TAIWAN Trends and Developments Contributed by: Tsung-Yuan Shen, Rachel Chen and Josh Tsai, Lee and Li Attorneys-at-Law
These principles serve as the foundational values guiding AI promotion efforts. Articles 4 through 17 set forth policy directions encompassing resource allocation, subsidies and tax incentives, regulatory adaptation, supervisory sand - boxes, public–private collaboration, international co- operation, educational initiatives and the protection of labour rights and interests. Additionally, the draft intro - duces a risk-based regulatory framework to establish standards, verification procedures and liability attribu - tion. The draft also enhances personal data protec - tion, data sharing protocols and data quality controls to mitigate risks of bias and misuse. Notably, the draft assigns the government the role of promoting AI development without imposing direct regulatory obligations on related industries. In the future, the manner in which each competent author - ity implements regulatory adaptations and formulates risk management norms will be a critical area of focus for stakeholders in the industry. Legal Issues Related to Autonomous Vehicles Unmanned Vehicles Technology Innovative Experimentation Act Taiwan enacted the Unmanned Vehicles Technology Innovative Experimentation Act (also known as the “Unmanned Vehicle Sandbox Act”) effective 1 June 2019. This Act establishes an experimental regulatory sandbox framework for unmanned vehicles (includ - ing unmanned land vehicles, aircraft, ships and other combined unmanned transportation devices) to pro - mote domestic innovation in unmanned vehicle tech - nologies. Pursuant to paragraph 22 of the Act, during the period of authorised innovative experimentation, applicants conducting experiments within the scope approved by the competent authority are exempt from certain provisions of the Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act, Highway Act, Civil Aviation Act, Law of Ships, Telecommunications Act and other relevant laws. Additionally, Article 20 of the Regulations Governing Road Traffic Safety primarily governs vehicle testing activities but does not extend to the general opera - tion of autonomous vehicles on public roads. Cur - rently, testing of Level 3 and Level 4 autonomous
vehicles is permitted under the sandbox framework; however, Level 3 autonomous vehicles have not yet received approval for unrestricted public use. More - over, in accordance with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards, fully autonomous vehicles (Level 5), which require no human intervention, are not yet authorised for general operation on public roads. Furthermore, upon completion of the sandbox experi - mentation phase, autonomous vehicles must comply with existing traffic laws to be legally operated on public roads, at which point regulatory oversight will transfer to the Ministry of Transportation and Com - munications. Allocation of liability for accidents involving vehicles equipped with ADAS under current Taiwan law Regarding vehicles equipped with advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), current Taiwan laws do not recognise AI as a legal person; therefore, AI can - not bear civil or criminal liability directly. Consequent - ly, liability for accidents involving ADAS-equipped vehicles primarily rests with the human driver and the vehicle manufacturer. From a civil liability perspective, if a driver negligently operates an ADAS vehicle and causes harm to a third party, the injured party may seek damages under Article 184 of the Civil Code. Additionally, the ADAS vehicle may be classified as a “motor vehicle” under Article 191-2 of the Civil Code, thereby imposing tort liability on the driver. Where an accident results from a product defect, such as failure by the manufacturer or provider to meet reasonable safety standards or to issue adequate warnings, the manufacturer or pro - vider may be held liable pursuant to Article 7 of the Consumer Protection Act. Regarding criminal liability, AI cannot be held crimi - nally liable due to the absence of mens rea (guilty mind). Accordingly, criminal responsibility may rest with the driver or the provider. For example, if a driv - er’s negligent operation of an ADAS vehicle causes bodily injury to another, criminal liability requires proof of causation between the driver’s negligence and the harm. Providers may also incur criminal liability if they fail to exercise the requisite duty of care in the design, manufacture or maintenance of the vehicle.
61 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook