Recognising rights for robots: Can we? Will we? Should we?
This academic article considers the law's response to the emergence of robots and artificial intelligence, examining whether they should be considered legal persons and bearers of legal rights. The authors analyse regulatory issues through three central questions: could robots be granted rights, will robots be granted rights, and should robots be granted rights. By reviewing historical categories of legal personhood and current debates in intellectual property law, the article explores the fluidity of legal personhood and the practical challenges of regulatory reform.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers, legal scholars, and policymakers interested in the intersection of technology, law, and robot rights.
What the document contains
The article addresses the legal and regulatory implications of artificial intelligence and robotics, specifically focusing on the debate over legal personhood and rights for non-human entities. It examines historical precedents of legal personhood, intellectual property considerations for computer-generated works, and the normative justifications for regulatory reform.
The text does not provide binding statutory rules, enforcement mechanisms, or concrete legislative drafts, as it is an academic legal analysis rather than a formal governance instrument.
- The concept of legal personhood is historically fluid and could arguably be extended to include non-human entities like robots.
- Despite creative and innovative capabilities, AI and robots have not generally been recognized as bearers of intellectual property rights.
- Whether robots will or should be granted rights remains uncertain and depends on the intended purpose of regulatory reform.
- Analysing robot rights involves addressing fundamental questions regarding capacity, liability, and the social valence of robotic technologies.
· Abstract · Could robots be granted rights? · Will robots be granted rights? · Should robots be granted rights?
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Fairness
1/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
Saudi Arabia, which denies women equal rights, makes a robot a citizen
Notes
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Dignity
2/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
that constitutional personhood should only be granted to natural persons; that AI lacks essential characteristics such as souls or consciousness
Notes
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
screening score · 2026-10-24
Privacy
1/5Protection of personal data and private life
Autonomous Intelligent Cars on the European Intersection of Liability and Privacy
Notes
screening score · 2026-10-24
Transparency
0/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
screening score · 2026-10-24
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
screening score · 2026-10-24
Impact Assessment
0/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
screening score · 2026-10-24