🕒 2 min read.

The Future of Rights and Responsibility

📰 Legal Insight Behind the Headlines | Lexdot Explains

Artificial intelligence is no longer confined to labs and codebases — it now writes essays, generates art, and even executes contracts. As AI systems become more autonomous, legal scholars are asking a once-unthinkable question: Should AI be recognised as a legal person?

Europe: The “Electronic Personhood” Proposal

The European Parliament first floated the idea of “electronic personhood” in 2017 — a limited legal status for highly autonomous AI systems that could hold rights and bear liability. The concept sparked intense debate: would granting legal personality to AI absolve its creators of responsibility?
So far, the EU has opted for a cautious path through its AI Act (2024) — focusing on transparency and accountability rather than rights.

United States: Personhood Reserved for Humans and Corporations

In the U.S., courts have consistently held that only natural persons and corporations have legal standing. AI is considered property, not a party. The landmark Thaler v. Vidal (2022) case reaffirmed that AI cannot be named as an inventor under U.S. patent law — only humans can.

India and Nigeria: Emerging Jurisdictions, Emerging Questions

In India, AI is treated strictly as a tool, and liability remains with human operators. However, the government’s Digital India initiative and rising AI entrepreneurship are forcing regulators to consider ethical frameworks.
Nigeria, meanwhile, is developing its own National AI Strategy, but its laws have yet to address questions of liability or personhood — a gap that may soon demand attention as AI-driven systems enter governance, healthcare, and finance.

The Philosophical Divide

If AI can act autonomously — composing music, writing code, or making financial decisions — does it not resemble a legal actor? Critics argue that personhood implies consciousness, accountability, and moral agency — none of which AI possesses. Proponents counter that limited legal recognition might simplify liability and regulation in complex AI ecosystems.

The Law’s Current Position

For now, AI remains a legal paradox — intelligent enough to act, yet incapable of bearing responsibility. Courts continue to place liability on the human creators, users, or companies that deploy these systems. But as AI becomes more self-learning and self-directing, the law will need to evolve to answer an uncomfortable question:
When does a tool become a legal entity?