Resolution criteria

This market resolves to YES if, before January 1, 2060, at 23:59 UTC, an international or multilateral tribunal formally initiates criminal proceedings or indictments against individuals for catastrophic harm, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or mass atrocities resulting from the development, deployment, or control of artificial intelligence technology.

To qualify:

• Tribunal authority: The proceeding must be conducted by an international court or multilateral criminal tribunal (e.g., the International Criminal Court, an ad hoc United Nations tribunal, or a tribunal established via multilateral treaty among sovereign nations akin to the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg).

• Subject matter: The indictment or criminal charges must centrally address actions surrounding artificial intelligence systems (e.g., autonomous weapons deployment, biological/cyber catastrophes engineered via AI, or severe state-level harms driven by autonomous systems).

• Criminal proceedings against persons: The proceeding must involve formal criminal indictments or trials of individuals (such as executives, engineers, military commanders, or political leaders). Domestic civil lawsuits, regulatory enforcement fines, administrative sanctions, and standard domestic criminal trials (unless conducted under the auspices of a formal international hybrid tribunal) do not qualify.

If no such international criminal proceeding is convened or formal indictments issued by the deadline, the market resolves to NO.

Note: The market creator may edit the criteria prior to significant trading if they intended to include domestic criminal proceedings or a specific alternate definition of "Nuremberg 2.0."

Background

The term "Nuremberg 2.0" has been invoked in legal, policy, and AI safety discussions to refer to a hypothetical international tribunal prosecuting individuals for severe, widespread, or catastrophic harms enabled by artificial intelligence.

The original Nuremberg Trials (1945–1946) established the doctrine of individual criminal responsibility under international law, ruling that crimes against international law are committed by men, not abstract legal entities. In the context of AI, debates among legal scholars and international humanitarian law experts focus on autonomous weapon systems (AWS) and severe misuse or loss-of-control scenarios. Key open legal questions include establishing criminal culpability (mens rea) when autonomous or self-learning systems act unpredictably, and whether existing institutions like the International Criminal Court (ICC) or new specialized international bodies would have the jurisdiction to hold AI creators and operators criminally liable.