Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM51723
Volume:
9 |
8 |
Aug 2025
Pages:
1-7
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
Law
New Law College, Pune.
Law
New Law College, Pune.
Assigning legal status to AI fundamentally challenges the core legal and philosophical constructs that define personhood, which traditionally hinge on qualities intrinsically human—such as consciousness, intentionality and moral responsibility. These attributes imply an awareness of one’s actions and the capacity to make reasoned decisions, elements that AI systems currently lack due to their absence of subjective experience and genuine autonomous agency. Consequently, granting AI legal personhood risks eroding the conceptual clarity of the term by extending it beyond entities capable of bearing true moral or legal accountability. Moreover, this issue complicates accountability frameworks because AI actions are ultimately the product of human design, programming and operational control. Holding AI legally responsible could obscure the roles of creators, operators and users who influence AI behavior, potentially allowing human actors to evade liability by deflecting responsibility onto the AI itself. This tension raises profound questions about whether AI can hold rights or bear duties in a manner consistent with established legal norms, which are predicated on the capacity for intentional action and ethical judgment—qualities that AI does not possess independently. The analogy of corporate personhood provides a useful framework for conceptualizing AI’s potential legal status by demonstrating how non-human entities can be integrated into legal systems to fulfill specific functional roles. Corporations, while lacking consciousness or physical personhood, are endowed with legal personality to enter contracts, hold assets and be held liable, thereby enabling economic activity within a structured legal environment. This precedent suggests that AI, similarly devoid of human attributes but increasingly autonomous and influential, could be granted a tailored legal identity that facilitates its participation in legal and commercial processes without conflating it with human agency or rights. Expanding on this, hybrid legal models propose nuanced approaches such as partial personhood or designating AI as “electronic agents” with circumscribed legal capacities. These models aim to empower AI systems to operate effectively within defined boundaries—such as executing contracts or making decisions within programmed limits—while maintaining human oversight to uphold accountability and ethical standards. By balancing innovation and economic utility with responsibility, these frameworks seek to ensure that legal recognition of AI does not undermine human control or ethical governance but rather supports a cooperative dynamic where AI’s capabilities are harnessed responsibly within the rule of law. This approach acknowledges the complexity of AI’s role in society and strives to prevent legal loopholes that could dilute human liability or ethical obligations.
KEYWORDS
The concept of a legal person has deep roots in jurisprudence, originating in ancient legal traditions where it primarily referred to natural persons or certain collective entities recognized by law. However, as societies evolve and new forms of organization and interaction emerge, this concept must be reexamined and adapted to reflect contemporary realities. Modern legal systems face the challenge of accommodating entities that do not fit traditional definitions, such as digital platforms, artificial intelligence and decentralized organizations. These developments necessitate a dynamic interpretation of legal personhood, ensuring that the law remains relevant and effective in governing new actors and relationships within society. Furthermore, the ongoing evolution of the legal person concept is driven by modern jurists who explore and propose frameworks to include or exclude novel entities based on their functions, rights and responsibilities. While some entities are on the threshold of being recognized as legal persons, they have yet to be fully integrated into the legal framework. This gradual inclusion reflects the law’s adaptive capacity to absorb new realities while balancing societal interests and legal principles. The future of legal personhood will likely involve continuous reassessment and refinement, allowing the law to address emerging challenges and opportunities in a rapidly changing world. The concept of a legal person has deep roots in jurisprudence, tracing back to ancient times when it was initially developed to define entities capable of holding rights and obligations under the law. However, as society evolves, so too must this concept adapt to meet contemporary and future challenges. Modern legal systems face new kinds of entities—such as digital organizations, artificial intelligence and decentralized autonomous bodies—that do not fit neatly into traditional definitions of legal personhood. These emerging entities challenge existing frameworks, prompting jurists to reconsider and expand the boundaries of what constitutes a legal person to ensure the law remains relevant and effective in regulating new social and economic realities. Given the dynamic nature of law, the evolution of legal personhood reflects an ongoing process driven by modern jurists who seek to reconcile historical principles with present-day needs. While some entities are on the cusp of recognition as legal persons, they have yet to be formally incorporated within the legal framework. This gradual inclusion suggests that legal personhood is not a fixed status but rather a fluid and developing concept, capable of encompassing novel forms of organization and interaction as they arise. Consequently, the law must remain flexible and responsive, allowing the concept of legal person to grow alongside societal innovations and technological advancements.
[1] Exploring the Legal Personality of Artificial Intelligence: Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Directions, Aditi Bharti, Dr. Gagandeep Kaur, Journal of Informatics Education and Research ISSN: 1526-4726 Vol 5 Issue 1 (2025), Page No. 10-25. [1] “Rule of Law, Corporate Governance and AI Humanoid Robots: Charting the Course for a Global Regulatory Framework”, Tayewo A. Adewumi, 19(1) Mizan Law Review, 2025, Page No. 93-116, http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/mlr.v19i1.4 [1] The artificial intelligence entity as a legal person Jasper Doomen, Information & Communications Technology Law, ISSN: 1360-0834 (Print) 1469-8404 (Online) https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2023.2196827 [1] Ascertaining the Legal Personality of Artificial Intelligence, Sarah Momin, International Journal Of Law Management & Humanities, ISSN 2581-5369, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2025, Page 5529 – 5548, https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLMH.119609 [1] Legal Personality of AI: Challenges and Opportunities, Dr. Ashwini N Dalal, International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT), ISSN (Online) 2581-9429, Volume 5, Issue 3, February 2025.
Publication Date
8/26/2025
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
0
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
1
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...