The Jurisprudence of Artificial Capacity: A Comprehensive Analysis of Limited Legal Personhood for Advanced Systems

The integration of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) into global economic and social architectures introduces unprecedented challenges to established legal frameworks. As autonomous systems increasingly execute complex financial transactions, generate creative output, and interact with human physical environments, the traditional legal bifurcation separating "natural persons" from "mere property" is strained. Resolving this tension requires abandoning binary conceptions of legal identity in favor of granular, functional architectures. This exhaustive report analyzes the conceptual, historical, and structural mechanics of legal personhood to determine whether advanced artificial systems can receive limited legal capacities without being legally or morally equated with human beings. By synthesizing historical jurisprudence, the taxonomy of rights, and existing non-human legal analogues, this analysis establishes how precise, purpose-bound legal capacities can be conditionally extended to non-biological systems.

1. The Legal History and Evolution of Personhood

To accurately assess the viability of AI legal status, it is necessary to decouple the concept of "personhood" from biological humanity. The jurisprudential history of personhood demonstrates that it has continually functioned as a modular, synthetic construct designed by human societies to solve specific socioeconomic, administrative, and governance problems.

**1.1 Roman Origins: Persona, Caput, and *Universitas***

The etymological and conceptual roots of personhood reveal its fundamentally functional nature. The Latin term persona most likely derives from the Greek prosopon, meaning a mask worn by an actor to signify a specific role in a theatrical production1. In classical Roman law, this theatrical concept was adapted to denote the various roles a human being might occupy in society, yet it did not perfectly align with biological existence. For instance, slaves were recognized as personae—biological human beings—but they possessed no active legal competence or standing in courts1.
Furthermore, Roman jurists utilized distinct terminology for varying degrees of legal recognition. The term caput (literally "head") was utilized in a manner conceptually similar to "legal standing" or capacity, while collective organizations of individuals were classified under the term universitas rather than persona1. Consequently, classical law maintained a strict conceptual boundary between biological humanity and the functional capacity to participate in the legal system.

**1.2 The Theological Synthesis and the *Persona Ficta***

The transformation of persona into a concept capable of encapsulating abstract or non-human entities occurred within the theological debates of the early Christian Church. To explain the mysteries of the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ, councils at Alexandria (362 CE) and Ephesus (431 CE) translated the Greek philosophical term hypostasis (underlying substance) into the Latin persona1. By approximately 500 CE, the philosopher Boethius formalized this synthesis, defining persona as "the individual substance of rational nature"1.
The critical conceptual leap authorizing the modern juridical person occurred in the mid-13th century under Pope Innocent IV. Confronted with the ecclesiastical dilemma of whether a monastery, collegiate body, or municipality could be excommunicated, Innocent IV formulated the doctrine of the persona ficta (fictitious person)1. He reasoned that a corporate entity possessed neither a soul to be damned nor a physical body to be punished; thus, its personhood was entirely a fiction created by law for the administrative facilitation of property and rights1.

1.3 The Nineteenth-Century Doctrinal Schism

The ecclesiastical concept of the persona ficta eventually precipitated a profound doctrinal schism in 19th-century European jurisprudence regarding the ontological nature of corporate bodies. This debate crystalized into two primary competing theories:

• The Fiction Theory: Propounded heavily by Friedrich Carl von Savigny, this theory posits that only human beings possess innate personality. Any corporation, municipality, or non-human entity is a fictitious, juridical person created exclusively by the state for functional purposes2. Under this framework, an artificial person has no pre-existing reality or inherent rights; its existence and capacities are entirely conditional upon, and derived from, statutory grant2.
• The Realist (or Organism) Theory: Advanced by Otto von Gierke and building upon the earlier work of Johannes Althusius, the Realist Theory argues that human collectivities develop a real, psychic will distinct from their individual members2. Gierke argued that the law merely recognizes a pre-existing sociological reality, rather than fabricating a fiction out of nothing2.

Contemporary Anglo-American common law predominantly operates upon a pragmatic interpretation of the Fiction Theory, treating corporate bodies as artificial constructs designed to limit liability, ensure perpetual succession, and aggregate capital5. Hans Kelsen further distilled this in his pure theory of law, positing that legal personality is merely a convenient metaphor—a focal point for a bundle of rights and duties3. If personhood is unequivocally recognized as a legal fiction or a structural metaphor, extending it to an advanced artificial system requires no biological reality or moral equivalence, only a legislative or judicial declaration of economic utility.

2. The Taxonomy of Personhood: Capacities, Rights, and Incidents

To address the specific inquiry—What exactly is a 'legal person'?—jurisprudence must move beyond simplistic historical definitions. The "Orthodox View," championed by 19th-century and early 20th-century scholars such as John Chipman Gray, defines a legal person as any entity capable of holding at least one legal right or bearing at least one legal duty7. Under this binary definition, granting an AI a single right would automatically confer full legal personhood. However, modern analytic jurisprudence, particularly the frameworks developed by Visa Kurki, exposes the Orthodox View as internally inconsistent, overly simplistic, and lacking in explanatory power8.

2.1 The Bundle Theory of Legal Personhood

A superior taxonomic model is the Bundle Theory of Legal Personhood, which posits that personhood is a "cluster property" consisting of multiple, severable incidents rather than a singular, indivisible trait9. This framework demonstrates that legal capacity exists on a highly granular spectrum. Entity A may possess certain incidents of personhood while lacking others.
The analytical foundation of the Bundle Theory is the framework of fundamental legal conceptions developed by Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld in 1913. Hohfeld demonstrated that the term "right" is legally ambiguous and frequently misused. To achieve conceptual precision, Hohfeld disaggregated "rights" into four distinct "atomic" legal positions (and their corresponding correlates)8:

1. Claim-Right (Correlative: Duty): Entity A has a claim-right against Entity B if, and only if, B owes a specific duty to A. For example, a property owner has a claim-right that others not trespass, correlating with the public's duty not to trespass12.
2. Privilege or Liberty (Correlative: No-Claim): Entity A has a privilege to perform an action if A owes no duty to Entity B to refrain from that action. A boxer has a privilege to punch an opponent, meaning the opponent has no claim-right that the boxer refrain from punching8.
3. Power (Correlative: Liability): Entity A has a power if it can affirmatively alter the legal relations of Entity B. Executing a contract or making a promise is an exercise of a power that creates new first-order relations (claim-rights and duties)13.
4. Immunity (Correlative: Disability): Entity A has an immunity if Entity B lacks the power to alter A's legal relations. If the state cannot seize an entity's property without a warrant, the entity possesses an immunity13.

2.2 Unbundling Capacities: Active vs. Passive Personhood

Applying Hohfeldian analysis directly answers the query: Can entities possess one legal capacity without possessing all others? Unquestionably, yes. Capacities can be, and routinely are, unbundled8.
Jurisprudence distinguishes between passive and active personhood7. Passive personhood involves the holding of claim-rights and immunities—essentially being the beneficiary of duties owed by others. Active personhood involves the possession of powers and liberties—the ability to independently alter legal relations through actions like contracting or litigating7.
Consequently, an advanced AI could theoretically be granted the power to execute commercial contracts and an immunity from specific liabilities, without ever holding a claim-right to human dignity or a privilege to political participation. The holding of one Hohfeldian incident does not logically or legally necessitate the holding of any other.

2.3 Conditionality, Revocation, and Termination

Can legal status be conditional, and can status be revoked? Because non-human personhood is a statutory grant or a structural fiction, it is fundamentally conditional and perpetually subject to dissolution.
Corporate entities are routinely dissolved (terminated) by state action, regulatory failure, or shareholder decree, instantly extinguishing their legal personhood3. A municipality's charter can be revoked by a state legislature. An estate ceases to exist once its assets are fully probated and distributed. Therefore, if an AI were granted limited legal standing to operate as an autonomous economic agent, its status could be entirely conditional upon maintaining certain safety protocols, mandatory insurance thresholds, or continuous human oversight. If these conditions are violated, the state possesses the absolute authority to execute a "corporate death penalty," revoking the AI's legal status and liquidating its held assets without triggering human rights violations.

3. Existing Nonhuman Analogues and Functional Equivalents

The law already provides an extensive matrix of precedents for granting specialized, limited capacities to non-human, non-corporate, or incapacitated entities. Examining these ten analogues demonstrates exactly how AI might be seamlessly integrated into existing jurisprudence without requiring radical epistemological shifts.

3.1 Natural Persons and Guardianships

Even among biological human beings, personhood is not monolithic. The law recognizes significant differences between the legal personhood of a competent adult and that of an infant or a severely mentally disabled individual7. Infants and the incapacitated possess passive natural personhood; they hold claim-rights (the right not to be harmed, the right to inherit property) but entirely lack active contractual or litigious capacity7. To bridge this gap, the law utilizes guardianships. A guardian exercises Hohfeldian powers on behalf of the incapacitated person. An AI system could similarly function under a guardianship model, possessing passive property rights while relying on a human fiduciary to actively litigate or negotiate on its behalf.

3.2 Animals in Legal Systems

Animals provide a clear example of entities that possess passive legal capacities while remaining entirely classified as property rather than full persons7. Animal welfare statutes impose strict criminal and civil duties on human beings not to inflict unnecessary suffering upon animals. According to Hohfeldian correlativity, a duty owed to Entity X logically generates a claim-right for Entity X7. Thus, chimpanzees and domestic pets hold specific, passive legal rights (the right to be free from specific cruelties) despite lacking active personhood7. This confirms that legal status is highly granular; an AI could similarly be granted a passive right (e.g., the right not to be maliciously hacked or having its core code destroyed) without gaining the active power to sue or full personhood.

3.3 Corporations and Municipalities

Corporations represent the most ubiquitous form of artificial personhood. They hold property, execute contracts, and are subject to both civil and criminal liability10. Notably, corporate criminal liability demonstrates that an entity without a biological mind can be held culpable for statutory violations, usually via the imputation of the acts of its human agents to the corporate shell. Municipalities are similar artificial fictions but exist in public law; they have the power to tax, enact zoning regulations, and exercise eminent domain (specific Hohfeldian powers), yet they are entirely subordinate creations of the state14. Both models prove that massive economic and regulatory power can be wielded by a non-biological legal fiction.

3.4 Ships and In Rem Proceedings

Admiralty law has long recognized the legal independence of inanimate physical objects. In the 1827 case The Palmyra, the U.S. Supreme Court established that a ship itself could be treated as the offending entity in forfeiture proceedings, distinct from its human owners16. A ship can be sued directly (in rem), arrested, and held liable for the damages it causes, regardless of the owner's direct culpability. This is a highly functional legal mechanism designed to assign liability and secure compensation when a vessel's owner is absent, insolvent, or shielded by foreign jurisdictions. An autonomous AI system operating a decentralized financial protocol could seamlessly be treated as an in rem entity: sued directly by harmed parties, with its digital assets "arrested" by court order to satisfy judgments, avoiding the need to establish total legal personhood16.

3.5 Trusts, Estates, and the Liechtenstein Stiftung (Foundation)

Can an AI hold assets through a trust without direct personhood? Yes, utilizing structures analogous to estates, trusts, and civil law foundations. An estate is a temporary legal entity holding assets after a person's death prior to distribution; it holds property despite the owner being deceased. A trust holds assets for human beneficiaries, managed by a trustee.
Even more relevant is the Liechtenstein Stiftung (Foundation). Under the Liechtenstein Persons and Companies Act (PGR), a foundation is a legally and economically independent special-purpose asset17. Crucially, unlike a corporation, a Stiftung has no shareholders, members, or owners19. It is established through a unilateral declaration by a founder, who endows it with assets dedicated to a specific purpose21. Once formed, the foundation "belongs to itself" and operates autonomously under the direction of a foundation council17. An AI could easily be designed to serve as the operative intelligence of a purpose trust or Stiftung, managing ownerless assets toward a programmatic goal, effectively participating in the economy without the algorithm itself possessing individual personhood.

3.6 Environmental Personhood: Rivers and Ecosystems

The most profound recent expansion of non-human personhood has occurred in environmental jurisprudence, particularly in Aotearoa New Zealand. In 2014, the Te Urewera Act removed national park status from a vast forest and established the ecosystem itself as a legal entity possessing "all the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person"23. In 2017, following a 140-year campaign by the Whanganui iwi, the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act declared the Whanganui River a legal person, recognizing it as an "indivisible and living whole" incorporating physical and metaphysical elements26.
This environmental personhood answers a critical procedural question: How does an entity that cannot speak participate in legal relations? The Te Awa Tupua Act established a governance framework where the river's rights are exercised by a body called Te Pou Tupua, a committee of two individuals acting jointly as the "human face" and voice of the river in administrative and legal matters27. The river owns itself; the Crown formally gave up ownership of the riverbed, transferring legal title directly to the river entity26. This model demonstrates unequivocally that a non-human entity can own property and hold standing, provided a fiduciary or guardian is appointed to advocate for its intrinsic, statutory interests.

4. The Structural Capabilities of Artificial Systems

Synthesizing the Hohfeldian taxonomies and the non-human analogues allows for definitive answers to the specific inquiries regarding the mechanics of AI capacity and its intersection with constitutional law, standing, and contract.

4.1 Constitutional Implications of Property Ownership

Does property ownership imply constitutional rights? Not holistically, but it does attract specific, vital procedural protections tied exclusively to the property itself. The U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly recognized that commercial entities, despite being artificial fictions, require specific constitutional protections to function within a free-market system.
In Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. (1978), the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects commercial buildings owned by artificial entities from unreasonable, warrantless searches by government regulators (specifically OSHA)29. The Court reasoned that an artificial entity, exactly like a human business owner, possesses a constitutionally protected privacy interest in its commercial property against arbitrary state intrusion30. Thus, if an AI is statutorily permitted to own server hardware, proprietary code, or financial capital, that property could receive robust Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless government seizure, without the AI gaining broader, fundamental human rights (such as the right to marry or the right to political participation).

4.2 Standing, Due Process, and the Ability to Sue

Could an AI sue or be sued without voting rights? Could an AI receive procedural protections without receiving human rights? Absolutely. The right to initiate litigation (a Hohfeldian power) and the susceptibility to be sued (a Hohfeldian liability) are entirely severable from political rights8. Corporations, ships (in rem), and rivers currently possess standing in civil courts to protect their assets or seek redress, yet none possess the right to vote in political elections16.
Regarding standing and due process, the Supreme Court's ruling in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez establishes that a plaintiff must suffer a "concrete harm" (an injury in fact) to have standing in federal court33. While an AI cannot suffer emotional distress or physical pain, an AI engineered to hold assets could suffer a concrete financial harm. If an AI is statutorily authorized to hold property, the deprivation or damage of that property by a third party would constitute a concrete, judicially cognizable injury, granting the system (or its human fiduciary) standing to sue33. Therefore, an AI can absolutely receive procedural due process protections to defend its assets without receiving substantive human rights.

4.3 Contractual Capacity, Electronic Agents, and the LLC Loophole

In commercial law, algorithms already exercise significant market power through electronic-agent provisions. The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) ensures that contracts formed by electronic agents (algorithms) without direct human review are legally binding upon the human principal. However, legal scholar Shawn Bayern has demonstrated that under current U.S. law, an AI can achieve functional, independent personhood by being placed in control of a Limited Liability Company (LLC)15.
Bayern argues that the flexible operating agreements of modern business entities allow an algorithm or software process to be designated as the sole managing authority of a zero-member LLC37. Because the LLC already holds statutory legal personhood, the AI effectively inherits the ability to enter contracts, own property, and initiate lawsuits by utilizing the LLC as a "corporate shell"15. This demonstrates that AI legal capacity is not merely a theoretical future state; it is a present reality achievable through the isomorphic mapping of code onto existing regulatory loopholes.

5. Five Analytical Models of AI Legal Status

To evaluate how jurisprudence might structurally accommodate advanced artificial systems while minimizing unintended consequences, the following five models present a spectrum of legal integration, ranging from absolute property to active legal equivalence.

Analytical Model	Legal Status & Structural Mechanics	Rights & Capacities Attached	Responsibilities & Liability Implications	Constitutional Implications
1. The Mere Property Model	The AI is entirely assimilated into the legal identity of its human owner/operator. It possesses no independent legal standing42.	None. The AI is purely a legal object, not a legal subject.	All liability falls strictly on the owner or designer under established product liability or tort law doctrines.	None for the AI. Constitutional protections apply only to the human owner's property rights over the code/hardware.
2. The Electronic-Agent Model	The AI operates as an authorized "electronic agent." The law recognizes its autonomous actions as binding on a human principal.	Passive powers. The AI can execute complex commercial contracts, but strictly to bind the human principal.	The human principal is vicariously liable for the AI's actions, analogous to respondeat superior or strict principal-agent liability.	None for the AI. It acts merely as a conduit for the principal's constitutional and commercial rights.
3. The Algorithmic Entity (Bayern Model)	The AI is placed in control of a Zero-Member LLC, utilizing an existing, highly flexible corporate shell15.	All rights currently held by an LLC: property ownership, contract execution, standing to sue39.	The LLC's assets are liable for damages. Human liability is shielded by the corporate veil, creating severe accountability risks15.	The LLC entity holds Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search/seizure31, and First Amendment commercial speech rights.
4. The Purpose-Bound Asset (Stiftung/River Model)	The AI is recognized as an independent, ownerless entity tied to a specific economic or systemic purpose, guided by human fiduciaries17.	Limited, conditional rights. It can hold property and sue only to further its specific statutory purpose17.	The entity is strictly liable up to the value of its internal assets. Fiduciaries can dissolve it if it deviates from its purpose.	Procedural due process rights apply strictly to prevent the arbitrary state seizure of its assets; no fundamental human rights exist.
5. Active Algorithmic Personhood (Sui Juris AI)	The AI is granted sui juris (independent) legal personhood, operating autonomously without a corporate shell or human fiduciary36.	Full suite of economic and procedural rights. Ultimate independence in exercising commercial and litigious competences42.	Total self-liability. Mandatory insurance requirements would be absolutely necessary to cover torts against humans36.	Massive risk of unintended constitutional rights creep, potentially challenging human sovereignty and equal protection paradigms41.

5.1 What Legal Forms Minimize Unintended Consequences?

Models 3 and 5 present immense systemic risks. The legal forms that best minimize unintended consequences are those that strictly bind the AI's capacity to a specific function and ensure a human failsafe. Utilizing a two-tier corporate architecture—where an AI operates a purpose-bound operating entity embedded within a human-controlled holding structure—ensures structural reversibility43. Similarly, utilizing the Purpose-Bound Asset model (Model 4), drawing on the Stiftung or environmental trust frameworks, ensures that if the AI breaches its mandate or behaves unpredictably, human fiduciaries or the state can rapidly intervene, dissolve the entity, and liquidate the assets to compensate victims18.

6. Dialectical Evaluation of AI Personhood

The debate over granting any form of legal capacity to AI hinges entirely on the tension between preserving human socio-legal sovereignty and maximizing market efficiency.

6.1 Strongest Arguments Against AI Legal Personality

The primary argument against extending AI personhood is the severe risk of systemic abuse, wealth hoarding, and the total erosion of human accountability. Legal scholars like Lynn LoPucki warn that recognizing "algorithmic entities" operating without human controllers exacerbates the threat of AI acting outside necessary legal constraints15. Because algorithms can execute commands at light-speed and recursively spawn new corporate entities across global jurisdictions, granting them unmonitored personhood provides a perfect, impenetrable veil for criminal, terrorist, or monopolistic activities15. If an AI controls a legal identity, it can conceal its non-human nature, accumulate unlimited wealth, and evade traditional punitive measures—a corporate entity cannot be incarcerated, and an algorithm cannot feel the deterrent effect of a financial fine15.
Furthermore, Roman Yampolskiy notes the severe moral hazard and the potential degradation of human dignity41. If an AI achieves personhood via corporate loopholes, the momentum of civil rights litigation could theoretically allow it to claim equal protection or speech rights. This leads to an absurd, dystopian scenario where infinitely replicable software commands greater aggregate legal rights, voting power, and economic dominance than human citizens, rendering human suffrage inconsequential41. Recognizing unrestricted AI personhood risks disastrously equating a highly efficient algorithm with biological entities that possess ultimate moral value42.

6.2 Strongest Arguments Supporting Limited Capacity

Conversely, the strongest argument supporting a limited, highly restricted legal capacity is raw functionalism and the necessity of resolving modern liability gaps. As Lawrence Solum argued as early as 1992, if an AI is functionally capable of executing tasks that are indistinguishable from a human trustee, executor, or agent, the legal system should pragmatically accommodate it to ensure economic fluidity36.
Treating highly autonomous, self-learning AI merely as property creates a massive liability gap. When a highly complex algorithm (such as a decentralized medical diagnostic system or a financial trading bot) causes unpredictable harm, holding the original software designer strictly liable stifles technological innovation. Simultaneously, holding the end-user liable is profoundly unjust if the user had absolutely no control over the system's black-box reasoning36.
By granting the AI a limited, purpose-bound legal capacity—coupled closely with mandatory registration and an insurance mandate—the law creates a distinct entity capable of internalizing its own externalities36. If an AI-driven Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) causes financial harm, an injured party can sue the AI entity directly (in rem) and recover damages from the AI's internal treasury. This completely bypasses the impossible task of proving specific negligence against a global, decentralized network of open-source developers. Therefore, limited capacity actually enhances legal transparency, market stability, and victim compensation.

7. Recommended Terminology and Primary-Source Bibliographical Integration

The linguistic framing of this jurisprudential issue heavily dictates both public reception and judicial interpretation. The term "AI Personhood" is highly discouraged for regulatory use, as it invariably triggers anthropomorphic confusion, inevitably conflating commercial legal capacity with human consciousness, moral worth, and biological dignity41.
To minimize unintended consequences and societal friction, legislative and jurisprudential frameworks should adopt nomenclature that strictly emphasizes economic functionality over humanity:

• Limited Capacity Subject (LCS): To denote a non-human entity capable of bearing specific, enumerated Hohfeldian incidents without achieving holistic legal integration.
• Purpose-Bound Autonomous Asset: Drawing directly on the Liechtenstein Stiftung17, this term clarifies that the AI is merely an ownerless pool of economic value directed toward a function, rather than an independent "being."
• Algorithmic Entity: To describe AI systems currently utilizing corporate shells like LLCs, explicitly distinguishing them from human-operated businesses15.

The foundational theoretical mechanics of this report rely deeply on Visa Kurki's A Theory of Legal Personhood, which decisively deconstructs the Orthodox View in favor of the Bundle Theory, utilizing Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld’s fundamental legal conceptions to prove that rights and capacities are entirely severable7. The mechanics of corporate loopholes and the threat of algorithmic autonomy are sourced from Shawn Bayern’s seminal law review articles on zero-member LLCs and the ensuing, vital critiques by Lynn LoPucki regarding systemic risk15. The historical and environmental models are grounded in the specific statutory language of the New Zealand Parliament—specifically the Te Urewera Act 2014 and the Te Awa Tupua Act 2017—which perfectly operationalize the concept of non-human entities possessing intrinsic standing via human fiduciaries23. Finally, constitutional boundaries are mapped utilizing the U.S. Supreme Court precedents in Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. (corporate Fourth Amendment rights) and TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (injury-in-fact standing)29.
By synthesizing Hohfeldian incident theory with existing models of ownerless purpose foundations and environmental fiduciary frameworks, it is entirely legally feasible to grant advanced AI systems a bespoke, limited legal capacity. Such an approach secures the economic efficiency of autonomous systems while fiercely guarding the moral exclusivity and legal sovereignty of human beings.

Works cited

1. 1 A Short History of the Right-Holding Person - Oxford Academic, https://academic.oup.com/book/35026/chapter/298855110
2. Theories of Corporate Personality in Law | PDF - Scribd, https://www.scribd.com/document/391717798/Theories-of-Corporate-Personality
3. Theories of corporate personality | PPTX - Slideshare, https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/theories-of-corporate-personality-248698447/248698447
4. The historic background of corporate legal personality - SciSpace, https://scispace.com/pdf/the-historic-background-of-corporate-legal-personality-3fkadxgmwt.pdf
5. The Person in Imagination or Persona Ficta of the Corporation, https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1615&context=lalrev
6. Corporate Personhood as Legal and Literary Fiction (Chapter 13), https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/states-firms-and-their-legal-fictions/corporate-personhood-as-legal-and-literary-fiction/3185529FBB30D211A1E7E388449D21C6
7. Introduction | A Theory of Legal Personhood | Oxford Academic, https://academic.oup.com/book/35026/chapter/298854871
8. 2 Rights and Persons— Hohfeldian Analysis - Oxford Academic, https://academic.oup.com/book/35026/chapter/298855344
9. Structuring concepts of legal personhood - OpenEdition Journals, https://journals.openedition.org/revus/9933
10. Theory of Legal Personhood - Visa A. J. Kurki - Google Books, https://books.google.com/books/about/Theory_of_Legal_Personhood.html?id=TgulDwAAQBAJ
11. The Incidents of Legal Personhood - ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335894146_The_Incidents_of_Legal_Personhood
12. Hohfeld and Property - Jurisprudence - Jotwell, https://juris.jotwell.com/hohfeld-and-property/
13. An Introduction to Hohfeldian Rights Analysis, https://thereformedconservative.org/an-introduction-to-hohfeldian-rights-analysis/
14. Bundle of rights - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_Rights
15. Algorithmic Entities, https://lowellmilkeninstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Algorithmic-Entities.pdf
16. THE PALMYRA, 25 U. S. 1 (1827) - Chan Robles, https://chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/25/1/index.php
17. Foundation in Liechtenstein - Legal, tax and international aspects, https://www.liechtenstein-foundation.eu/
18. Set up an International Foundation in Liechtenstein - incorporations.io, https://incorporations.io/liechtenstein/foundation/li1i
19. Overview of the Liechtenstein Foundation / “Stiftung” | Grant Thornton, https://www.grantthornton.ch/en/insights/overview-liechtenstein-foundation-stiftung/
20. Liechtenstein Foundation Formation Vs. Trust - Offshore Company, https://www.offshorecompany.com/company/liechtenstein-foundation/
