Везде
The Formation of Neurolaw: Chinaʼs Experience and UN Course
Table of contents
Abstract Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
The Formation of Neurolaw: Chinaʼs Experience and UN Course
Abstract
PII
S1991-32220000622-3-1
DOI
10.12737/jzsp.2023.027
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Ruslan A. Budnik 
Occupation: Deputy Head of the International Scientific and Educational Center “UNESCO Chair on Copyright, Neighboring, Cultural and Information Rights”, HSE University; Associate Professor at the Russian-Chinese Center for Comparative Law
Affiliation:
National Research University “Higher School of Economics”
Russian-Chinese Center for Comparative Law, Shenzhen MSU-BIT University
Address: Moscow, Russia
Edition
Volume 19 No. 2
Pages
108-119
Abstract

The actualization of the concept of neurolaw is due to the high rates of development of neuroscience and the staging of increasingly bold experiments on the use of neurotechnologies with human participation. Advances in cognition of the brain structure and mental activity bring to society both positive changes in the field of medicine, education, business and technological progress, as well as significant risks to fundamental human rights and freedoms. These orthogonal trends are most clearly manifested in the People’s Republic of China against the background of the achievements of local scientists and neuropractic engineers. The international legal community under the auspices of the United Nations, represented by the UNESCO Bioethics Profile Committee, calls for ensuring that citizens of the world have the right to protection from neurotechnological interference in their consciousness and a guarantee that human brain activity data will not be used, made public and transferred to third parties without informed and explicit consent. The UN, together with the international scientific foundation “Neurolaw”, is developing a system of amendments to international conventions in order to update their provisions for the protection of human rights in the context of the spread of neurotechnological innovations. The author of the article explores a complex of legal problems related to the influence of neurotechnologies on human rights and freedoms. Promising areas of neuro-legal research are indicated.

Keywords
neurolaw, neurotechnology, neuropractice, China, human rights, UN conventions, soft law
Date of publication
17.05.2023
Number of purchasers
12
Views
162
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf
1

References



Additional sources and materials

1.	Belyaev M. A. “Neyropravo”: est’ li osnovaniya? In Didikin A. B., Belyaev M. A., Gorban’ V. S. Pravo i neyronauki. Ekaterinburg, 2019.
2.	Binnendijk A., Marler T., Bartels E. Brain Computer Interfaces: US Military applications and implications. Santa Monica, 2020. DOI: 10.7249/RR2996.
3.	Bostrom N. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press, 2014.
4.	Bowman D., Garden H., Stroud C., Winickoff D. The neurotechnology and society interface: responsible innovation in an international context. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2018, vol. 5. DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2018.1433928.
5.	Carrillo-Reid L., Han S., Yang W. et al. Controlling Visually Guided Behavior by Holographic Recalling of Cortical Ensembles. Cell, 2019, vol. 178. Iss. 2, pp. 447—457.
6.	Dijker A. Consciousness: a neural capacity for objectivity, especially pronounced in humans. Frontiers in Psychology, 2014, vol. 5. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00223.
7.	Filipova I. A. Neurotechnologies in law and law enforcement: past, present and future. Law Enforcement Review, 2022, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 32—49. (In Russ.)
8.	Gao L., Liu S., Gou L. et al. Single-neuron projectome of mouse prefrontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2022, vol. 25. DOI: 10.1038/s41593-022-01041-5.
9.	Genser J., Herrmann S., Yuste R. International Human Rights Protection Gaps in the Age of Neurotechnology. 06.05.2022. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60e5c0c4c4f37276f4d458cf/t/6275130256dd5e2e11d4bd1b/1651839747023/Neurorights+Foundation+PUBLIC+Analysis+5.6.22.pdf (accessed 24.10.2022).
10.	Greely H., Grady C., Ramos K. et al. Neuroethics Guiding Principles for the NIH Brain Initiative. Journal of Neuroscience, 2018, vol. 38, iss. 50, pp. 10586—10588.
11.	Ienca M., Andorno R. Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 2017, vol. 13. Art, no. 5. DOI: 10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1.
12.	Kotchoubey B. Human Consciousness: Where Is It From and What Is It for. Frontiers in Psychology, 2018, vol. 9. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00567.
13.	Krauss P., Maier A. Will We Ever Have Conscious Machines? Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 2020, vol. 14. Art. 556544. DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2020.556544.
14.	Kulshreshth A., Anand A., Lakanpal A. Neuralink — An Elon Musk Start-up Achieve symbiosis with Artificial Intelligence. 2019 International Conference on Computing, Communication, and Intelligent Systems (ICCCIS). Pp. 105—109. DOI: 10.1109/ICCCIS48478.2019.8974470.
15.	López-Silva P., Madrid R. Sobre la conveniencia de incluir los neuroderechos en la Constitución o en la Ley. Revista Chilena de Derecho y Tecnología, 2021, vol. 10, no. 1.
16.	Marshel J., Kim Y., Machado T. et al. Cortical Layer — Specific Critical Dynamics Triggering Perception. Science, 2019, vol. 365, iss. 6453.
17.	McCay A. Neurorights: the Chilean constitutional change. AI & Society. March 2, 2022. DOI: 10.1007/s00146-022-01396-0.
18.	Mridha M., Das S., Kabir M. et al. Brain-Computer Interface: Advancement and Challenges. Sensors, 2021, vol. 21, iss. 17. Art. 5746. DOI: 10.3390/s21175746.
19.	Osinski G. Theological and Ethical Aspects of Mind Transfer in Transhumanism. Scientia et Fides, 2021, vol. 9, no. 1. DOI: 10.12775/SetF.2021.005.
20.	Saha S., Mamun K., Ahmed K. et al. Progress in Brain Computer Interface: Challenges and Opportunities. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 2021, vol. 15. Art. 578875. DOI: 10.3389/fnsys.2021.578875.
21.	Schwekendiek D. South Korea. A Socioeconomic Overview from the Past to Present. New York, 2017.
22.	Shafeie S., Chaudhry B., Mohamed M. Modeling Subcutaneous Microchip Implant Acceptance in the General Population: A Cross-Sectional Survey about Concerns and Expectations. Informatics, 2022, vol. 9, iss. 24. DOI: 10.3390/informatics9010024.
23.	White S., Richey J., Gracanin D. et al. The Promise of Neurotechnology in Clinical Translational Science. Clinical Psychological Science, 2015, vol. 3, iss. 5. DOI: 10.1177/2167702614549801.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate