欧洲是否有任何机场正计划采用ROT塔台系统来指挥飞机航班的起飞与降落？如果不是的话，何者是对于部署ROT塔台系统的主要法规障碍呢？

ROT远程操控塔台是欧洲机构SESAR（Single European Sky ATM Research）所倡之新一代空中交通管制操作概念的其中之一，在此提案中有一组360?摄像机、传感器以及监控雷达置于机场并允许来自位于远端中心所提供的机场飞行信息服务（Aerodrome Flight Information Services – AFIS）以及空中交通操控（Air Traffic Control – ATC）。目前这种操控概念仍然在欧洲许多小型机场（例如:瑞典的Ängelholm机场）发展以及测试之中，但是不久之后将会逐步推广至全欧洲的中小型机场。在ALIAS项目里我们分析了许多采用ROT远程操控塔台系统可能衍生的民事责任议题，如果不这么做的话机将会造成日后采用此科技的阻碍，下列是目前所遭遇到的几个问题点：
A. 对于过度信任科技而导致事故发生的责任：ROT远程操控塔台系统可能造成塔台控制员的若干预期并未在现实系统里被实现。对于过度信任导致的意外事故究竟谁应该来负起责任？究竟牵涉到何种态样的责任？
B. 涉及到监管部门对ROT远程操控塔台批准的责任：ROT远程操控塔台的安置、运作乃至维护都必须经过监管部门确认如同其所宣称的功能、保证安全运作并且对于失误与不利的情况有相当的弹性。虽然系统已经经过监管部门确认，主要的问题在于判断由谁负担因机械失误所引发之事故，以及牵涉到何种态样的责任？
C. 与错误、未更新与/或不连贯信息有关的责任：对ROT远程操控塔台来说ATC操控员被迫只能依赖来自系统提供的信息而非来自本身的观察，他们无法直接以肉眼观察机场发生的情况只能依赖ROT远程操控塔台屏幕上显示的信息来做判断，所以对于因为错误、未更新与/或不连贯信息而导致的事故究竟谁该负责呢？
D. 责任与技术性失误：ATC操控员的工作可谓完全依赖在ROT远程操控塔台，因此处理技术性失误以及进行恢复之程序将充满问题，对于这种与飞航安全高度相关的关键性科技，其所引发的技术性失误应该如何追究责任呢？

The Remotely Operated Tower (ROT) is one of the new operational concepts proposed by SESAR ( SESAR P06.09.03 D26 OSED ), In this proposal, a set of 360 cameras, sensor and surveillance radars located at aerodromes will provide Information for Air Traffic Control (ATC) and Aerodrome Flight Information Services (AFIS).
Currently the operational concept is still being developed and tested in several small airports (for example, the A?ngelholm airport in Sweden) and will be soon introduced in many small/medium sized airports in Europe. In ALIAS project we analyzed several liability issues related to the adoption of ROT, which ? if not addressed - could potentially hamper the adoption of this new technology:
A. Liability for accidents/incidents that are due to over trust in the support provided by the technology: ROT may create in the operators expectations which may not be realised by the actual performance of a technological system. Who is responsible for accidents/incidents that are due to over trust in the support provided by the technology? What kind of liability is involved?
B. Liability in relation to the regulatory approval of ROT system: The ROT system as installed, operated and maintained shall be approved for its declared operations, to allow for safe operation and to be resilient against failures and adverse conditions. The main issue is to assess who is responsible for accidents/incidents that are due to technical malfunctions, although the system has been approved for operation, and what kind of liability is involved.
C. Liability in relation to reliance on wrong, dated and/or irrelevant information: with the ROT system, the air traffic controller are forced to relay only on information provided by the system, and not to their own perception: they cannot directly see or sense what is happening in the airport, but they should instead relay on what is shown on the ROT display: who is responsible for accidents/incidents due to wrong, not updated and/or incoherent information? What kind of liability is involved?
D. Liability and technological failure: with the ROT system, the air traffic controllers? work is completely dependent on the technology, which they cannot substitute anymore, so coping with technological failures and attempting recovery procedures may be problematic: Who is responsible for accidents/ incidents due to a failure of a key technology on which the users rely and from which they depend (although purposely trained to work without)? What kind of liability is involved?

3. “社会技术系统（Social-Technical System）“一词的含义是？何者是目前社会技术系统所遭遇的民事责任争议？

所有的生产性、行政性与社会组织（例如：空中交通管理系统）在今日都能被视为互相连接的“社会技术系统（Social-Technical System）“，换句话说它是一种由技术物（Technical Artifacts）、社会物（Social Artifacts）与人所组成的复杂系统。技术物（Technical Artifacts），好比工具与机械，决定在组织中何者能够做，负责决定行动被增强或限制的机会；社会物（Social Artifacts），如规范与机构，决定在组织中何者应该做，负责任务、义务、目标、优先性与机构权力的治理。然而规范需要为人所理解、诠释、协商乃至驱动，而人可以偏离这些规范或甚至决定改变这些规范。更一般性的是人类在社会技术系统的运作中扮演着不可或缺的角色，提供它们运作方面的治理、维护与支持。
ATM空中交通管制系统自动化的推行将面对在工作分派、角色以及责任等方面的重大修正，不仅止于直接管理飞航操作，飞行员与塔台控制员也将参与ATM运行的监管。当指派给自动系统的工作比重逐渐增多时人类的角色将再度被检视，人-机之间的互动才能以此为基础做出调整。ALIAS项目将尝试整理作为一种社会技术系统的ATM所衍生之相关议题，如此一来，功能、责任与民事归责都将被视为提升ATM机能的治理机制。

All main productive, administrative and social organisations (e.g. the Air Traffic Management system) can be seen nowadays as interconnected socio- technical systems (STS), namely, integrated systems constituted of technical artefacts, social artefacts, and humans. Technical artefacts, like tools and machines, determine what can be done in and by an organisation, amplifying and constraining opportunities for action. Social artefacts, like norms and institutions, determine what should be done, governing task, obligations, goals, priorities, and institutional powers. , However, norms need to be understood, interpreted, negotiated and actuated by humans, who may ultimately decide to deviate or change them. More generally, humans play an essential role in the functioning of STSs, providing them with governance and maintenance and sustaining their operation.
The introduction of automation in Air Traffic Management will require a critical revision of the allocation of tasks, roles and responsibilities: rather than directly governing flight operations, pilots and controllers will supervise automated systems doing the job. As operational tasks are increasingly delegated to automatic systems, the actual human contribution needs to be reconsidered, and human-machine interaction reengineered. ALIAS project will address such issues approaching the ATM system as a socio-technical system, so that the allocation of functions, responsibilities, and liabilities may be viewed as a governance mechanism enabling the enhancement of the functioning of ATM.

4. 责任制度如何处理伴随自动化系统衍生的风险（不确定性）呢？我们是否必须考虑一种超越严格责任/制造物责任的解决途径？

当自动化系统更进一步地导入复杂系统（例如：飞航或 ATM）时，首先发生的就是对于损害或伤害的归责将从人类操作者转移到利用自动化科技替代人类的企业或者自动化科技的制造者，因此我们可以预见一个由个人责任移转到更一般的企业责任与制造物责任之趋势。当工具朝向自动化方向发展，归责也会变得着重在使用这些工具的组织以及制造工具的人或负责维护的人，超过单纯与机械互动操作者的层次。此外，在交通运输领域也有些严格的责任规制，为了让企业得以主张一定程度的赔偿责任限额。然而，我们必须避开归责体系下致使企业承受无法忍受之经济负担的风险，否则将导致自动化科技推行与采用的阻碍，特别是安全性强化技术（Safety-Enhancing Technologies）
- 就制造物责任而言，我们必须提供企业一种”科技发展水平抗辩（State of the Art Defense）”的可能性。如此一来，当自动化技术依照现行工业标准制造同时在目前科技知识水平无法预见产品缺陷的情况下制造商将可免责。
- 就严格责任而言，我们必须考虑到不论赔偿责任限额(Liability Cap)必须被修改或者应该透过配套措施来确保损害赔偿额度不会造成企业的过重负担，例如：对于牵涉到自动化科技的设计/开发/使用者采取强制保险，以及推广赔偿基金(Compensation Fund)等。

When automated systems are more and more introduced into a complex system (eg. aviation or ATM), the first effect is that liability for damage is transferred from the original human operators to enterprises which replaced them with automated technology or to the technology programmer.
We can therefore see a shift from personal liability toward general enterprise liability (liability for creating a risk through the use of the technology) and product liability. Thus, as the tools are becoming more and more automated, then the liability will be attributed to the organizations using these tools and those who have built and currently maintain them, rather than to the operators interacting with them. Moreover, in such domains as transportation (and aviation is part of it) there are also some strict liability rules, with caps for the amount of damages that could be claimed from the enterprise. However, we should avoid the risk that the liability regime could result in unbearable costs for enterprises and therefore it could hamper the adoption of automated technologies, and in particular safety-enhancing technologies:
- concerning product liability, we should provide enterprises with the possibility to rely on the ?state of the art? defense, so that they should not be held liable when automated technologies were developed according to available standards and when it was impossible to foresee malfunctioning of the technologies at the current state of the scientific and technological knowledge available in the field;
- concerning strict liability, we should consider whether liability caps should be modified, or complementary measures should be adopted to ensure that damages will be paid without creating a too high burden for enteprises (e.g. compulsory insurances for all stakeholders involved in the design/ development/ use of automated technologies, and the introduction of compensation funds).

5. 国际民航组织(International Civil Aviation Organization – ICAO)是负责管理世界民用航空交通的机构。请问远程操控飞机(Remotely-control Aircraft)与自主操控飞机(Uncontrolled Aircraft)的主要差异在于？另外，国际民航组织对于无人飞机系统(Unmanned Aircraft Systems – UAS)抱持何种态度？

根据国际民航组织的定义(Circular 328 / AN 190)，所谓的无人机(Unmanned Aircraft – UA)是指设计上容许人类驾驶员不在机上的飞机。延伸解释即无人飞机系统(Unmanned Aircraft Systems – UAS)是一种以无人机(Unmanned Aircraft – UA)机体为基础并结合其他飞航相关部件子系统，例如：远程飞行控制中心(Pilot Station) 、飞行控制通讯网络、发动以及复原等部件。一般说来UAS无人飞机系统可以区分为两大类，分别是：自动无人飞机系统(Autonomous Unmanned Aircraft Systems – AUAS)与远程控制飞机系统(Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems –RPAS)。国际民航组织的飞航管制框架以RPAS远程控制飞机系统为主，这是经仔细评估过后被认为在可预见未来里较可能整合融入现今国际民航体系的无人飞机系统。此外，1944年在美国芝加哥签署之“国际民用航空公约” 第8条对无人飞机飞入缔约国领空做出了相关规定。全球飞航管理作业概念（9854号文件）中也确认了这一点，并且指出不需驾驶员在机上操控的无人飞机必须是采用来自地面、空中、太空的远程操控或透过程序进行完全自动化的操控。但是目前AUAS自动无人飞机系统并未被纳入国际民航组织的飞航管制框架，无人飞机方面主要关注的焦点还是在于RPAS远程控制飞机系统。

According to the ICAO definition (Circular 328 / AN 190) an Unmanned Aircraft (UA) is ?an aircraft which is intended to operate with no pilot on board?. By extension, an Unmanned Aircraft System is the combination of an UA and the associated elements enabling its flight, such as Pilot Station, Communication Link and Launch and Recovery elements. There may be multiple UAS, Pilot Stations or Launch and recovery Elements within a UAS. There are two classes of UAS: Autonomous Unmanned Aircraft Systems (AUAS) and Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS).
The ICAO regulatory framework focuses on RPAS, as the only UAS that will be able to be integrated into the international civil aviation system in the foreseeable future.
The reason for this choice is Article 8 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed at Chicago on 7 December 1944, which stipulates: ?No aircraft capable of being flown without a pilot shall be flown without a pilot over the territory of a contracting State without special authorization by that State and in accordance with the terms of such authorization....?. The Global Air Traffic Management Operational Concept (Doc 9854), confirms Article 8 and states: An unmanned aerial vehicle is a pilotless aircraft, in the sense of Article 8 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, which is flown without a pilot-in-command on-board and is either remotely and fully controlled from another place (ground, another aircraft, space) or programmed and fully autonomous.
On the basis of these considerations, fully AUAS are not considered in the current ICAO regulatory framework for civil aviation, that just focus on RPA.

6. 推广无人自动车(RoboCar)的动机在于降低车祸的发生率，部分专家认为机械适合取代人类驾驶因为不论在何种状况下它们都能够理性地制定决策。至于无人飞机，请问什么是采用RPAS远程控制飞机系统以及ATC空中交通操控系统的主要动机呢？

自1950年代就已经有发展RPAS远程控制飞机系统的构想，军方采用RPAS也有数十年历史之久，从最近在全球发生的武装冲突事件以及维和行动中不难看出RPAS的优越性能，同时RPAS在军方的应用也呈现大幅增长。然而RPAS远程控制飞机系统在民用领域其实也有很大的发展潜力，这些非军事的应用将被公共与商业双方利益所驱动。透过远程控制RPAS能够进行一般飞行器所无法达成的任务，例如长时间(大于24小时)的监测任务或穿入火山灰云与事故后接近核电产之高风险任务。RPAS远程控制飞机系统在危机管理、执法、边境巡逻、消防之应用皆能有效地补充现存飞行基础设施(飞机或人造卫星)的不足。RPAS也可以在许多地区传送营利性质的空中商业服务，例如：农渔业、电力/瓦斯管线监控、基础设施检查、自然资源监控、媒体/娱乐、数字地图、空气品质监控等。

The development of RPAS started in the 50's. RPAS have been used by armed forces for decades. Recent conflicts and peace-keeping operations around the world have demonstrated their operational capacities and led to a quasi-exponential increase of military applications. RPAS have also a great potential for civil applications. These applications are starting to develop, driven by both state and commercial interests: being remotely piloted, RPAS can perform tasks that manned systems would not be able to perform. They are well suited to perform long monitoring tasks (e.g. > 24 hours) or risky flights into ash clouds or in proximity of nuclear or chemical plants after major incidents. RPAS can efficiently complement existing infrastructure (manned aircraft or satellites) to support governmental applications like crisis management, law enforcement, border control or fire fighting. RPAS can also deliver profitable commercial aerial services in various areas, such as agriculture and fisheries, power/gas line monitoring, infrastructure inspection, natural resources monitoring, media/entertainment, digital mapping, land and wildlife management, air quality management/control.

7. 根据国际民航组织的飞航管制框架在未来是否有任何经由科技来取代飞机驾驶本身责任的可能性呢？

在一个可预见人类驾驶员无法完全被科技所替代的未来里，推行更高层次的自动化势必对驾驶的责任体系带来若干影响。高阶自动化系统将在人类若干层次的监督下进行决策与采取行动，驾驶与控制员的角色是从旁监督机械的运作而不是直接介入从事飞机起降的每个操作环节。事实上，人类将成为自动化系统的控制者而不是操作者，这种结构性的转变必然在未来影响到民事责任的理论和实务。

While pilots will not be completely replaced by technologies in the foreseeable future, the introduction of higher levels of automation will surely impact on pilot responsibilities: highly automated systems will make choices and engage in actions with some level of human supervision, or even without any such supervision, so that, rather than directly governing flight operations, pilots and controllers will supervise automated systems doing the job. The fact that humans become controllers of automated systems, rather than operators, question the very notion of individual agency, and require a critical revision of the actual human contribution to the performance of ATM, and consequently of the criteria for the allocation of liability.

8. 能否谈谈基于您的观察欧洲未来十年在法律、科学与技术(Law, Science and Technology)这一领域所面临的挑战为何？

欧洲未来十年在法律、科学与技术所面临的挑战其实在2009年欧盟出台的“Europe 2020策略“ 白皮书中就已经被讨论过了。特别值得一提的是有些科技被认定为“关键使能技术(Key Enabling Technologies)“，其中包含：ICT信息通讯技术、纳米技术、先进材料技术、生物科技、先进制造与航天技术等。我认为法律的角色必须是(也希望会是如此)更加积极能动的而非被动反射的。在此考量下为了去除科技发展与使用所面临的法律障碍，法律议题应该在科技开发初期的设计阶段就被界定与解决，与此同时还能保障市民基本权利以及防止环境衍生之科技风险。

The Challenges for Law, Science and Technology in Europe for the next years have been properly identified by the European Union in its ?Europe 2020 strategy?, which has been recently adopted. In particular, some technologies are considered as ?Key Enabling Technologies? for the future growth: ICT, nanotechnologies, advanced materials, biotechnology, advanced manufacturing and processing, and space technologies. I think that the role of the law should (and hopefully will) be more and more pro-active rather than reactive, in the sense that legal issues should be identified and tackled at the earliest stage of design of such technologies, in order to remove legal barriers for the development and use of such technologies, while at the same time preventing risks for fundamental rights of citizens and for the environment.