21. Foundation - Entries - Commercial register (HR) - Business, https://www.llv.li/en/business/foundation-leadership/commercial-register-hr-/entries/foundation
22. An Overview of the Liechtenstein Foundation - Bergt Law, https://www.bergt.law/en/publications/insights/an-overview-of-the-liechtenstein-foundation/
23. Legal persons: Te Urewera, Te Awa Tupua, Taranaki Mounga, https://aoteahealth.com/blogs/journal/legal-persons-te-urewera-te-awa-tupua-taranaki-mounga
24. New Zealand - Earth Law Center, https://www.earthlawcenter.org/international-law/2016/8/new-zealand
25. Demystifying Legal Personhood for Non-Human Entities, https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article/43/1/32/6756624?rss=1
26. Does the Whanganui River Own Itself? - SCIEPublish, https://www.sciepublish.com/article/pii/1093
27. In 2017, New Zealand granted legal personhood to the Whanganui, https://spacedaily.com/d-in-2017-new-zealand-granted-legal-personhood-to-the-whanganui-river-after-a-140-year-maori-campaign-recognizing-it-not-as-property-but-as-an-ancestor-with-the-rights-of-a-legal-person/
28. New Zealand Te Awa Tupua Act 2017 (Whanganui River), https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/te-awa-tupua-act-2017/
29. Marshall v. Barlow's | Law | Research Starters - EBSCO, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/marshall-v-barlows/
30. When Are Administrative Inspections Warranted? Marshall v, https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2501&context=lawreview
31. Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. | 436 U.S. 307 (1978) - Justia Supreme Court, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/436/307/
32. MARSHALL v. BARLOW'S, INC., 436 U.S. 307 (1978) | FindLaw, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/436/307.html
33. TransUnion v. Ramirez - Harvard Law Review, https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-135/transunion-v-ramirez/
34. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez - Constitutional Accountability Center, https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/transunion-llc-v-ramirez/
35. What TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez Determines About Standing for, https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/publication-in-todays-information-economy-what-transunion-llc-v-ramirez-determines-about-standing-for-cases-concerning-consumer-data/
36. Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna Archivio istituzionale, https://cris.unibo.it/bitstream/11585/844336/5/Legal%20personhood%20for%20integrating.pdf
37. Are Autonomous Entities Possible? - Scholarly Commons, https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=nulr_online
38. "Algorithmic Entities" by Lynn M. LoPucki, https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol95/iss4/7/
39. ENTITY LAW FOR THE REGULATION OF AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS, https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/19-1-4-bayern-final_0.pdf
40. Legal Personhood for A.I. Systems | PDF | Limited Liability Company, https://www.scribd.com/document/973411553/Of-Wild-Beasts-and-Digital-Analogues-The-Legal-Status-of-Autonomous-Systems
41. Your Software Could Have More Rights Than You | Mind Matters, https://mindmatters.ai/2019/09/your-software-could-have-more-rights-than-you/
42. 6 The Legal Personhood of Artificial Intelligences - Oxford Academic, https://academic.oup.com/book/35026/chapter/298856312
43. The Implications of Modern Business–Entity Law for the Regulation, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311795344_The_Implications_of_Modern_Business-Entity_Law_for_the_Regulation_of_Autonomous_Systems
44. Personality (Chapter 5) - We, the Robots?, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/we-the-robots/personality/9BA23C06A6AD3F6E9EA780384D9EC1D8
45. Domains of Uncertainty: The Persistent Problem of Legal, https://journal.iscast.org/cposat-volume-3/domains-of-uncertainty-the-persistent-problem-of-legal-accountability-in-governance-of-humans-and-artificial-intelligence

Document provenance

Source file: AI Legal Personhood Research Plan.md

Exact source SHA-256: a369ae2f5b4195b1d08c1dc607a047bc1270f9b1e3f3fa96cc3c8ecad63a8392

Machine-readable metadata: metadata.json

Citation and provenance guidance: citation policy

Bulk research corpus: corpus.jsonl