CEIAI Governance Database
Back to the database
Record STMT-WE1085BSoft law

Examining ethical challenges in human–robot interaction using a Levinasian framework

Position paper International lawGlobalin force

This paper develops a Levinasian framework to address ethical challenges and responsibility attribution in human-robot interaction (HRI). Drawing on Emmanuel Levinas, Jacques Derrida, and object-oriented ontology, the author argues that infinite, asymmetrical responsibility to the Other offers a more productive lens than ethical pluralism for diagnosing vulnerabilities in socio-technical networks. The framework is grounded in concrete domains including healthcare robotics, autonomous vehicles, and algorithmic governance.

Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.

Who issued it

SpringerIndustry
Publisher
University of Southern DenmarkAcademic
Contributor
Legal forceSoft law
Under whose authorityInternational law
Judged fromfull text

Who it governs

Researchers and academicsRegulatorsAI developers and providersAI deployers and users

Researchers and scholars in AI ethics, robotics, law, and philosophy seeking a posthuman jurisprudence and Levinasian critique of human-robot governance.

Sectors
Research and science · human-robot interaction and technology ethicsHealthcare · healthcare roboticsTransport and mobility · autonomous vehicles

What the document contains

What's covered

The paper addresses the philosophical, ethical, and legal challenges of human-robot interaction through relational turns, analyzing distributed responsibility, the limitations of anthropocentric language, and the intersection of ethics and law using Levinasian and deconstructive frameworks.

What's missing

It does not provide a comprehensive doctrinal legal analysis of any single national jurisdiction or an empirical dataset of HRI incidents.

Key takeaways
  • The relational turns in human-robot interaction shift focus from static ontological status to dynamic relational contexts and socio-technical systems of subjugation.
  • A Levinasian framework grounded in infinite, asymmetrical responsibility offers a critical alternative to conventional ethical pluralism in technology ethics.
  • Legal norms and technical vocabularies in HRI must remain revisable and open to interruption by the primordial ethical obligation to the vulnerable Other.
  • Concrete domains such as healthcare robotics, autonomous vehicles, and algorithmic governance demonstrate how distributed agency complicates traditional responsibility attribution.
Principles it states
Ethics as first philosophy based on the singular encounter with the OtherInfinite, asymmetrical responsibility preceding universal rules and legal codification
Outline
1 Introduction
  1.1 Relational turn no. 1: from ontology to epistemology
  1.2 Relational turn no. 2: robots as instruments of subjugation
  1.3 Problem C: language, justice, and law
  1.4 Problem C in HRI practice
  1.5 Levinasian responsibility, obligations, and ethical pluralism
2 Conclusion
Issued6 March 2026
Length10,846 words · 19 pages
FormatNot recorded
Scopeglobal

How it scores

Pending review

Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.

Accountability

3/5

Clear responsibility for AI outcomes

responsibility is shared across designers, corporations, regulators, and users, but not diluted to the point of vanishing

1.5 Levinasian responsibility, obligations, and ethical pluralism

screening score · 2026-10-24

Fairness

2/5

Non-discrimination and equitable treatment

enforcing societal divisions along lines of race, class, and nationality. The automation of decision-making in these contexts not only obscures human accountability but also entrenches systemic biases

1.2 Relational turn no. 2: robots as instruments of subjugation

screening score · 2026-10-24

Human Oversight

2/5

Humans remain in control of consequential decisions

Even when human oversight is formally retained—an officer can overrule the system, a caseworker can override a recommendation—the human decision is framed as deviating from or correcting a default of computational objectivity.

1.4 Problem C in HRI practice

screening score · 2026-10-24

Privacy

0/5

Protection of personal data and private life

N/A

screening score · 2026-10-24

Transparency

2/5

Openness about how AI systems work and are used

Mechanisms such as mandatory transparency reports, algorithmic audits, and whistleblower protections can be interpreted as juridical ways of making visible

1.5 Levinasian responsibility, obligations, and ethical pluralism

screening score · 2026-10-24

Enforcement

0/5

Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force

N/A

screening score · 2026-10-24

Impact Assessment

4/5

Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use

Ethical review boards, public consultations, and impact assessments can then be understood as imperfect but necessary spaces

1.5 Levinasian responsibility, obligations, and ethical pluralism

screening score · 2026-10-24

Topics

Physical AI Governancesupporting
human_robot_interaction ethics levinas responsibility posthuman_jurisprudence