ضرورت جعل شخصیت حقوقی هوشمند برای هوش مصنوعی و چارچوب‌های حقوقی آن

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد تمام، گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

2 استادیار، گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران.

3 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه تهران مرکز، تهران، ایران

چکیده

ظهور فناوری نوین هوش‌مصنوعی، نه‌تنها به‌عنوان یک عامل تغییرات عمده در ساختارهای اقتصادی و صنعتی به‌شمار می‌رود، بلکه موجب ایجاد چالش‌های حقوقی پیچیده‌ای نیز شده‌ که نیازمند پاسخ‌گویی فوری از سوی نظام‌های حقوقی است. یکی از راه‌حل‌های پیشنهادی برای مدیریت حقوقی هوش‌مصنوعی، جعل شخصیت مستقل برای آن‌هاست که این رویکرد، با توجه به استقلال عملی هوش‌مصنوعی و وجود دارایی مستقل برای آن، امکان رسیدگی قضایی به دعاوی مرتبط با این فناوری را فراهم می‌کند. با عقلی در نظر گرفتن حصر تقسیم اشخاص به حقیقی و حقوقی، هوش‌مصنوعی با توجه انسان نبودن، لاجرم در دسته‌ی اشخاص حقوقی واقع می‌شود. با این حال، نوع خاصی از شخصیت حقوقی با عنوان «شخصیت حقوقی هوشمند» بوده که ویژگی‌های اختصاصی مانند اراده و قدرت تصمیم‌گیری مستقل را داراست. از این رو، در راستای توسعه چارچوب حقوقی جامع و مطابق با نیازهای جدید، جعل شخصیت حقوقی برای آن‌ها، گا‌می ضروری است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Necessity of Establishing Intelligent Legal Personhood for AI: Towards a Comprehensive Legal Framework

نویسندگان [English]

  • Abbas Karimi 1
  • Sahar Karimi 2
  • Ali Nakhjavani 3
1 Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.
3 PhD Student in the Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly vital for human development, with transformative potential across sectors. However, the rapid advancement of technologies like blockchain, cryptocurrency, smart contracts, and the metaverse has created a significant gap between these innovations and existing legal frameworks. As major corporations like Google, OpenAI, Amazon, and Microsoft accelerate AI development, new legal challenges arise, particularly in areas such as autonomous weapons, self-driving cars, and AI-generated content.
These complexities, along with concerns about civil and criminal liability, have led to international responses. The European Union introduced the Artificial Intelligence Act (2021), UNESCO raised concerns about AI's ethical development and potential human rights violations, and a 2023 open letter from the Future of Life Institute, signed by tech leaders, called for a pause in AI experiments to develop regulations. While some fear regulation might stifle innovation, it's essential to ensure AI development aligns with legal standards. The European Union’s Committee on Legal Affairs has proposed recognizing an 'electronic personality' for AI systems making independent decisions. This study examines current frameworks, arguing they are insufficient, and advocates for a new legal framework to establish AI's legal personality.
Method
This research adopts a qualitative approach, analyzing literature, legal frameworks, and case studies related to AI and legal personality. It begins with a comprehensive review of academic works across disciplines such as law, computer science, ethics, and sociology to understand AI's legal challenges. A comparative legal analysis is conducted, examining how various jurisdictions, including the U.S., EU, Japan, and Iran, approach legal personhood for non-human entities. The study also explores relevant case studies involving AI in legal disputes, identifying gaps and risks. Expert interviews with legal scholars and technologists provide additional insights into the feasibility and implications of granting legal personality to AI. The findings are synthesized to propose a framework for AI legal personality, considering operational independence, liability, accountability, and rights protection, aiming to balance AI innovation with safeguarding societal interests.
Conclusions
In conclusion, this study explores the rationale behind the necessity of granting legal personality to artificial intelligence (AI), demonstrating that, given AI's operational independence, possession of separate assets, and the ability to address legal claims associated with this technology, the creation of an "intelligent legal personality" could serve as an effective solution for the legal management of AI. With the rapid development of these technologies and the associated legal challenges, it is crucial to develop new and appropriate legal frameworks that harness the benefits of these technologies while safeguarding individual rights and safety. Establishing appropriate legal measures and developing relevant laws are essential actions that can prevent misuse and protect the rights of individuals and organizations against AI.
In this regard, technical requirements and foundational laws must be integrated into AI design, ensuring that its decisions and actions comply with relevant regulations. Additionally, creating an insurance fund to compensate for potential damages caused to third parties by intelligent legal persons is one of the necessary measures that could be effective in protecting rights and reducing the risks associated with granting legal personality to AI.
Ultimately, the issue of granting legal personality to AI, due to its critical importance and inherent challenges, requires increased international collaboration. Countries and international organizations must work together to effectively manage the associated challenges and ensure the protection of individual rights. This collaboration should involve the exchange of information, the drafting of common standards and laws, and the creation of interactive and coordinated mechanisms among countries and organizations to address the challenges of granting legal personality to AI effectively.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Artificial Intelligence (AI)
  • Creator and Founder of AI
  • Electronic Person
  • Intelligent Legal Personhood
  • Legal Responsibility
  • Natural and Legal Person

