Published March 1, 2026 | Version v1
Dataset Open

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE EVOLUTION OF LEGAL PERSONHOOD: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THEORETICAL APPROACHES AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Authors/Creators

  • 1. Lecturer, Tashkent state univetsity of law

Description

The evolving capabilities of artificial intelligence have raised urgent legal and philosophical questions about the scope of legal personhood. While traditional concepts of personhood emphasize autonomy and moral agency, AI systems challenge these foundations by performing complex, autonomous actions without consciousness. This essay critically examines theoretical arguments and legal developments regarding AI’s possible recognition as a legal person. Drawing on comparative case studies and scholarly perspectives, the study proposes a functional model of limited personhood for AI, allowing specific legal roles without undermining human dignity. Pragmatic, ethically grounded regulation is crucial for future AI governance.

Files

1999-2006.pdf

Files (284.4 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:a346bbba859b4102dc8275d17177aceb
284.4 kB Preview Download

Additional details

References

  • Burylo, Y. (2022). Legal Personhood of Artificial Intelligence Systems: To Be or Not to Be? Entrepreneurship, Economy and Law, 2, 18–25. https://doi.org/10.32849/2663-5313/2022.2.02
  • Lindroos-Hovinheimo, S. (2015). Excavating Foundations of Legal Personhood: Fichte on Autonomy and Self-Consciousness. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 28, 687–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-015-9420-2
  • Avila Negri, S. M. C. (2021). Robot as Legal Person: Electronic Personhood in Robotics and Artificial Intelligence. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8, 789327. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.789327
  • Hildebrandt, M. (2020). Legal Personhood for AI? In Law for Computer Scientists and Other Folk. Oxford University Press.
  • Simmler, M., & Markwalder, N. (2019). Guilty Robots? – Rethinking the Nature of Culpability and Legal Personhood in an Age of Artificial Intelligence. Criminal Law Forum, 30, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-018-9360-0