Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming modern society, with increasingly autonomous systems making decisions that affect healthcare, finance, transport, commerce, criminal justice, and public administration. As AI systems evolve from merely executing programmed instructions to learning, adapting, and acting with limited human intervention, traditional legal doctrines of liability are under growing strain. Existing legal frameworks generally attribute responsibility to human actors, including programmers, manufacturers, operators, and users. However, these approaches become increasingly inadequate when harm results from autonomous decision-making that cannot easily be traced to a single human actor. This article critically examines whether AI should be recognised as possessing a limited form of legal personality capable of giving rise to legal liability. Drawing on doctrinal legal research and comparative and interdisciplinary analysis, the study evaluates existing theories of legal personality, corporate personhood, agency, product liability, and negligence, as well as emerging international regulatory approaches, including the European Union AI Act. It analyses whether the concept of legal personality should evolve to accommodate highly autonomous AI systems while preserving the fundamental objectives of accountability, justice, and effective compensation for victims. The article argues that granting AI unrestricted legal personality would undermine established principles of legal responsibility and obscure human accountability. Nevertheless, the law should recognise a functional and limited legal status for specified categories of highly autonomous AI operating within tightly regulated environments. The article concludes that the future of AI regulation depends not on treating machines as equivalent to natural persons but on developing an adaptive legal framework that balances innovation, accountability, public trust, and the rule of law in an increasingly autonomous digital society.
| Published in | International Journal of Law and Society (Volume 9, Issue 3) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijls.20260903.21 |
| Page(s) | 416-430 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Artificial Intelligence, Autonomous Systems, Legal Personality, AI Liability Tort Law, AI Governance, Algorithmic Accountability, Comparative AI Regulation
| [1] | Aizenberg, E. and Van Den Hoven, J., 2020. Designing for human rights in AI. Big Data & Society, 7(2), p. 2053951720949566. |
| [2] | Arvan, M., 2022. Varieties of artificial moral agency and the new control problem. |
| [3] | Baeyaert, J., 2025. Beyond Personhood: The Evolution of Legal Personhood and Its Implications for AI Recognition. Technology and Regulation, 2025, pp. 355-386. |
| [4] | Barocas, S., Hardt, M. and Narayanan, A., 2023. Fairness and machine learning: Limitations and opportunities. MIT Press. |
| [5] | Bayles, M. D., 1987. Principles of law: A normative analysis (p. 1). D. Reidel: distrib. Kluwer Academic Publishers. |
| [6] | Bengio, Y., 2024. Government interventions to avert future catastrophic AI risks. Harvard Data Science Review, 5. |
| [7] | Beran, K., 2020. The concept of juristic person. Wolters Kluwer. |
| [8] | Blumenthal, S. L., 2016. Law and the modern mind: Consciousness and responsibility in American legal culture. Harvard University Press. |
| [9] | Bode, I. and Huelss, H., 2022. Autonomous weapons systems and international norms. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP. |
| [10] | Buiten, M., De Streel, A. and Peitz, M., 2023. The law and economics of AI liability. Computer Law & Security Review, 48, p. 105794. |
| [11] | Cane, P., 2017. Key ideas in tort law. Bloomsbury Publishing. |
| [12] | Cerka, P., Grigienė, J. and Sirbikytė, G., 2017. Is it possible to grant legal personality to artificial intelligence software systems? Computer Law & Security Review, 33(5), pp. 685-699. |
| [13] | Chesterman, S., 2020. Artificial intelligence and the limits of legal personality. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 69(4), pp. 819-844. |
| [14] | Chesterman, S., 2020. Artificial intelligence and the problem of autonomy. Notre Dame Journal on Emerging Technologies, 1, pp. 210-250. |
| [15] | Dewey, J., 1926. The historic background of corporate legal personality. The Yale Law Journal, 35(6), pp. 655-673. |
| [16] | Diamantis, M., 2019. The extended corporate mind: When corporations use AI to break the law. |
| [17] | Diamantis, M. E., 2023. Vicarious Liability for AI. Indiana Law Journal, 99(1), p. 7. |
| [18] | Ebers, M., Zou, M. and Poncibò, C., 2022. Contracting and contract law in the age of artificial intelligence. |
| [19] | Emery-Xu, N., Jordan, R. and Trager, R., 2025. International governance of advancing artificial intelligence. AI & SOCIETY, 40(4), pp. 3019-3044. |
| [20] | Enarsson, T., Enqvist, L. and Naarttijärvi, M., 2022. Approaching the human in the loop–legal perspectives on hybrid human/algorithmic decision-making in three contexts. Information & Communications Technology Law, 31(1), pp. 123-153. |
| [21] | Faure, M. and Li, S., 2022. Artificial intelligence and (compulsory) insurance. Journal of European Tort Law, 13(1), pp. 1-24. |
| [22] | Friedenberg, J., 2020. The future of the self: An interdisciplinary approach to personhood and identity in the digital age. Univ of California Press. |
| [23] | Griffin, F., 2021. Artificial intelligence and liability in health care. |
| [24] | Gstrein, O. J., Haleem, N. and Zwitter, A., 2024. General-purpose AI regulation and the European Union AI Act. Internet Policy Review, 13(3), pp. 1-26. |
| [25] | Gupta, R. and Nazir, M., Liability in the Age of AI: Perspectives on Criminal and Civil Responsibility for AI-Induced Harm. In Artificial Intelligence for Legal System (pp. 21-35). Chapman and Hall/CRC. |
| [26] | Hallevy, G., 2015. Liability for crimes involving artificial intelligence systems (Vol. 257). New York, NY, USA: Springer International Publishing. |
| [27] | Hamet, P. and Tremblay, J., 2017. Artificial intelligence in medicine. Metabolism, 69, pp. S36-S40. |
| [28] | Heiss, S., 2021. Towards Optimal Liability for Artificial Intelligence: Lessons from the European Union´s Proposals of 2020. |
| [29] | Hess, A. and Kjeldsen, J. E., 2025. Ethos, Technology, and AI in Contemporary Society. Routledge. |
| [30] | Jackson, P. C., 2019. Introduction to artificial intelligence. Courier Dover Publications. |
| [31] | Khanna, D., 2026. Governing Intelligence: Strategies for Managing Risk, Compliance, and Trust in the Age of Generative AI. Geh Press. |
| [32] | Klabbers, J., 2017. The concept of legal personality. In International Legal Personality (pp. 3-34). Routledge. |
| [33] | Kretschmer, M., Kretschmer, T., Peukert, A. and Peukert, C., 2023. The risks of risk-based AI regulation: taking liability seriously. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2311.14684. |
| [34] | Kooli, C., 2023. Chatbots in education and research: A critical examination of ethical implications and solutions. Sustainability, 15(7), p. 5614. |
| [35] | Kurki, V. A., 2019. A theory of legal personhood. Oxford University Press. |
| [36] | Lindberg, G., Carrero, I., Mallor, F., Estévez, J., Battaglini, M. and Vinuesa, R., 2023. Autonomous driving: present and emerging trends of technology, ethics, and law. Handbook on Artificial Intelligence and Transport, pp. 596-616. |
| [37] | Magnusson Sjöberg, C., 2019. Legal automation: AI and law revisited. In Legal tech, smart contracts and blockchain (pp. 173-187). Singapore: Springer Singapore. |
| [38] | Mazzini, G. and Bagni, F., 2023. Considerations on the regulation of AI systems in the financial sector by the AI Act. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 6, p. 1277544. |
| [39] | Onoja, M. O., Onyenze, C. C. and Akintoye, A. A., 2025. Cross-border data privacy and AI governance: A comparative study between the UK and the US. Well Testing Journal, 34(S3), pp. 345-368. |
| [40] | Ostmann, F. and Dorobantu, C., 2021. AI in financial services. |
| [41] | Papakonstantinou, V. and De Hert, P., 2020. Refusing to award legal personality to AI: Why the European Parliament got it wrong. European Law Blog, 20. |
| [42] | Porwal, P. D., 2025. Ethics and Laws: Governing Generative AI's Role in Financial Systems. Generative Artificial Intelligence in Finance: Large Language Models, Interfaces, and Industry Use Cases to Transform Accounting and Finance Processes, pp. 283-298. |
| [43] | Rachum-Twaig, O., 2019. Whose robot is it anyway? Liability for artificial-intelligence-based robots. University of Illinois Law Review, 2020. |
| [44] | Rodrigues, R., 2020. Legal and human rights issues of AI: Gaps, challenges and vulnerabilities. Journal of Responsible Technology, 4, p. 100005. |
| [45] | Samuelson, P., 2023. Generative AI meets copyright. Science, 381(6654), pp. 158-161. |
| [46] | Simons, K. W., 2002. Dimensions of negligence in criminal and tort law. Available at SSRN 323401. |
| [47] | Stone, P., Brooks, R., Brynjolfsson, E., Calo, R., Etzioni, O., Hager, G., Hirschberg, J., Kalyanakrishnan, S., Kamar, E., Kraus, S. and Leyton-Brown, K., 2022. Artificial intelligence and life in 2030: the one-hundred-year study on artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2211.06318. |
| [48] | Tatineni, S., 2024. Integrating Artificial Intelligence with DevOps: Advanced Techniques, Predictive Analytics, and Automation for Real-Time Optimisation and Security in Modern Software Development. Libertatem Media Private Limited. |
| [49] | Terry, H. T., 1903. Legal duties and rights. The Yale Law Journal, 12(4), pp. 185-212. |
| [50] | Togelius, J., 2024. Artificial general intelligence. Mit Press. |
| [51] | Tulli, S. K. C., 2024. Artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning in advanced robotics, a review. International Journal of Acta Informatica, 3(1), pp. 35-58. |
| [52] | Wachter, S., 2024. Limitations and loopholes in the EU AI Act and AI Liability Directives: what this means for the European Union, the United States, and beyond. Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 26(3). |
| [53] | Wacks, R., 2021. Understanding jurisprudence: An introduction to legal theory. Oxford University Press. |
| [54] | Wallingford, E., 2025. Liabilities and Modern Artificial Intelligence: A Tri-Phase Model. Taylor & Francis. |
| [55] | Wiener, J. B., 2013. The diffusion of regulatory oversight. The Globalisation of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Environmental Policy, pp. 123-41. |
| [56] | Wischmeyer, T., 2019. Artificial intelligence and transparency: opening the black box. In Regulating artificial intelligence (pp. 75-101). Cham: Springer International Publishing. |
APA Style
Agbor, N. (2026). Artificial Intelligence Liability and Legal Personality in the Age of Autonomous Systems. International Journal of Law and Society, 9(3), 416-430. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20260903.21
ACS Style
Agbor, N. Artificial Intelligence Liability and Legal Personality in the Age of Autonomous Systems. Int. J. Law Soc. 2026, 9(3), 416-430. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20260903.21
