نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 گروه حقوق، واحدرشت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی،رشت، ایران
2 دانشیار گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکدۀ ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه ایلام
3 گروه حقوق، واحد رشت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، رشت، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Advances in military technologies and the expansion of data-driven systems have transformed decision-making in military operations. Digital twins, through their capacity to dynamically represent operational environments, forces, targets, and threats and to simulate potential situations and consequences, may significantly influence military decision-making. The criminal-law significance of this transformation becomes apparent when a harmful operational outcome results from a chain involving input data, processing and simulation, system output, human assessment, issuance of orders, and operational execution, thereby creating difficulties in attributing conduct, establishing the mental element, and proving causation. This study employs a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach to examine the implications of digital twin-based military decision-making for criminal responsibility under Iranian and Turkish law. The findings demonstrate that, in both systems, a digital twin does not constitute a criminal actor, and its use does not automatically transfer or eliminate criminal responsibility. Under Iranian law, the principle of personal criminal responsibility and the rules governing intent, negligence, and causation provide the basis for attributing responsibility to human actors involved in the decision-making process. Under Turkish law, the principle of personal criminal responsibility, the rules concerning possible intent and negligence, and provisions governing military orders enable differentiation among the responsibility of commanders, system users, and other actors involved in the decision. The comparative findings indicate that the common criterion is the establishment of attributable human conduct and the person’s degree of control and knowledge within the decision-making process. Accordingly, system error may result in criminal responsibility only where it leads to the criminal outcome through attributable human conduct or omission and where the foreseeability and preventability of the outcome can be established.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)