مراجع

منابع
امین، سیدعلیرضا (1400). درآمدی بر نظریۀ شخصیت حقوقی در فقه امامیه. تمدن حقوقی، 4(9)،DOI:10.22034/lc.2022.141396،
پاسبان، محمدرضا (1401). حقوق تجارت: اشخاص حقوقی و شرکت‌های تجاری. ج۲، تهران: گنج دانش.
جعفری لنگرودی، محمدجعفر (1396). وصیت. تهران: گنج دانش.
جعفری لنگرودی، محمدجعفر (1401). ترمینولوژی حقوق. چ سی‌وششم، تهران: گنج دانش.
حقیقت، امین؛ سوری، علیرضا (1399). حقوق تجارت در پرتو نظام حقوقی کنونی. چ دوم، تهران: چتر دانش.
حلی، ابن‌ادریس (1410ق). سرائر. ج ۶، قم.
رهبر، نوید؛ دهقان‌پور فراشاه، سبحان (1400). بررسی تطبیقی مبنای مسئولیت مدنی در تصادفات وسایل نقلیۀ خودران. حقوق تطبیقی، 12(2)، DOI:10.22059/jcl.2021.320449.634169،
دادمرزی، سیدمهدی (1394). امکان‌سنجی پذیرش نظریۀ شخصیت حقوقی خانواده در حقوق ایران، کشورهای اسلامی، غرب و فقه اسلام. پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، 19(3)، DOI:20.1001.1.22516751.1394.19.3.3.0،
شریفی، سیدالهام‌الدین؛ بیرمی، گلناز (1397). ماهیت حقوقی نمایندگان هوشمند در عرصۀ قراردادهای الکترونیکی. پژوهش‌های حقوقی، ۱۷(33)، DOI:10.48300/jlr.2018.65509،
شهید اول (782ق). لمعه دمشقیه. ترجمۀ شیروانی، علی و غرویان، محسن (1394). ج1، چ پنجاه‌وسوم، قم: دارالفکر.
طباطبایی یزدی، سیدمحمدکاظم (۱۴۰۰ق). ملحقات عروه‌الوثقی. ج۲، قم: مکتبة الداوری.
عمید، حسن (1369). فرهنگ فارسی عمید. چ سوم، تهران: امیرکبیر.
کاتوزیان، امیرناصر (1369). وصیت در حقوق مدنی ایران. چ دوم، تهران: یلدا.
کریمی، عباس (۱۳۸۷). جزوۀ درسی حقوق مدنی۲ و تقریرات کلاسی. تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
کریمی، عباس؛ کریمی، سحر (۱۴۰۱). اندیشه‌هایی نو در حقوق قراردادها. چ دوم، تهران: دادگستر.
کریمی، عباس؛ کریمی، سحر (۱۳۹۱). تبیین ماهیت ادلۀ الکترونیکی از دیدگاه نظام سنتی ادلۀ اثبات دعوا. ارج‌نامۀ دکتر الماسی، تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.
کریمی، عباس؛ کریمی، سحر (۱۳۹۳). تعارض بین مالیت بالفعل و شخصیت بالقوۀ جنین آزمایشگاهی. فصلنامۀ حقوق پزشکی، ۸(۳۰).
محقق حلی، جعفربن الحسن (1403ق). شرایع‌الاسلام. ج۲، تهران: نشر استقلال.
معین، محمد (1360). فرهنگ فارسی معین. ج۴، تهران: امیرکبیر.
نخجوانی، علی؛ یاقوتی، ابراهیم (1401). وضعیت حقوقی معاملات انجام‌شده توسط هوش مصنوعی: نظریۀ وکیل مجازی. پژوهش‌های حقوق اقتصادی و تجاری، 1(1)، DOI:https://doi.org/10.48308/eclr.2023.103363،
نخجوانی، علی (1401). محدودیت‌های پلتفرم‌های دیجیتال در قانون بازار دیجیتال اتحادیۀ اروپا. پژوهش‌های حقوقی، DOI:10.48300/jlr.2022.374563.2216،
References
Amid, H. (1990). Amid Persian Dictionary. 3rd ed. Tehran: Amirkabir.[in Persian]
Amin, S. A. (2021). An Introduction to the Legal Personality Theory in Imamiyyah Jurisprudence. Legal Civilization 4(9). https://www.pzhfars.ir/article_141396.html?lang=fa. .[in Persian]
Azimi, M., & Agrawl, A. (2019). Is Positive Sentiment in Corporate Annual Reports Informative? Evidence from Deep Learning.
Banteka, N. (2021). Artificially Intelligent Persons. Housten Law Rev, 58(3), 537-596.
Bartram, S., & Branke, J., & Motahari, M. (2020). Artificial Intelligence in Asset Management. CFA Institute Research Foundation.
Bayern, S. (2017). The Implications of Modern Business-Entity Law for the Regulation of Autonomous Systems. Stanford Technology Law Review, 19(93), 93-112.
Bertolini, A., & Episcopo, F. (2022). Robots and AI as Legal Subjects Disentangling the Ontological and Functional Perspective. Front Robots AI, Vol.9, DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2022.842213.
Bryson, J. (2010). Robots Should Be Slaves. Close Engagements with Artificial Companion.
Chopra, S., & White Laurence (2011). A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents. University of Michigan Press, 1-17.
Christof, H. (2013). Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, Summary of arbitrary executions. Human Rights Council, 23Session. A/HRC/23/47.
Corrales, M. C., Fenwick, M., and Forgó, N. (2018). Robotics, AI and the Future of Law. Springer Singapore.
Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador.
Cuthbertson, A. (2017). Artificial Intelligence “Boy” Shibuya Mirai Becomes World's First AI Bot to Be Granted Residency. Newsweek.
Dadmarzi, S. M. (2015). Feasibility of Recognizing the Legal Personality of the Family in Iranian, Islamic, Western Law and Islamic Jurisprudence. Comparative Legal Research 19(3). https://clr.modares.ac.ir/article-20-1668-fa.html. .[in Persian]
Delaney. KJ. (2017). The Robot that Takes Your Job Should Pay Taxes, Says Bill Gates’ Quartz. https://qz.com/911968/bill-gates-the-robot-that-takes-your-job-should-pay-taxes.
Dewey, J. (1926).The Historic Background of Corporate Legal Personality, Yale Law Journal, 6.
European Commission (2021). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence and Amending Certain Union Legislative Acts. Brussels.
European Parliament Resolution (16/February/2017) with Recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)) (2018/C-252/25).
European Parliament, Resolution on a Civil Liability Regime for Artificial Intelligence, (2020/2014(INL)).
Floridi, L., & Sanders, JW. (2004). On the Morality of Artificial Agents. Mind Mach 14.
Future of life (2023). Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter. Halī, Ibn Idrīs. Al-Sarāʾir. Vol. 6. Qom, 1410 AH. [in Arabic]
Ja‘fari-Langarudi, M. J. (2022). Terminology of Law. 36th ed. Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh. [in Persian]
Ja‘fari-Langarudi, M. J. (2017). Wasiyyah (Testament). Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh. [in Persian]
Joizil Karine & Goldenberg Adam & Ghaly Sherry (2022). Could AI get you sued? Artificial Intelligence and litigation risk. Lexology.
Karimi, A., & Karimi, S. (2014). Conflict between Actual Property Value and Potential Legal Personality of Laboratory Embryo. Medical Law Quarterly 8(30). [in Persian]
Karimi, A., & Karimi, S. (2013). Explaining the Nature of Electronic Evidence from the Perspective of Traditional Systems of Evidence. In Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Almasi. Tehran: Sherkat Sahami Enteshar. [in Persian]
Karimi, A., & Karimi, S. (2022). New Thoughts in the Law of Contracts. 2nd ed. Tehran: Dadgostar. [in Persian]
Karimi, A. (2008). Civil Law II: Class Notes and Lectures. Tehran: University of Tehran. [in Persian]
Katouzian, A. N. (1990). Testament in Iranian Civil Law. 2nd ed. Tehran: Yalda. [in Persian]
King Brett & Hammond Tyler & Harrington Jake (2017). Disruptive Technology: Economic Consequences of Artificial Intelligence and the Robotics Revolution. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability, 12(2), 53-67.
Kurki, V. (2019). a Theory of Legal Personhood. Oxford Academic, Chapter 6, 175-190.
Lawrence B Solum (1992) “Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences. North Carolina Law Review, 70.
List, C. (2021). Group Agency and Artificial Intelligence. Philosophy & Technology, 34, 1213-1242.
Mady, D. (2017). Report with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics. Committee on Legal Affairs. (2015/2103(INL)).
Mele Alfred (2001) “Autonomous Agents: From Self-Control to Autonomy, Oxford Uni Press.
Moein, M.(1981). Moein Persian Dictionary. Vol. 4. Tehran: Amirkabir. [in Persian]
Mohaghegh-Helli, Jaʿfar ibn al-Hasan. (1983). Sharāʾiʿ al-Islām. Vol. 2. Tehran: Esteqlal. [in Arabic]
Nakhjavani, A., & Yaghoubi, E. (2022).“egal Status of Transactions Executed by Artificial Intelligence: Virtual Attorney Theory. Economic and Commercial Law Research 1(1). https://ecocomlaw.sbu.ac.ir/article_103363.html. [in Persian]
Nakhjavani, A. (2022). Limitations of Digital Platforms under the EU Digital Markets Act. Legal Research. https://jlr.sdil.ac.ir/article_164158.html?lang=fa. [in Persian]