AMA Style
Agbor N. Artificial Intelligence Liability and Legal Personality in the Age of Autonomous Systems. Int J Law Soc. 2026;9(3):416-430. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20260903.21
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijls.20260903.21,
author = {Nelson Agbor},
title = {Artificial Intelligence Liability and Legal Personality in the Age of Autonomous Systems},
journal = {International Journal of Law and Society},
volume = {9},
number = {3},
pages = {416-430},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijls.20260903.21},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20260903.21},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijls.20260903.21},
abstract = {Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming modern society, with increasingly autonomous systems making decisions that affect healthcare, finance, transport, commerce, criminal justice, and public administration. As AI systems evolve from merely executing programmed instructions to learning, adapting, and acting with limited human intervention, traditional legal doctrines of liability are under growing strain. Existing legal frameworks generally attribute responsibility to human actors, including programmers, manufacturers, operators, and users. However, these approaches become increasingly inadequate when harm results from autonomous decision-making that cannot easily be traced to a single human actor. This article critically examines whether AI should be recognised as possessing a limited form of legal personality capable of giving rise to legal liability. Drawing on doctrinal legal research and comparative and interdisciplinary analysis, the study evaluates existing theories of legal personality, corporate personhood, agency, product liability, and negligence, as well as emerging international regulatory approaches, including the European Union AI Act. It analyses whether the concept of legal personality should evolve to accommodate highly autonomous AI systems while preserving the fundamental objectives of accountability, justice, and effective compensation for victims. The article argues that granting AI unrestricted legal personality would undermine established principles of legal responsibility and obscure human accountability. Nevertheless, the law should recognise a functional and limited legal status for specified categories of highly autonomous AI operating within tightly regulated environments. The article concludes that the future of AI regulation depends not on treating machines as equivalent to natural persons but on developing an adaptive legal framework that balances innovation, accountability, public trust, and the rule of law in an increasingly autonomous digital society.},
year = {2026}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Artificial Intelligence Liability and Legal Personality in the Age of Autonomous Systems AU - Nelson Agbor Y1 - 2026/09/28 PY - 2026 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20260903.21 DO - 10.11648/j.ijls.20260903.21 T2 - International Journal of Law and Society JF - International Journal of Law and Society JO - International Journal of Law and Society SP - 416 EP - 430 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2640-1908 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20260903.21 AB - Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming modern society, with increasingly autonomous systems making decisions that affect healthcare, finance, transport, commerce, criminal justice, and public administration. As AI systems evolve from merely executing programmed instructions to learning, adapting, and acting with limited human intervention, traditional legal doctrines of liability are under growing strain. Existing legal frameworks generally attribute responsibility to human actors, including programmers, manufacturers, operators, and users. However, these approaches become increasingly inadequate when harm results from autonomous decision-making that cannot easily be traced to a single human actor. This article critically examines whether AI should be recognised as possessing a limited form of legal personality capable of giving rise to legal liability. Drawing on doctrinal legal research and comparative and interdisciplinary analysis, the study evaluates existing theories of legal personality, corporate personhood, agency, product liability, and negligence, as well as emerging international regulatory approaches, including the European Union AI Act. It analyses whether the concept of legal personality should evolve to accommodate highly autonomous AI systems while preserving the fundamental objectives of accountability, justice, and effective compensation for victims. The article argues that granting AI unrestricted legal personality would undermine established principles of legal responsibility and obscure human accountability. Nevertheless, the law should recognise a functional and limited legal status for specified categories of highly autonomous AI operating within tightly regulated environments. The article concludes that the future of AI regulation depends not on treating machines as equivalent to natural persons but on developing an adaptive legal framework that balances innovation, accountability, public trust, and the rule of law in an increasingly autonomous digital society. VL - 9 IS - 3 ER -
School of Law, Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Northampton, Northampton, United Kingdom
Information