Subject (in) Trouble: Humans, Robots, and Legal Imagination
This academic journal article examines how the legal conception and interpretation of the subject of law are challenged by theoretical critiques and by developments such as posthuman critical theory, animal and nature rights, and the anthropomorphization of high-tech robotics. It signals the normative problems introduced by the sovereignty of the subject's self-fiction and by high-tech robotics. The paper was published in the journal Laws by MDPI on March 31, 2020.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers and academics in legal theory and philosophy interested in posthumanism, non-human legal subjectivity, and robots.
What the document contains
The paper covers legal theory discussions surrounding non-human legal subjectivity, posthumanism, the critiques of the traditional legal subject, and the normative implications of high-tech robotics and anthropomorphism.
Readers looking for specific AI governance frameworks, binding regulations, or concrete technical standards for artificial intelligence will not find them here.
- The legal conception of the subject of law faces challenges from feminist, Marxist, anti-racist, anarchist, queer, and crip critiques.
- Posthuman critical theory challenges anthropocentric exceptionalism and species hierarchy.
- Non-human legal agency issues include ecosexual weddings, animal rights, legal personhood for nature, and machine rights.
- The paper analyzes normative problems caused by the sovereignty of the subject's self-fiction and the anthropomorphization of high-tech robotics.
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
0/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Dignity
1/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
The legal conception and interpretation of the subject of law have long been challenged by different theoretical backgrounds
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Privacy
0/5Protection of personal data and private life
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Transparency
0/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24
Impact Assessment
0/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24