Negri, A. (2021). Robots as Legal Person: Electronic Personhood in Robotic and Artificial Intelligence. Front Robot and AI, (8), DOI:10.3389/frobt.2021.789327.
Nelson, J. (2023). Chat GPT Wrongly Accuses Law Professor of Sexual Assault. Decrypt, https://decrypt.co/125712/chatgpt-wrongly-accuses-law-professor-sexual-assault.
Novelli, C. (2022). Legal personhood for the Integration of AI Systems in the Social Context: A Study Hypothesis. AI Soc.
Parviainen, J., & Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). The Political Choreography of the Sophia Robot: Beyond Robot Rights and Citizenship to Political Performances for the Social Robotics Market. AI & SOCIETY, 36, P.p.715-724.
Pasban, M. (2022). Commercial Law: Legal Persons and Commercial Companies. Vol. 2. Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh, [in Persian]
Prodhan (2017). European Parliament Calls for Robot Law, Rejects Robot Tax.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (2021). Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (AI Act) and Amending Certain Union Legislative Acts. COM/2021/206 final. Brussels. Article 3 (Definitions), R1.
Rahbar, N., & Dehghanpour Farashah, S. (2021). A Comparative Study on the Basis of Civil Liability in Autonomous Vehicle Accidents. Comparative Law Review 12(2). https://jcl.ut.ac.ir/article_85233.html?lang=fa. [in Persian]
Raskulla, S. (2023). Hybrid Theory of Corporate Legal Personhood and Its Application to Artificial Intelligence. Springer Nature, (3), Article Num.78, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43545-023-00667-x.
Schirmbacher, M., & Rechtsanwälte, H. (2020). Insight on Public Policies to Ensure AI’s Beneficial Use as a Professional Tool. IBA Alternative & New Bus. Structures Committee.
Shahid Awwal (2015). Al-Lumʿa al-Dimashqiyya. Translated by Shirvani, Ali and Gharavian, Mohsen. Vol. 1. 53rd ed. Qom: Dar al-Fikr,. [in Arabic]
Sharifi, S. E., & Biryami, G. (2018). Legal Nature of Intelligent Agents in Electronic Contracts. Legal Research 17(33). https://jlr.sdil.ac.ir/article_65509.html. [in Persian]
Supreme Court of India, Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar V Shri Somnath, Dass AIR 2000 SC 1421.
Tabatabaei Yazdi, S. M. K. (2020). Supplements to Urwat al-Wuthqa. Vol. 2. Maktabat al-Dawari. (in Arabic)
Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 (New Zealand).
Tuhin Das Mahapatra (2023). AI-Controlled Drone Turns on Operator in a Shocking Simulated Test, Highlights Ethical Concerns. Hindustan Times, https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/aicontrolled-drone-turns-on-operator-in-a-shocking-simulated-test-highlights-ethical-concerns-101685673578548.html.
U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (2020). Staff Report on Algorithmic Trading in U.S. Capital Markets.
UNESCO (2023). AI and the Rule of Law: Capacity Building for Judicial Systems. Artificial Intelligence and the Rule of Law.
Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (2006).
University of Helsinki (2019). Can Artificial Intelligence Be Sued? Who Is Responsible When AI Makes the Decisions?. Yliopisto magazine, https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/economics/can-artificial-intelligence-be-sued-who-responsible-when-ai-makes-decisions.
Winshel, A. (2023). Authors File Complaint Against OpenAI for Copyright Infringement. Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law, Harvard Law School,https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jsel/2023/07/authors-file-complaint-against-openai-for-copyright-infringement/.
 
 
مطالعات حقوق خصوصی
دوره 55، شماره 2
مرداد 1404
صفحه 285-312

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار