Pros and Cons of AI Robot as a Legal Subject
This academic article examines the legal status of AI robots, exploring whether they should be treated as legal objects or legal subjects. It reviews current global developments in AI regulation, instances of AI-related harm, and existing legal theories such as corporate fiction and liability models. The authors advocate for comprehensive international legal frameworks and liability structures to address the challenges posed by advanced autonomous technologies.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Legal scholars, lawmakers, and policymakers should read this to understand the challenges of integrating AI robots into existing legal frameworks.
What the document contains
The article covers the philosophical and structural impacts of artificial intelligence on legal systems, the debate surrounding AI robots as legal subjects or objects, and the application of various liability theories to autonomous systems.
The document does not provide a drafted legislative text, specific statutory enforcement mechanisms, or concrete judicial remedies for AI-related offenses.
- AI robots possess decision-making capabilities that operate outside traditional human control, creating a regulatory grey area.
- Granting legal personhood to AI entities parallels the treatment of corporations under legal fiction theories.
- Current legal frameworks lack adequate mechanisms to assign criminal responsibility or handle damages caused by autonomous AI actions.
- Appropriate liability frameworks, such as strict liability and vicarious liability, must be carefully chosen to protect consumers and society.
- Nations should collaborate internationally to build a unified framework for AI regulation, drawing inspiration from principles like the Asilomar AI Principles.
· I. Introduction · II. How AI Technology Affect Law As A System · III. Considering AI As A Legal Person · IV. Conclusion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
3/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
When the AI is seen as a legal person, it will be liable for negligence, fault or the crimes it committed.
III. CONSIDERING AI AS A LEGAL PERSON
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Dignity
2/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
Paying fine after killing someone either accidentally or on purpose will be seen as an insult and degradation of human’s life value.
II. AI Effects in Humans Life
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
2/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
With the ability to make its own decision without human supervision AI has already caused serious harm and risk that were uncontrollable.
IV. CONCLUSION
screening score · 2026-10-23
Privacy
1/5Protection of personal data and private life
Europe has already made the General Data Protection Regulation that regulates European organization that uses personal data
II. AI Regulation and Principles around The World
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
1/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
In this part, there is social consideration on how AI research should be created with intelligence beneficial, constructive, transparent and healthy.
II. AI Regulation and Principles around The World
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
2/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
Without regulation, this technology can cause chaos in social life. There will be no clarity and certainty in our legal system.
II. AI Regulation and Principles around The World
screening score · 2026-10-23