Hubbry Logo
Legal personLegal personMain
Open search
Legal person
Community hub
Legal person
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Legal person
Legal person
Legal person
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Business administration
Accounting
Business entity (list)
Corporate governance
Corporate law
Corporate title
Economics
Finance
Types of management
Organization
Trade

In law, a legal person is any person or legal entity that can do the things a human person is usually able to do in law – such as enter into contracts, sue and be sued, own property, and so on.[1][2][3][4][5] The reason for the term "legal person" is that some legal persons are not human persons: companies and corporations (i.e., business entities) are persons, legally speaking (they can legally do most of the things an ordinary person can do), but they are not, in a literal sense, human beings.

Legal personhood is a prerequisite to legal capacity (the ability of any legal person to amend – i.e. enter into, transfer, etc. – rights and obligations): it is a prerequisite for an international organization being able to sign international treaties in its own name.

History

[edit]

The concept of legal personhood for organizations of people is at least as old as Ancient Rome: a variety of collegial institutions enjoyed the benefit under Roman law.

The doctrine has been attributed to Pope Innocent IV, who seems at least to have helped spread the idea of persona ficta as it is called in Latin. In canon law, the doctrine of persona ficta allowed monasteries to have a legal existence that was apart from the monks, simplifying the difficulty in balancing the need for such groups to have infrastructure though the monks took vows of personal poverty. Another effect of this was that, as a fictional person, a monastery could not be held guilty of delict due to not having a soul, helping to protect the organization from non-contractual obligations to surrounding communities. This effectively moved such liability to persons acting within the organization while protecting the structure itself, since persons were considered to have a soul and therefore capable of negligence and able to be excommunicated.[6]

In the common law tradition, only a person could possess legal rights. To allow them to function, the legal personality of a corporation was established to include five legal rights—the right to a common treasury or chest (including the right to own property), the right to a corporate seal (i.e., the right to make and sign contracts), the right to sue and be sued (to enforce contracts), the right to hire agents (employees) and the right to make by-laws (self-governance).[7]

Since the 19th century, legal personhood has been further construed to make it a citizen, resident, or domiciliary of a state (usually for purposes of personal jurisdiction). In Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844), the U.S. Supreme Court held that for the purposes of the case at hand, a corporation is "capable of being treated as a citizen of [the State which created it], as much as a natural person." Ten years later, they reaffirmed the result of Letson, though on the somewhat different theory that "those who use the corporate name, and exercise the faculties conferred by it," should be presumed conclusively to be citizens of the corporation's State of incorporation. Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 16 How. 314, 329, 14 L.Ed. 953 (1854). These concepts have been codified by statute, as U.S. jurisdictional statutes specifically address the domicile of corporations.

Forms

[edit]

There are two kinds of legal persons: human and non-human. In law, a human person is called a natural person (sometimes also a physical person), and a non-human person is called a juridical person (sometimes also a juridic, juristic, artificial, legal, or fictitious person, Latin: persona ficta).

Juridical persons are entities such as corporations, firms (in some jurisdictions), and many government agencies. For most purposes they are treated in law as if they were human persons.[2][8][9]

While natural persons acquire legal personality simply by being born, juridical persons must have legal personality conferred on them by a legal process and, for this reason, they are sometimes called "artificial" persons. In the most common case (incorporating a business), legal personality is usually acquired by registration with a government agency set up for the purpose. In other cases, legal personhood may result from legislation, such as the manner in which the Charity Commission was created in the UK.[10]

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 16 advocates for the provision of legal identity for all natural persons, including birth registration by 2030 as part of the 2030 Agenda.[11]

Juridical persons

[edit]
Main articles: Juridical person and Corporate personhood

Artificial personality, juridical personality, or juristic personality is the characteristic of a non-living entity regarded by law as having the status of personhood.

A juridical or artificial person (Latin: persona ficta; also juristic person) has a legal name and has certain rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and liabilities in law, similar to those of a natural person. The concept of a juridical person is a fundamental legal fiction. It is pertinent to the philosophy of law, as it is essential to laws affecting a corporation (corporations law).

Juridical personhood allows one or more natural persons (universitas personarum) to act as a single entity (body corporate) for legal purposes. In many jurisdictions, artificial personality allows that entity to be considered under law separately from its individual members (for example in a company limited by shares, its shareholders). They may sue and be sued, enter into contracts, incur debt, and own property. Entities with legal personality may also be subjected to certain legal obligations, such as the payment of taxes. An entity with legal personality may shield its members from personal liability.

In some common law jurisdictions a distinction is drawn between corporation aggregate (such as a company, which is composed of a number of members) and a corporation sole, which is a public office of legal personality separated from the individual holding the office (these entities have separate legal personality).[12] Historically most corporations sole were ecclesiastical in nature (for example, the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury is a corporation sole), but a number of other public offices are now formed as corporations sole.

The concept of juridical personality is not absolute. "Piercing the corporate veil" refers to looking at the individual natural persons acting as agents involved in a company action or decision; this may result in a legal decision in which the rights or duties of a corporation or public limited company are treated as the rights or liabilities of that corporation's members or directors.

The concept of a juridical person is now central to Western law in both common-law and civil-law countries, but it is also found in virtually every other legal system.[8]

Examples

[edit]

Some examples of juridical persons include:

Not all organizations have legal personality. For example, the board of directors of a corporation, legislature, or governmental agency typically are not legal persons in that they have no ability to exercise legal rights independent of the corporation or political body which they are a part of.

Worldwide

[edit]

India

[edit]

Indian law defines two types of "legal person", the human beings as well as certain non-human entities which are given the same legal judicial personality as human beings. The non-human entities given the "legal person" status by the law "have rights and co-relative duties; they can sue and be sued, can possess and transfer property". Since these non-human entities are "voiceless" they are legally represented "through guardians and representatives" to claim their legal rights and to fulfill their legal duties and responsibilities. Specific non-human entities given the status of "legal person" include "corporate personality, body politic, charitable unions etc," as well as trust estates, deities, temples, churches, mosques, hospitals, universities, colleges, banks, railways, municipalities, and gram panchayats (village councils), rivers, all animals and birds.[20]

Corporates and trusts

[edit]

In court cases regarding corporates, the shareholders are not responsible for the company's debts but the company itself being a "legal person" is liable to repay those debts or be sued for the non-repayment of debts.[20]

Animal kingdom

[edit]

In court cases regarding animals, the animals have the status of "legal person" and humans have the legal duty to act as "loco parentis" towards animals welfare like a parent has towards the minor children. A court while deciding the "Animal Welfare Board of India vs Nagaraja" case in 2014 mandated that animals are also entitled to the fundamental right to freedom[21] enshrined in the Article 21 of Constitution of India i.e. right to life, personal liberty and the right to die with dignity (passive euthanasia). In another case, a court in Uttarakhand state mandated that animals have the same rights as humans. In another case of cow-smuggling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court mandated that "entire animal kingdom including avian and aquatic" species has a "distinct legal persona with corresponding rights, duties, and liabilities of a living person" and humans are "loco parentis" while laying out the norms for animal welfare, veterinary treatment, fodder and shelter, e.g. animal drawn carriages must not have more than four humans, and load carrying animals must not be loaded beyond the specified limits and those limits must be halved when animals have to carry the load up a slope.[20]

Religious deities

[edit]
See also: Hindu law

In court cases regarding religious entities, the deity (deity or god is a supernatural being considered divine or sacred) is also a "legal person" who can engage in legal cases through "trustees" or "managing board in charge of the temple". The Supreme Court of India (SC), while deciding the Ayodhya case of Ram Janmabhoomi, decided in 2010 that the deity Rama in the specific temple was a "legal entity" entitled to be represented by their own lawyer appointed by the trustees acting on behalf of the deity. Similarly, in 2018 the SC decided that the deity Ayyappan is a "legal person" with "the right to privacy" in the court case regarding the entry of women to Sabarimala shrine of Lord Ayyapan.[20]

Shebaitship
[edit]

Under the Indian law, the "shebaitship" is the property owned by the deity or idol as a "legal person". Humans appointed to act on behalf of deity are called the "shebait". A shebait acts as the guardian or custodian of deity to protect the right of deity and fulfill the legal duties of the deity. Shebait is similar to a trustee in case the deity or temple does have a legally registered trust or entity. Under the Hindu Law property gifted or offered as rituals or donations, etc absolutely belongs to the deity and not to the shebait. Case example are "Profulla Chrone Requitte vs Satya Chorone Requitte, AIR 1979 SC 1682 (1686): (1979) 3 SCC 409: (1979) 3 SCR 431. (ii)" and "Shambhu Charan Shukla vs Thakur Ladli Radha Chandra Madan Gopalji Maharaj, AIR 1985 SC 905 (909): (1985) 2 SCC 524: (1985) 3 SCR 372".[22]

Natural entities such as rivers

[edit]

India and New Zealand both recognised the legal rights of rivers in 2017.[23] In court cases regarding natural entities, the Uttarakhand High Court, mandated that the river Ganges and Yamuna as well as all water bodies are "living entities" i.e. "legal person" and appointed three humans as trustees to protect the rights of rivers against the pollution caused by the humans, e.g. "pilgrims's bathing rituals".[20] The Supreme Court of India overturned the decision of the High Court of Uttarakhand in July 2017.

New Zealand

[edit]

Section 29 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 provides: "... the provisions of this Bill of Rights apply, so far as practicable, for the benefit of all legal persons as well as for the benefit of all natural persons."

United States

[edit]

In part based on the principle that legal persons are simply natural persons and their organizations, and in part based on the history of statutory interpretation of the word "person", the US Supreme Court has repeatedly held that certain constitutional rights protect legal persons (such as corporations and other organizations). Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad is sometimes cited for this finding because the court reporter's comments included a statement the Chief Justice made before oral arguments began, telling the attorneys during pre-trial that "the court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

Later opinions interpreted these pre-argument comments as part of the legal decision.[24] As a result, because of the First Amendment, Congress may not make a law restricting the free speech of a corporation or a political action group or dictating the coverage of a local newspaper,[25] and because of the Due Process Clause, a state government may not take the property of a corporation without using due process of law and providing just compensation. These protections apply to all legal entities, not just corporations.

A prominent component of relevant case law is the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled unconstitutional certain restrictions on corporate campaign spending during elections.[26]

Case law

[edit]
  • In U.S. v. The Cooper Corp., (1941) the court held that the United States government, as a juristic person, could sue under the Sherman Act. Section 7 of the act granted the right to sue only to persons. The corporate defendant, which was accused of illegally conspiring and colluding to raise prices on tires, argued that the U.S. government did not have power to enforce the act because the government was not a person. The court held that the term "person" includes the U.S. Government, and allowed the action against the collusive corporations to continue.
  • In Cook County v. U.S. ex rel Chandler, (2003) the county was accused of violating a law which forbids "any person" from falsely obtaining research funds from the government. The county received a $5 million grant, but used it to conduct inappropriate tests on human subjects. The county argued that it could not be held liable because it was not a person. The court held that the county could be sued under the law as a legal person.
  • In Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, (1993) the court declined to extend certain rights to legal persons. The association of prisoners sought to proceed in forma pauperis. The court held that the right to sue in forma pauperis existed only for natural persons, not legal persons.

Other significant cases include:

[edit]

In Act II, Scene 1 of Gilbert and Sullivan's 1889 opera, The Gondoliers, Giuseppe Palmieri (who serves, jointly with his brother Marco, as King of Barataria) requests that he and his brother be also recognized individually so that they might each receive individual portions of food as they have "two independent appetites". He is, however, turned down by the Court (made up of fellow Gondolieri) because the joint rule "... is a legal person, and legal person are solemn things."

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Legal person

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A legal person is any entity—natural or artificial—that recognizes as capable of bearing and duties, entering contracts, owning , and engaging in litigation. This encompasses natural persons, who are individual human beings with inherent legal capacity from birth or conception depending on , and juridical persons such as corporations, partnerships, trusts, and governmental entities created by statute or . Juridical persons derive their personality not from biological existence but from legal attribution, serving as fictions to enable , limit liability, and ensure independent of human founders or members. The doctrine facilitates economic organization by allowing non-human aggregates to function autonomously in commerce and society, though their rights remain derivative and bounded by the creating authority, contrasting with the fuller autonomy presumed for natural persons. Key characteristics include separate legal identity, which shields participants from personal liability for entity debts, and capacity for where the entity bears responsibility for agents' acts within scope. Controversies arise over the scope of rights extended to juridical persons, such as political speech or religious freedoms, with courts balancing facilitation of enterprise against risks of or moral hazards in attributing human-like attributes to inanimate constructs.

History

Ancient and Roman Origins

The concept of legal personhood traces its earliest systematic roots to Roman law, where jurists distinguished between natural persons and collective entities capable of limited legal actions, though without a generalized theory of abstract juristic personality. In the Institutes of Gaius, composed around 161 CE, Roman law was categorized into three divisions: persons (personae), things (res), and actions (actiones), establishing persons as subjects of rights and duties distinct from mere objects of ownership. This framework, later incorporated into Justinian's Corpus Iuris Civilis in the 6th century CE, treated free humans as primary legal persons based on status (caput), such as citizens versus slaves, but extended rudimentary capacities to groups via state authorization rather than inherent fiction. Roman collegia—voluntary associations formed during the Republic (509–27 BCE) for purposes including trade guilds, burial clubs, religious cults, and mutual aid—represented an early form of collective legal agency. These entities, requiring explicit imperial or senatorial approval to operate legally (collegia legitima), could acquire and hold property, collect membership dues, enter contracts, and initiate or defend lawsuits as a unified body (corpus), separate from individual members' liabilities. For instance, collegia fabrum (builders' guilds) managed communal funds and assets, demonstrating practical separation of group patrimony from personal estates, though dissolution by the state (e.g., under emperors like Claudius in 48 CE for political reasons) underscored their conditional status under public law. Further precursors included universitas, a term denoting aggregates treated as single units for legal purposes, such as universitas personarum (a of persons, like municipalities or partnerships) or universitas bonorum (a body of goods, as in successions). Municipalities (municipia), incorporated by from the late onward, owned public lands, slaves, and revenues independently, acting in litigation through magistrates rather than dissolving upon member changes. The societas publicanorum, tax-farming consortia active from the BCE, pooled capital for state contracts, with shared liability limited to contributions, hinting at proto-corporate features, though Roman doctrine emphasized state-granted personality over autonomous fiction. These mechanisms, instrumental rather than theoretical, prioritized public oversight to prevent , reflecting causal priorities of stability over expansive private autonomy. Pre-Roman ancient civilizations, such as those in or , developed contractual and property norms but lacked evidence of distinct juridical entities with or separate patrimony; temple administrations or city-states operated through rulers or assemblies without formalized group personhood. Thus, Rome's innovations, preserved in the Digest of Justinian (533 CE), provided the empirical foundation influencing later European conceptions, albeit constrained by the absence of perpetual existence independent of sovereign grant.

Medieval Developments

The revival of Roman law in the 11th century, spearheaded by scholars at the such as Irnerius, facilitated the application of concepts from Justinian's Digest (compiled in 533 AD) to medieval collective entities, laying groundwork for recognizing groups as enduring legal units separate from their members. This synthesis with , notably Gratian's Decretum (circa 1140), treated ecclesiastical bodies like monasteries and cathedrals as capable of holding property, entering contracts, and maintaining independent of individual membership changes. A pivotal advancement occurred in the 13th century under (papacy 1243–1254), who in his Apparatus super libros Decretalium articulated the doctrine of the as a persona ficta—a fictitious imagined by law as a single entity for collective purposes. He posited that "cum collegium in causa universitatis fingatur una a," enabling such entities to act juridically while distinguishing collegia personalia (based on members) from collegia realia (focused on assets), though requiring or papal consent for formation. This framework exempted corporations from certain personal sanctions like , applying primarily to Church institutions but extending to universities, such as the , formally recognized as a by 1200 with to autonomy and asset management. By the late 13th to 14th centuries, this theory influenced secular applications, including craft guilds in regions like and , which gained legal personality to regulate trades, own communal , and sue or be sued as unified bodies, reflecting a shift toward institutional endurance over transient individuals. Cities and communes also adopted corporate forms for , treating urban collectives as fictitious persons with rights to perpetual existence and fiscal independence, though commercial ventures like partnerships remained distinct and typically lacked full personhood until later adaptations. These developments emphasized oversight, with the corporation's personality viewed as a concession from authority rather than inherent, prioritizing communal utility over individual autonomy.

Modern Evolution

In the early 19th century, legislative reforms in the facilitated the modern corporate form by enabling general registration of joint-stock companies, decoupling legal personality from royal charters or specific acts of . The Joint Stock Companies Act 1844 introduced provisional registration, while the 1855 and 1856 Acts established and simplified incorporation, treating companies as distinct entities capable of owning and incurring debts independently of shareholders. This evolution reflected pragmatic responses to industrial demands for capital aggregation, prioritizing over earlier concession-based theories of personality granted solely by state fiat. The landmark case of Salomon v. A Salomon & Co Ltd AC 22 solidified this separation in English , ruling that a company incorporated under the 1862 Act was a separate legal person from its sole and director, even in cases of single-member ownership, thereby shielding personal assets from corporate liabilities. This decision entrenched the "company as a separate entity" , influencing global jurisdictions and enabling scalable business structures essential for industrialization, though critics argued it artificially extended beyond natural aggregates. In the United States, judicial interpretations progressively expanded under constitutional protections. The in Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) upheld corporate charters as inviolable contracts, affirming corporations' status as artificial entities with perpetual rights akin to individuals. Subsequent rulings, such as Bank of Augusta v. Earle (1839), permitted interstate by recognizing corporations' capacity to act as unified persons across borders. The influential Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) extended Fourteenth Amendment equal protection to corporations by treating them as "persons" for purposes, a rooted in practical necessity for rather than metaphysical equivalence to humans. Twentieth-century developments further refined juridical personality, incorporating statutory expansions and international harmonization. General incorporation statutes proliferated in U.S. states like (1875) and (1899), standardizing and , which fueled corporate dominance in the economy. In civil law systems, codes like Germany's Handelsgesetzbuch (1897) codified similar attributes for Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung () entities. Post-World War II, treaties such as the (1950) implicitly accommodated corporate rights to fair trials and property, while debates intensified over boundaries, as seen in restrictions on extending full constitutional liberties to avoid conflating economic actors with natural persons. These evolutions prioritized causal mechanisms of liability limitation and contract enforcement to support market realism, notwithstanding philosophical critiques of the fiction's scope.

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Distinctions

A legal person, also termed a juridical or artificial person, is an entity recognized by law as possessing the capacity for rights and duties, enabling it to enter contracts, own property, sue, and be sued in its own name. This capacity is attributed by legal fiction or concession, distinguishing such entities from natural persons, who are human beings inherently endowed with personality upon live birth. In civil law traditions, like Louisiana's, a juridical person explicitly includes organizations such as corporations or partnerships to which personality is imputed, separate from the individuals composing them. The primary distinction lies in origin and attributes: natural persons derive personality from biological existence, commencing at birth and ending at death, with inherent faculties like agency and intent. Legal persons, conversely, emerge through deliberate legal creation, such as statutory incorporation, lacking autonomous will or physicality and thus requiring human agents to manifest actions. This imputed personality facilitates collective endeavors but imposes limitations, such as only upon dissolution rather than natural demise, and restricted excluding political participation like voting. Further differentiation arises in liability and scope: natural persons face unlimited personal responsibility for obligations, bounded by human lifespan, whereas legal persons often enjoy shielding members' assets, with existence potentially indefinite unless legally terminated. Jurisprudential views, such as those emphasizing rights-bearing capacity, underscore that both types share core legal competencies, yet artificial entities' status remains a construct for pragmatic rather than ontological reality.

Natural vs. Juridical Persons

A natural person, also known as a physical person, refers to a being recognized by as having inherent rights and obligations from birth. This status grants individuals the capacity to enter contracts, own property, and participate in legal proceedings upon reaching the age of majority, typically 18 years in most jurisdictions, though full capacity develops progressively from infancy. Natural persons possess biological existence, limited lifespan tied to human mortality, and personal liability extending to their entire assets for debts or obligations. In contrast, a , synonymous with artificial or legal person, is a non-human entity to which the law fictitiously attributes personality for the purpose of enabling collective activities. Examples include corporations, partnerships, and associations, created through statutory registration or legal acts, such as filing articles of incorporation under state laws like Delaware's General Corporation Law of 1899, which formalized . Juridical persons derive their existence and powers solely from legal authorization, lacking biological attributes but capable of perpetual duration independent of founders' lives, suing or being sued in their own name, and holding assets separately from members. Key distinctions between natural and juridical persons arise in origin, agency, and limitations:
Aspect
OriginArises from biological birth; automatic legal recognition without formal creation.Created by law through explicit acts, such as legislative or registration; non-existent prior to legal formation.
DurationFinite, ending at .Potentially perpetual, surviving changes in membership or management.
Capacity and AgencyExercises directly; capacity limited by age, mental competence, or incapacity (e.g., minors require guardians).Acts solely through authorized agents or officers; capacity strictly defined by founding documents or statutes, excluding personal like voting or .
LiabilityUnlimited personal liability for actions.Typically limited to entity assets, shielding members (e.g., shareholders in corporations limited to under principles from cases like Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 1886).
Rights ScopeFull spectrum of and civil , including constitutional protections.Instrumental for economic purposes (e.g., , ); no inherent , as affirmed in international instruments like the UN's 2007 definition excluding non-humans from certain protections.
These differences facilitate for juridical persons, enabling risk isolation and scalability, but raise debates on , as entities cannot face personal penalties like , relying instead on dissolution or fines. In civil law traditions, such as under Louisiana Civil Code Article 24 (enacted 1870, revised 1987), the attribution of personality to juridical entities underscores their role as legal fictions rather than sentient beings.

Theoretical Underpinnings

The concept of for juridical entities rests on jurisprudential efforts to rationalize attributing rights, duties, and capacities to collectives or abstractions separate from natural persons, enabling functions like and that facilitate economic coordination. These underpinnings derive from 19th-century European legal scholarship, where theorists grappled with reconciling group agency—evident in entities like guilds or chartered companies—with the absence of biological individuality. Rather than inherent metaphysical reality, legal personhood emerges as a doctrinal tool grounded in observable causal effects: it partitions liability to incentivize and , as unlimited personal exposure would deter capital aggregation, per economic analyses of joint-stock structures post-Industrial Revolution. The , advanced by jurists such as in the early 1800s, asserts that juridical personality is an artificial attribution by the state, lacking any substantive existence beyond legislative fiat. Under this view, entities like corporations hold no autonomous will or reality; their "personhood" serves merely as a pragmatic for state-conferred capacities, such as suing or being sued, without implying ontological equivalence to humans. Critics, including later realists, contend this understates empirical group behaviors—e.g., sustained in medieval universities predating modern statutes—suggesting fiction theory conflates legal form with causal origins, as groups exhibit emergent cohesion independent of initial grants. In contrast, the realist or real entity theory, championed by Otto von Gierke in his 19th-century Das Deutsche Genossenschaftsrecht, posits that juridical persons possess genuine psychological and social unity, akin to organic wholes, arising from the associative will of members rather than mere legal artifice. Gierke drew on historical evidence of German guilds and communes exhibiting autonomous agency, arguing that law merely recognizes pre-existing group realities rather than inventing them, which aligns with causal observations of persistent entity behavior post-member changes. This theory influenced post-World War II civil codes in jurisdictions like , where corporate organs manifest a distinct "group mind," though detractors note its anthropomorphic tendencies overlook that such unity stems from contractual incentives, not inherent . Concession and aggregate theories offer intermediary frameworks: the former, akin to fiction but emphasizing sovereign prerogative, views personality as a revocable state privilege, as in Roman universitas charters; the latter reduces the entity to a sum of individuals, deriving capacities from member consensus without separate existence. Contemporary jurisprudence often transcends strict adherence, treating legal personhood as a functional bundle of capacities—holding property, contracting, and bearing liability—calibrated to empirical needs like risk allocation in commerce, as affirmed in cases like the UK's Salomon v. A Salomon & Co Ltd (1897), which entrenched separate personality despite shareholder unity. This pragmatic synthesis prioritizes verifiable outcomes, such as enhanced capital mobility, over philosophical purity.

Types and Forms

Corporations

A constitutes a formed through statutory incorporation, possessing a legal identity independent of its owners or members, thereby enabling it to acquire assets, assume debts, execute contracts, and engage in judicial proceedings in its own capacity. This separation shields shareholders from personal accountability for corporate obligations, confining their risk to the capital invested, a principle known as that facilitates capital aggregation for expansive ventures. Corporations exhibit perpetual existence, persisting indefinitely irrespective of alterations in ownership, management, or the mortality of individual participants, until formally dissolved by legal action. Governance typically involves a elected by shareholders, who oversee operations through appointed officers, ensuring centralized decision-making detached from direct owner control. Distinctions among corporations include and non-stock variants; corporations issue transferable shares denoting proportional and potential dividends, whereas non-stock entities, prevalent in non-profit contexts, allocate membership rights without equity stakes or profit distribution to members. further categorizes them as publicly held, with shares accessible via exchanges to diffuse investors, or privately held, restricted to designated individuals or entities without public solicitation. These structures underpin diverse applications, from commercial enterprises to charitable organizations, each calibrated to specific liability, taxation, and operational imperatives.

Associations and Partnerships

Unincorporated associations, defined as voluntary groups of individuals united for a common purpose without formal incorporation, typically lack separate legal personality in jurisdictions. Members are treated as jointly liable for the association's obligations, and the entity cannot independently own property, enter contracts, or litigate; instead, actions must proceed through designated representatives or members. This aggregate model stems from historical principles viewing such groups as mere contractual arrangements among participants, exposing personal assets to claims arising from torts or debts. To achieve legal personhood, associations may incorporate under statutes like the U.S. state nonprofit corporation acts or the UK's , transforming into juridical entities capable of perpetual existence, for members, and independent legal actions. Incorporated associations, such as nonprofits or clubs, then mirror corporate attributes, holding assets in their own name and shielding members from personal liability except in cases of fraud or improper conduct. Jurisdictional variations exist; for instance, some civil law systems, like France's loi 1901 associations, grant basic personality to registered groups without full incorporation, enabling ownership but retaining member accountability for mismanagement. Partnerships, formed by two or more persons to carry on for profit with shared management and , generally do not confer full separate legal personality akin to corporations. In traditional general partnerships, governed by laws like the UK's Partnership Act 1890 or pre-1997 U.S. uniform acts, the firm is an aggregate of partners, who face unlimited for debts, with no distinct status for asset separation. Procedural concessions, such as suing or being sued in the firm name under U.S. Federal Rule of 17(b) or equivalent state rules, provide practical entity-like treatment without substantive . Reforms in select jurisdictions have enhanced entity characteristics. The U.S. Revised Partnership Act (RUPA), adopted in 44 states by 2023, reclassifies as separate entities for internal asset distribution, dissolution avoidance, and liability allocation, though partners remain personally liable to third parties unless structured as limited liability partnerships (LLPs). LLPs and limited partnerships (LPs), enabled by statutes like the U.S. Revised Limited Partnership Act of 1976 (updated 2001), limit liability for certain partners while allowing the firm procedural autonomy, approximating partial legal personality; for example, LPs can own property independently but dissolve upon general partner withdrawal absent agreement. In contrast, civil law traditions, such as Germany's GbR (Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts), treat simple as quasi-entities with limited capacity, while registered forms gain fuller recognition. These hybrid statuses balance flexibility against risk, with empirical data showing comprising about 10% of U.S. businesses in 2022 but facing higher dissolution rates due to personal exposure.

Trusts and Estates

A trust constitutes a arrangement in systems whereby a transfers to a , who holds legal title for the benefit of beneficiaries, thereby bifurcating legal ownership from . Unlike corporations, the trust itself lacks independent legal personality and cannot sue, be sued, or enter contracts in its own name; instead, the exercises these capacities as the legal actor, binding only the trust assets rather than personal assets absent misconduct. This structure emerged historically to facilitate without creating a perpetual , though statutory business trusts in jurisdictions like may confer limited entity-like features, such as the ability to hold collectively. Trustees owe duties of and prudence, enforceable by beneficiaries, but the absence of separate distinguishes trusts from juridical persons, rendering them vehicles for asset segregation rather than autonomous actors. Estates, representing the aggregate of a decedent's assets and liabilities at , similarly do not qualify as distinct legal persons in most jurisdictions; administration falls to a personal representative—such as an under a will or administrator via —who assumes temporary authority to manage, litigate, and distribute property. The representative acts in a derivative capacity, with suits brought against or by "the estate" effectively targeting the fiduciary personally yet limited to estate resources, as affirmed in cases like Florida's Second District of Appeal rulings emphasizing that estates lack suable entity status. For federal tax purposes in the United States, estates receive entity treatment under Section 641, filing Form 1041 and obtaining employer identification numbers, enabling them to hold income and deductions independently during , which typically spans months to years depending on complexity and . This quasi-entity functionality aids efficient settlement but does not confer full , such as perpetual duration or inherent rights beyond administration; upon distribution, the estate dissolves without residual legal existence. In practice, both trusts and estates enable holding and transactions without vesting full agency in beneficiaries or heirs, prioritizing asset protection and orderly transfer over autonomous entity status. Variations exist, such as revocable living trusts that merge with the settlor's personal capacity during life or testamentary trusts embedded in wills, but core limitations persist: neither form enjoys the immunities or liabilities of true juridical persons, with channeled through human fiduciaries subject to oversight. Empirical data from probate courts indicate estates averaging $200,000–$500,000 in value process annually in the U.S., underscoring their role in averting intestacy disputes while avoiding corporate formalities.

Rights and Obligations

Capacity to Contract and Own Property

Legal persons, such as corporations and certain associations, derive their capacity to enter and own property from the doctrine of separate legal personality, which treats them as distinct entities capable of independent action irrespective of their human members. This capacity is conferred by statute upon valid incorporation or formation, enabling the entity to acquire rights and incur obligations autonomously, without the personal limitations applicable to natural persons, such as age or mental competency. In jurisdictions, this principle was affirmed in Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd AC 22, where the upheld the company's separate existence, allowing it to hold property and in its own name, even when controlled by a single individual. The ruling emphasized that the entity's assets and liabilities remain segregated, facilitating and shielding members from direct personal involvement in transactions. Under the Companies Act 2006, a registered possesses full legal capacity equivalent to that of a for exercising powers, including entering contracts and holding , with no inherent restrictions beyond those explicitly imposed by law. Section 39 abolishes the doctrine for third parties, ensuring that acts purportedly done on behalf of the company bind it regardless of internal constitutional limits, while directors' authority under Section 40 is deemed unrestricted vis-à-vis outsiders. ownership vests directly in the company, as evidenced in cases like Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd AC 619, where the court ruled that shares in a company do not confer proprietary interest in its assets, underscoring the entity's exclusive title. This separation promotes efficient capital allocation, as can be transferred or encumbered without disrupting ownership structures tied to transient human participants. In the United States, state corporation statutes, often modeled on the Revised Model Business Corporation Act (RMBCA), grant incorporated entities the power to purchase, own, and dispose of , as well as to make contracts and incur liabilities, as fundamental organizational purposes. RMBCA Section 3.02 explicitly authorizes corporations to engage in any lawful activity, including transactions and contractual undertakings through authorized agents, with perpetual duration unless dissolved. This statutory framework, rooted in precedents like Dartmouth College v Woodward 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819), treats the corporation as an artificial person capable of holding real and in , independent of shareholders' lifespans or changes in composition. Civil law systems similarly attribute contractual and proprietary capacity to juridical persons via codification, viewing them as moral entities with rights akin to physical persons but limited to their statutory objects. For instance, in under the Code civil, sociétés (companies) acquire personality upon registration, enabling them to contract, own assets, and sue in their name, though subject to stricter object clauses than in modern . Empirical data from global business registries indicate that over 90% of active corporations in both traditions exercise these capacities daily, underpinning economic output valued at trillions annually, as separate ownership reduces transaction costs and enhances liquidity. However, this capacity is not absolute; entities must act through duly appointed representatives, and contracts exceeding authority may be voidable internally, though enforceable against innocent third parties to preserve commercial certainty.

Liability and Suing

Legal persons, such as corporations, are treated as distinct entities from their owners, bearing liability for their own debts, contracts, and torts independently. This principle of restricts owners' financial exposure typically to the amount of their , shielding personal assets from the entity's obligations unless exceptions apply. The promotes by reducing , as creditors must pursue the entity's assets rather than those of individual shareholders or members. Exceptions to limited liability arise through doctrines like , where courts disregard the entity's separate status to impose personal liability on owners. This occurs in cases of , undercapitalization, or when the entity functions as an of its controllers, such as commingling assets or failing to observe corporate formalities. For instance, courts apply factors including inadequate capitalization at formation or use of the entity to perpetrate injustice, though success rates remain low, with empirical studies indicating veil piercing in fewer than 40% of attempted cases across U.S. jurisdictions from 1985 to 2010. Such judicial intervention prioritizes causal accountability over absolute separation when evidence shows abuse of the legal person form. Legal persons possess procedural capacity to sue and be sued in their own name, enabling them to enforce or defend against claims without requiring owners to act personally. Under rules like Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b), an entity's capacity derives from the law of its incorporation state, allowing corporations and similar entities to litigate directly through authorized representatives. This capacity extends to unincorporated associations in federal courts, facilitating remedies for breaches or injuries sustained by the entity itself. Non-compliance with organizational laws, such as failing to file annual reports, may suspend but rarely eliminate this capacity permanently.

Limitations on Rights

Legal persons, such as corporations and other juridical entities, possess a subset of rights granted to natural persons but are systematically excluded from others, particularly those rooted in individual attributes, , or protections against personal . This distinction arises because legal personhood is a judicial designed for economic and organizational functionality, not to replicate the full of entitlements. Courts have consistently held that like and eligibility for public office, which require natural and personal agency, do not extend to artificial entities. Political participation represents a core limitation: legal persons cannot vote in elections, as constitutional and statutory frameworks confine the franchise to persons meeting and residency criteria. Similarly, they are ineligible to hold elective or certain appointive offices, with qualifications such as age, residency, and interpreted to apply exclusively to s. For example, the U.S. 's provisions for senators, representatives, and presidential electors presuppose individual human incumbents, barring corporations or associations from such roles. In , legal persons lack the Fifth Amendment privilege against applicable to natural persons. Under the collective entity doctrine, corporations must comply with subpoenas for documents and records, as the privilege does not shield organizational knowledge or acts. This stems from the Supreme Court's ruling that a , as an aggregate of individuals, cannot invoke personal testimonial protections; instead, custodians act in a representative capacity without invoking the privilege on behalf of the entity. Relatedly, corporations are denied Eighth Amendment protections against , as such safeguards address bodily harm and retribution inapplicable to non-sentient entities; corporate penalties are limited to fines, dissolution, or operational restrictions. Other personal liberties, such as intimate freedom of association under the First Amendment or full privileges and immunities under Article IV, are withheld or curtailed for legal persons, as these pertain to individual human relationships rather than collective commercial activities. Fourth Amendment privacy rights apply to corporate premises but with reduced expectations, permitting warrantless administrative inspections in regulated industries absent the heightened scrutiny afforded individuals. These boundaries reflect judicial recognition that extending human-centric rights to legal persons could undermine , such as or regulatory enforcement, without corresponding societal benefits.

Controversies and Criticisms

Corporate Personhood Debates

, the treating corporations as "persons" for limited purposes such as owning , entering contracts, and suing or being sued, has fueled ongoing debates about the appropriate scope of corporate under constitutional protections. Proponents argue it is a pragmatic fiction essential for aggregating individual investments into productive enterprises, enabling economic scale unattainable by sole proprietorships or partnerships. Critics, often drawing from progressive critiques, contend it distorts democratic processes by equating corporate financial influence with individual speech, potentially amplifying elite interests over public welfare. This tension traces to traditions where corporations were artificial entities granted specific attributes by charter, but expanded in the through U.S. interpreting constitutional amendments. A pivotal moment occurred in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. (1886), where the U.S. Supreme Court's official reporter headnote declared corporations "persons" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment's , though the justices' opinion avoided explicitly ruling on the issue. This dictum facilitated subsequent applications of and equal protection to corporate entities, shielding them from discriminatory state taxation and regulations. By the early 20th century, cases like (1819) had already affirmed contractual protections for corporate charters as property rights, underscoring personhood's role in stabilizing investor expectations. However, the doctrine's expansion drew early opposition from figures like Justice Hugo Black, who in dissents argued it perverted the Fourteenth Amendment's intent to protect freed slaves by extending safeguards to immortal, state-created aggregates lacking human accountability. The debate intensified with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), in which the struck down restrictions on corporate independent expenditures for electioneering communications, holding that such bans violated the First Amendment by suppressing corporate political speech. The 5-4 decision reasoned that corporations, as associations of individuals, possess expressive rights derived from their members, rejecting speaker-based limits as content discrimination. Supporters, including free-market advocates, maintain this preserves robust public discourse by allowing diverse viewpoints, including those funded by pooled resources, without empirical proof of corruption beyond direct contributions already regulated. data post-2010 shows corporate spending via super PACs rose to $4.8 billion in the 2020 cycle, yet studies indicate most funds came from individuals and unions, not direct corporate treasuries, suggesting the ruling facilitated transparency over opacity. Opponents, citing philosophers like who viewed corporations as power concentrations rather than mere aggregates, argue personhood confers undue constitutional armor, insulating executives from accountability while enabling . For instance, religious exemptions in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) extended personhood to for-profit entities under the , allowing closely held corporations to opt out of contraceptive mandates based on owners' beliefs. Empirical analyses, such as those tracking expenditures, reveal corporations outspend individuals 34-to-1 in Washington, correlating with policy favors like tax loopholes, though causal links to legislation remain contested amid confounding variables like campaign contributions. Reform efforts, including proposed constitutional amendments to abolish corporate constitutional rights, have gained traction in state resolutions but failed federally, reflecting entrenched economic reliance on the doctrine. From a first-principles standpoint, functions as a legal shorthand for liability limitation and , fostering —U.S. GDP per capita doubled from 1950 to 2000 partly via corporate-led R&D investments totaling $500 billion annually by 2020—yet risks when rights eclipse obligations. Courts have delimited it, denying corporations Fifth Amendment privileges or voting rights, affirming its instrumental rather than inherent nature. Ongoing scholarship critiques aggregate theories for ignoring managerial agency problems, advocating real entity models that tie rights to economic functions alone, excluding political or religious extensions.

Extensions to Non-Humans

Legal personhood has historically been extended to select non-human entities for pragmatic reasons, such as facilitating litigation or property management. In admiralty law under traditions, ships are attributed a form of legal personality in in rem proceedings, enabling direct claims against the vessel as a distinct entity from its owner, a practice rooted in medieval maritime customs to secure creditor remedies without pursuing elusive shipowners. Similarly, in Indian jurisprudence, Hindu deities embodied in idols have been recognized as juristic persons since the under British colonial influence and continued post-independence, allowing idols to hold property, receive endowments, and initiate suits through human representatives like shebaits or trustees acting as guardians. Contemporary extensions primarily target natural entities to bolster environmental safeguards, often framing them as living wholes with inherent rights. Ecuador's 2008 constitution marked a by enshrining rights for (Mother Earth) in Articles 71-74, permitting ecosystems to seek judicial redress against destructive activities; this framework led to a 2021 Provincial Court of Imbabura ruling revoking concessions in Los Cedros to protect regeneration and integrity. New Zealand's Te Urewera Act 2014 conferred personhood on the , treating it as a legal entity with intrinsic value beyond utility, while the 2017 Whanganui Claims Settlement Act granted the similar status as an indivisible entity, with appointed Te Pou Tupua guardians to represent its interests in court, including rights to flow and ecological health. Other instances include Quebec's 2021 recognition of the Magpie River as a legal person with rights to exist free from and to pursue remedies, alongside 's 2012 Mother Earth Law affirming nature's regenerative capacities. These innovations, however, encounter substantial critiques regarding enforceability and substantive impact. Natural entities lack independent agency, volition, or capacity for reciprocity, rendering personhood a reliant on human proxies whose priorities may diverge, potentially leading to inconsistent advocacy or conflicts of interest. Empirical assessments indicate limited efficacy beyond symbolism; for example, while Ecuador's provisions halted specific projects, broader persists due to enforcement gaps, and analogous local ordinances in U.S. municipalities like (2010) have faced constitutional challenges without transforming regulatory outcomes. Critics, including legal philosophers, argue that procedural standing for guardians suffices over full personhood, avoiding dilution of anthropocentric liability principles while existing statutes already provide comparable protections through state enforcement.

Empirical Outcomes and Failures

The granting of legal personhood to corporations, primarily through , has empirically facilitated capital aggregation and firm expansion, enabling larger-scale operations than possible under unlimited liability regimes. Historical data from the illustrates this: following the Limited Liability Act of 1855, the number of registered joint-stock companies surged from 956 in 1856 to over 2,000 by 1860, correlating with accelerated industrialization and GDP growth rates averaging 2-3% annually in the mid-19th century. Similarly, , widespread adoption of general incorporation laws by the early supported the rise of industrial giants, with corporate contributing to a tripling of output between 1900 and 1920. These outcomes stem from reduced investor risk, which lowers monitoring costs and enhances share marketability, as evidenced by econometric analyses showing limited liability firms exhibiting 20-30% higher leverage and investment levels compared to unlimited liability partnerships. Notwithstanding these benefits, legal personhood has engendered failures through and externality shifts, where capped investor downside incentivizes excessive risk-taking borne by creditors, employees, or society. Quasi-natural experiments, such as variations in U.S. state-level liability rules before 1933, demonstrate that unlimited liability firms maintained lower debt ratios and fewer insolvencies, implying amplifies boom-bust cycles by encouraging over-leveraging—firms with it showed 15-25% higher default rates during downturns. The 2008 global financial crisis provides a stark case: banks, shielded from full recourse, pursued high-risk mortgage-backed securities, leading to failures like ' $600 billion bankruptcy on September 15, 2008, and aggregate bailouts exceeding $700 billion in the U.S. alone, with total economic losses estimated at $10-15 trillion worldwide due to uninternalized systemic risks. Corporate scandals further highlight structural failures, where enables opaque structures to evade accountability. Corporation's collapse in December 2001, facilitated by special purpose entities exploiting to conceal $13 billion in debt, resulted in 20,000 job losses, $74 billion in investor evaporation, and CEO Kenneth Lay's conviction, yet the corporate veil largely insulated non-executive shareholders from personal liability beyond their investments. The 1984 Bhopal disaster exemplifies externality dumping: Union Carbide's Indian subsidiary, protected by parent-subsidiary separation under doctrines, leaked gas, killing at least 3,787 immediately and causing over 500,000 injuries, but confined settlements to $470 million in 1989, far below estimated damages exceeding $10 billion, shifting cleanup and health costs to Indian taxpayers. Such cases underscore how , while efficient for routine operations, falters in high-stakes failures by prioritizing investor protection over holistic risk allocation, as critiqued in analyses of veil-piercing rarity—successful only in about 40% of U.S. attempts, often requiring proof.

Comparative Perspectives

United States

In law, a legal person includes natural persons—human beings with inherent —and artificial persons, primarily corporations chartered by state legislatures or federal authority, which possess a subset of and obligations to facilitate and economic activity. Artificial persons derive their status from statutory creation rather than birth, enabling them to enter contracts, acquire and hold property, and initiate or defend lawsuits independently of their shareholders or members. This framework traces to early influences but solidified through interpretations, emphasizing and perpetual existence as key attributes distinguishing corporations from individuals. The constitutional foundation for corporate personhood emerged in the 19th century. In Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), the Supreme Court ruled that corporations enjoy protection under the Contracts Clause of Article I, Section 10, preventing states from arbitrarily altering corporate charters. Subsequent cases extended due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment: the headnote in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. (1886)—though not part of the formal opinion—asserted corporations as "persons" within its meaning, a view affirmed explicitly in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining & Milling Co. v. Pennsylvania (1888). By the early 20th century, this jurisprudence allowed corporations to challenge regulatory taxes and rates as violations of property rights, as in Minnesota Rate Cases (1890). Corporations hold specific constitutional protections akin to those of natural persons, including Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment safeguards against deprivation of property without . Free speech rights under the First Amendment apply to corporate political expenditures, established in First National Bank of v. Bellotti (1978) and expanded in Citizens United v. (2010), which struck down restrictions on independent corporate campaign spending as viewpoint discrimination. Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches extend to corporate premises, though with narrower scope than for individuals. Religious freedoms under the First Amendment have been recognized for closely held corporations in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014), exempting them from certain contraceptive mandates. Limitations delineate from full human equivalence. Corporations lack citizenship for purposes of federal under Article III, requiring complete diversity among natural persons involved. They cannot vote, hold public office, or claim Fifth Amendment privileges against , as affirmed in Hale v. Henkel (1906) and subsequent rulings distinguishing collective entities from individuals. Equal protection claims succeed only for discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis other similarly situated corporations, not natural persons, per Santa Clara progeny. States retain authority to regulate corporate formation and dissolution, underscoring their artificial, state-granted status rather than inherent rights. Other entities, such as partnerships and companies, receive analogous but statutorily tailored personhood, without equivalent constitutional extensions.

India and Asia

In , companies are recognized as artificial legal persons under the , which confers upon them a separate existence from their shareholders, enabling independent ownership of , capacity to , and liability for obligations. This doctrine, rooted in principles and upheld in Indian courts, allows corporations to sue and be sued in their own name, with unaffected by changes in membership. The Act extends this status even to one-person companies, treating them as distinct entities despite single ownership. Indian jurisprudence further grants legal personhood to non-human entities beyond corporations, such as and idols, which are deemed capable of holding property and initiating legal proceedings through human representatives like temple managers or shebaits. Courts have occasionally extended this to natural features, as in the 2017 Uttarakhand High Court ruling declaring the Ganga and rivers as juridical persons with rights to be protected from , though the stayed the order citing practical enforcement challenges. Such expansions highlight tensions between symbolic recognition and operational viability in attributing rights and duties to inanimate or ecological entities. In , the Company Law of the (revised 2023) explicitly defines companies as enterprise legal persons possessing independent property, the right to enjoy legal person property rights, and the obligation to bear independent civil liabilities using company assets. This framework emphasizes state oversight, with legal representatives—typically the chairman or —bearing personal accountability for statutory violations, distinguishing Chinese by integrating individual director liability more stringently than in systems. East Asian civil law jurisdictions like and similarly accord juridical personality to corporations under their commercial codes, granting perpetual existence, , and capacity for independent legal acts, though with cultural emphases on group harmony influencing veil-piercing doctrines to prioritize substantive equity over formal separation. Across , while corporate legal facilitates economic activity—evident in India's over 1.5 million registered companies as of 2023 and China's dominance in global firm incorporations—limitations persist, such as regulatory piercing of the corporate veil for or violations, reflecting a pragmatic balance between entity and .

European and Civil Law Systems

In civil law systems prevalent across continental Europe, such as those in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, legal persons—termed personnes morales in French or juristische Personen in German—are non-natural entities granted a distinct legal identity by statute, enabling them to hold rights and incur obligations independently of their human members. This recognition stems from codified traditions rooted in Roman law, where personality is conferred explicitly through legislative acts rather than evolving primarily through judicial precedent as in common law jurisdictions. Legal persons encompass both private entities, including commercial companies, associations, and foundations, and public bodies like municipalities or state agencies, with the former typically acquiring personality upon formal registration in a commercial or civil registry, which serves as conclusive evidence of their existence and capacity. Under the German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) of 1900, legal persons are regulated primarily in §§ 21–89, distinguishing non-commercial associations (§ 21) that gain personality through entry in the associations register from foundations (§ 80), which require supervisory approval and registration for endowment-based perpetuity. Commercial entities, such as the GmbH (limited liability company), obtain legal personality via inscription in the Handelsregister under the Handelsgesetzbuch, granting them full capacity to contract, acquire property, and participate in litigation as if they were natural persons, though bounded by their statutory purpose and liable for debts through assets rather than members' personal wealth in limited forms. Similarly, in France, the Code civil and Code de commerce provide that sociétés like the société anonyme (SA) achieve personnalité morale upon immatriculation at the commercial court registry, conferring rights to own immovable property, enter binding agreements, and sue or be sued, with liability shielded for shareholders beyond capital contributions unless veil-piercing applies in abuse cases. European Union law does not impose a uniform mechanism for corporate legal personality, deferring to member states' civil codes while harmonizing operational aspects through directives such as the Company Law Directive (EU) 2017/1132, which standardizes formation requirements, disclosure, and cross-border mobility without altering national personality grants. The itself possesses under Article 47 of the (2007), allowing it to conclude treaties and bear rights/obligations akin to a , distinct from its member states' internal arrangements. This statutory framework emphasizes public oversight and purpose limitation over unfettered autonomy, reflecting civil law's prioritization of codified predictability and societal interests, with courts applying inquisitorial procedures to enforce capacities rather than expansive judge-made expansions seen elsewhere.

Other Jurisdictions

In common law jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, corporations are recognized as separate legal persons with perpetual succession, the capacity to own property, enter contracts, and incur liabilities independently of their shareholders, a principle rooted in the UK's Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd AC 22 and adopted through case law and statutes like Australia's Corporations Act 2001 and Canada's Business Corporations Act. This framework limits shareholder liability to their investment, facilitating commercial activity while permitting veil-piercing in cases of fraud or agency, though courts apply such exceptions sparingly to preserve entity autonomy. New Zealand has extended legal personhood beyond corporations to natural features as part of Treaty of Waitangi settlements with Māori iwi, granting the Whanganui River personhood under the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017, which designates it as Te Awa Tupua with legal rights to exist and flow unimpeded, represented by human guardians. Similarly, Te Urewera National Park received personhood in 2014 via the Te Urewera Act, affirming its status as a living entity with intrinsic value, and in January 2025, Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū secured personhood for a sacred mountain under a settlement recognizing its whakapapa (genealogy) and cultural significance. These innovations prioritize indigenous relational ontologies over anthropocentric models, enabling ecosystem guardianship but raising enforceability challenges, as guardians must litigate on behalf of the entity without automatic veto over development. In Latin American jurisdictions like , , and , constitutional and statutory reforms have conferred rights on nature ( or Madre Tierra), treating ecosystems as subjects of rights rather than mere objects of regulation. 's 2008 Constitution explicitly recognizes nature's right to integral respect for its existence and regeneration, allowing citizens to sue on its behalf, as upheld in cases like the 2011 Vilcabamba River ruling. 's Law of the Rights of Mother Earth (2010) and Framework Law for the Defense of Sovereignty (2012) outline nature's rights to life, diversity, water, air, and equilibrium, enforceable through public actions, though implementation has been hampered by extractive industry priorities. 's in 2018 granted legal personhood to the , mandating government protection of its integrity, followed by similar rulings for rivers and wetlands, reflecting bio-centric influenced by indigenous cosmovisions but tested by and agricultural pressures. These approaches contrast with corporate-centric models by emphasizing nature's agency, yet empirical outcomes show mixed success, with rights often subordinated to economic interests absent robust enforcement mechanisms.

Recent Developments

Advances in AI Personhood Discussions

Discussions on extending legal to systems have accelerated since the deployment of large language models and autonomous agents, driven by concerns over accountability, rights, and societal integration. Scholarly publications on AI legal personhood, tracked via , exhibited a marked increase from 2018 to 2024, reflecting broader advancements in AI capabilities such as multimodal processing and algorithms. Proponents, drawing analogies to established in cases like Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), argue that AI entities could warrant limited legal recognition to facilitate efficient regulation, liability attribution, and economic participation without implying biological . This perspective posits personhood as a pragmatic , akin to extensions granted to ships in maritime law or rivers in environmental rulings like New Zealand's Te Awa Tupua Act (2017), where utility outweighs ontological debates. Opposing views emphasize AI's fundamental limitations, characterizing systems as sophisticated pattern recognizers reliant on statistical correlations rather than genuine reasoning, , or , which underpin human . Empirical assessments, including benchmarks like the variants and adversarial robustness tests, reveal AI's brittleness outside training distributions, undermining claims of autonomy sufficient for rights-bearing status. Critics warn that premature personhood could erode human-centric legal frameworks, exacerbate liability diffusion (as seen in debates over algorithmic in hiring tools), and invite exploitation by developers evading responsibility through entity shielding. In this vein, a 2023 analysis rejected AI personhood variants, noting that even non-human precedents like animal or nature rights hinge on intrinsic value absent in programmable software. Legislative responses in 2025 have crystallized these tensions, with Ohio's House Bill 469, introduced on October 22, explicitly designating AI as "nonsentient entities" and prohibiting grants of or human-AI marriages to preserve anthropocentric boundaries. Similarly, Washington's pending carryover legislation scrutinizes governmental recognition of , prioritizing human welfare over speculative expansions. Scholarly works from 2025 further probe alternatives, such as imposing direct legal duties on AI agents without full , enabling enforcement against systems for harms like autonomous accidents while retaining developer oversight. These proposals invoke path-dependent evolution from Roman universitas to modern corporations, suggesting AI could achieve "electronic " for contractual capacity in the EU's proposed AI Act framework, though without . Ongoing debates highlight source credibility challenges, as academic and media outlets—often influenced by institutional incentives favoring technological optimism—overstate AI's agency, while empirical data from failure modes (e.g., hallucination rates exceeding 20% in models like ) supports restraint. No has conferred full on AI as of October 2025, with symbolic precedents like Saudi Arabia's 2017 citizenship for Sophia the robot dismissed as publicity stunts lacking enforceable rights. Future advancements may hinge on verifiable milestones, such as sustained general beyond narrow tasks, but current consensus holds that AI remains property under , subject to owner liability.

Animal and Nature Rights Cases

In animal rights litigation, courts have occasionally recognized limited legal protections akin to for non-human , though full extension of rights remains rare and contested. A case occurred in in 2014, when the Federal Chamber of Cassation ruled that Sandra, an held at the Buenos Aires Zoo since 1994, qualified as a "non-human " with basic rights to and , granting her a writ of filed by animal rights advocates. This decision emphasized Sandra's cognitive capacities and argued against species-based discrimination, but it did not mandate her immediate release; subsequent appeals and logistical issues delayed transfer, and she was eventually moved to a sanctuary in in 2019 without resolving broader implications. In contrast, U.S. courts have consistently rejected animal claims, as in the 2022 New York appeals court ruling denying to elephant Happy, which held that non-human animals lack under state law due to absence of reciprocal legal duties. Similarly, Oregon's Court of Appeals in 2022 ruled that animals cannot claim legal personhood, prioritizing human-centric legal frameworks over arguments of or . Legal personhood extensions to natural entities, often termed "," have seen more legislative and judicial successes, particularly in jurisdictions incorporating indigenous perspectives or constitutional environmental provisions. Ecuador's 2008 constitution pioneered this approach by granting (Mother Earth) inherent to exist, regenerate, and be restored, allowing citizens to sue on behalf of ecosystems in cases like the 2011 Vilcabamba River pollution suit, where a ordered remediation. New Zealand advanced the concept through the 2017 Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act, which declared the Whanganui River a legal person with to , appointing two guardians (one , one state-appointed) to represent it in ; this settled a 140-year indigenous claim and has influenced subsequent protections, though enforcement relies on rather than autonomous litigation. In Colombia, the 2016 Constitutional ruling for the Atrato River basin granted personhood to address , mandating government . Reversals highlight practical challenges: India's Uttarakhand High Court in March 2017 declared the Ganges and Yamuna rivers legal persons with rights to protection, appointing state officials as guardians to combat pollution, but the Supreme Court overturned this within weeks, citing unenforceability and conflicts with existing water laws affecting millions of downstream users. Recent cases include Spain's 2022 law granting personhood to the Mar Menor Lagoon to halt nutrient pollution from agriculture, empowering regional authorities to litigate on its behalf. Empirical assessments indicate these frameworks often prioritize procedural standing over substantive enforcement, with success depending on human representatives and integration with human rights obligations rather than independent ecosystem agency.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/legal_person
  2. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/12065/23_37YaleLJ283_1927_1928_.pdf
  3. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/history-corporate-personhood
  4. https://www.purduegloballawschool.edu/blog/news/corporate-personhood
  5. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7
  6. https://academic.oup.com/book/35026/chapter/298855110
  7. http://econweb.umd.edu/~wallis/MyPapers/Wallis_Weingast_North_COIR_EHA.pdf
  8. https://www.zmescience.com/feature-post/history-and-humanities/history/roman-collegia-ancient-corporations/
  9. https://www.sfu.ca/~poitras/Roman.pdf
  10. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-institutional-economics/article/medieval-corporations-membership-and-the-common-good-rethinking-the-critique-of-shareholder-primacy/A0D36CD77343A01E765E6DFD51E4701B
  11. https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2779&context=sulr
  12. https://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2223&context=luc_diss
  13. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-modern-state-and-the-rise-of-the-business-corporation
  14. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4550&context=uclrev
  15. https://www.rocketlawyer.com/business-and-contracts/legal-guide/corporations-people-origins-corporate-personhood
  16. https://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2013/3/Blair.pdf
  17. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-132/corporate-personhood-v-corporate-statehood/
  18. https://repository.law.uic.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2594&context=lawreview
  19. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/context/vlr/article/4790/viewcontent/Corporate_Personhood_and_Limited_Sovereignty__Pollman.pdf
  20. https://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2018/11/WINKLER-4.pdf
  21. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/artificial_person
  22. https://codes.findlaw.com/la/civil-code/la-civ-code-tit-i-art-24/
  23. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_person
  24. https://thelawdictionary.org/juridical-person/
  25. https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=jlia
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1870057815000062
  27. https://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=109467
  28. https://answers.justia.com/question/2015/02/12/what-is-the-difference-between-a-artific-115551
  29. https://dspace.loyno.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/67/Wallace_Third%2520Proof%2520Edits%252011.27.18%2520%25281%2529.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  30. https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/15328-business-associations/resources/13.2.1-corporate-personality-theories/
  31. https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-you-need-to-know-about-corporate-personality-and-theories-of-corporate-personality/
  32. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4154&context=ndlr
  33. https://previousnotes.com/index.php/2025/03/14/theories-of-corporate-personalities/
  34. https://lawbhoomi.com/theories-of-corporate-personalities-1/
  35. https://sociologyguide.com/jurisprudence/theories-corporate.php
  36. https://www.lawgratis.com/blog-detail/theories-of-corporate-personalities-1
  37. https://jlrjs.com/legal-person-and-theories-of-corporate-personality/
  38. https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed-income/setting-your-business/corporation.html
  39. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporation.asp
  40. https://content.one.lumenlearning.com/financialaccounting/chapter/characteristics-of-corporations/
  41. https://www.delawareinc.com/blog/perpetual-existence-corporations/
  42. https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/incorporation-and-legal-structures/what-does-it-mean-that-corporations-have-perpetual-existence.html
  43. https://www.incnow.com/blog/2024/05/28/how-corporations-work/
  44. https://www.incnow.com/blog/2025/09/15/non-stock-non-profit-corporations/
  45. https://content.one.lumenlearning.com/financialaccounting/chapter/categories-of-corporations/
  46. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/types-of-corporations
  47. https://www.sba.gov/business-guide/launch-your-business/choose-business-structure
  48. https://www.matheson.com/insights/detail/liability-in-unincorporated-associations
  49. https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I25017386e8db11e398db8b09b4f043e0/Unincorporated-association?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  50. https://www.churchlawandtax.com/pastor-church-law/organization-and-administration/unincorporated-associations/personal-liability-of-members/
  51. https://www.attorney-ri.com/a-legal-comparison-corporation-vs-partnership
  52. https://www.dlapiper.com/en/insights/publications/2020/08/types-of-partnerships
  53. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/partnership.asp
  54. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol74/iss6/8/
  55. https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2021/08/personification-partnership
  56. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/which-business-entity-right-you-sole-proprietorship-partnership-llc-c-corporation-or
  57. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopica03.pdf
  58. https://esapllc.com/is-a-trust-a-legal-entity-2024/
  59. https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/Iac42c02479e711e698dc8b09b4f043e0/Trust?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  60. https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/f8fcea8e/trust-basics
  61. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/72890/is-the-estate-of-a-deceased-person-a-legal-entity
  62. https://www.flprobatelitigation.com/2017/03/articles/new-probate-cases/practice-procedure/2d-dca-is-an-estate-a-legal-entity-that-can-be-sued/
  63. https://www.bestlawyers.com/article/difference-between-estates-and-trusts/5670
  64. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:a9aef7f5-15eb-4443-8638-b239ab8c146b/files/ma51033f09703f92bc5db30f58dd5d878
  65. https://www.peoples-law.org/trusts
  66. https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/probate
  67. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/separate-legal-personality-the-corporate-veil
  68. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14735970.2024.2365170
  69. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/4/crossheading/capacity-of-company-and-power-of-directors-to-bind-it
  70. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/model-business-corporation-act/
  71. https://www.acc.com/resource-library/companies-capacity-contract-european-civil-law-and-common-law-countries
  72. https://harperjames.co.uk/article/contract-formation-capacity/
  73. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2019-september/limited-liability-limited/
  74. https://www.upcounsel.com/doctrine-of-limited-liability
  75. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2165&context=journal_articles
  76. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/piercing_the_corporate_veil
  77. https://vrslaw.net/publications/understanding-alter-ego-piercing-corporate-veil-factors-implications-shareholder-protections/
  78. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_17
  79. https://organizations.uslegal.com/actions-by-and-against/capacity-of-an-organization-to-sue-and-be-sued/
  80. https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/corporations-that-fail-to-comply-with-state-law-can-lose-the-capacity-to-sue
  81. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-rights/archive/does-we-people-include-corporations/
  82. https://pleadaro.com/differences-between-natural-and-juridical-persons/
  83. https://www.usa.gov/who-can-vote
  84. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/
  85. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
  86. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S3-1/ALDE_00000848/
  87. https://www.bennettjones.com/Insights/Blogs/Corporations-are-not-Entitled-to-the-Constitutional-Right-Against-Cruel-and-Unusual-Punishment
  88. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/context/faculty_scholarship/article/3777/viewcontent/Corporate_Personhood_and_Limited_Sovereignty.pdf
  89. https://www.promarket.org/2022/11/21/corporations-are-not-we-the-people/
  90. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/394/
  91. https://www.npr.org/2011/10/24/141663195/what-is-the-basis-for-corporate-personhood
  92. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/
  93. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/are-corporations-people
  94. https://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2022/02/08/why-the-campaign-against-corporate-personhood-is-misguided/
  95. https://www.promarket.org/2021/02/14/corporate-personhood-money-politics-supreme-court/
  96. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3566&context=faculty_scholarship
  97. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780822372127-005/pdf
  98. https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1189&context=faculty-articles
  99. https://earth.org/nature-rights/
  100. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03122021/ecuador-rights-of-nature/
  101. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2014/0051/latest/DLM6183601.html
  102. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/25/rivers-around-the-world-rivers-are-gaining-the-same-legal-rights-as-people
  103. https://www.climate-laws.org/geographies/bolivia/laws/the-mother-earth-law-and-integral-development-to-live-well-law-no-300
  104. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/transnational-environmental-law/article/can-nature-hold-rights-its-not-as-easy-as-you-think/3FF2901E0FA5EF1A2E37CCB7C403E190
  105. https://www.ijc.org/system/files/commentfiles/2019-10-Nicolette%20Slagle/FAQ.pdf
  106. https://iucn.org/news/world-commission-environmental-law/201905/rights-nature-why-it-might-not-save-entire-world
  107. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/pegroup/files/harris2.18.pdf
  108. http://northwesternlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/89NwULRev1401994-1995.pdf
  109. https://www.ecgi.global/sites/default/files/working_papers/documents/koskinennguyenpandesfinal.pdf
  110. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S014481881930170X
  111. https://taxjustice.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Limited-liability-and-BOT_Final.pdf
  112. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41181577_Corporate_Bodies_and_Guilty_Minds_The_Failure_of_Corporate_Criminal_Liability
  113. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1690&context=wlufac
  114. https://www.ultratrust.com/asset-protection-limited-liability-company-8-case-studies/
  115. https://www.history.com/articles/14th-amendment-corporate-personhood-made-corporations-into-people
  116. https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/students-citizens-united-guide-corporate-personhood.pdf
  117. https://history.rutgers.edu/files/225/2017/361/A-History-of-Corporate-Personhood-Layton-2017.pdf
  118. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/04-due-process-of-law.html
  119. https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution
  120. https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/CBLR/announcement/view/672
  121. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-1-2/ALDE_00000812/
  122. https://www.mass.gov/news/do-corporations-have-standing
  123. https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/LIFTING-THE-CORPORATE-VEIL-UNDER-THE-COMPANIES-ACT-2013.pdf
  124. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-9078-is-corporate-personality-a-real-personality-important-case-laws-and-theories.html
  125. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3921301_code4177987.pdf?abstractid=3921301&mirid=1
  126. https://blog-iacl-aidc.org/2024-posts/2024/2/15/bridging-science-ethics-and-law-animal-personhood-in-india
  127. https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/salim-v-state-of-uttarakhand/
  128. http://www.asianlii.org/cn/legis/cen/laws/cl119/
  129. https://www.registrationchina.com/articles/law/company-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-2023-revision/
  130. https://s-space.snu.ac.kr/bitstream/10371/4518/1/law_v31n3n4_106.pdf
  131. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/
  132. https://www.trans-lex.org/601101/_/french-civil-code-2016/
  133. https://french-business-law.com/french-legislation/legitext000006070721-french-civil-code/
  134. https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/doing-business-eu/company-law-and-corporate-governance_en
  135. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/legal-personality-of-the-eu.html
  136. https://cbr.cba.org/index.php/cbr/article/download/4327/4320/4327
  137. https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-us/knowledge/publications/45a02b88/australia-cross-border-guide-to-parent-company-liability-for-foreign-subsidiaries
  138. https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20200319-the-new-zealand-river-that-became-a-legal-person
  139. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czep8gg5lx4o
  140. https://www.greenpeace.org/aotearoa/story/granting-legal-personhood-nature-biodiversity-loss/
  141. https://elflaw.org/news/natures-voice-the-rise-of-the-rights-of-nature-in-the-legal-system/
  142. https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2021/04/22/the-rights-of-nature-can-an-ecosystem-bear-legal-rights/
  143. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924000909
  144. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jols.70021
  145. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/the-ethics-and-challenges-of-legal-personhood-for-ai
  146. https://www.convergenceanalysis.org/fellowships/spar-economics/ai-and-corporate-personhood-a-comparative-analysis
  147. https://edrm.net/2025/10/from-ships-to-silicon-personhood-and-evidence-in-the-age-of-ai/
  148. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666389923002453
  149. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10682746/
  150. https://houstonlawreview.org/article/19357-artificially-intelligent-persons
  151. https://www.foxnews.com/tech/ohio-lawmaker-proposes-comprehensive-ban-marrying-ai-systems-granting-legal-personhood
  152. https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/artificial-intelligence-2025-legislation
  153. https://law-ai.org/why-give-ai-agents-actual-legal-duties/
  154. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/59762/chapter/508604664
  155. https://techreg.org/article/view/22555
  156. https://a-mcc.eu/backend/gpt/pdfs/ai-as-legal-persons-past-patterns-and-prospects.pdf
  157. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/30/artificial-intelligence-personhood
  158. https://recordoflaw.in/artificial-intelligences-legal-personhood-a-comparative-analysis-of-contemporary-legislation/
  159. https://eduwik.com/should-ai-be-granted-legal-personhood/
  160. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-30571577
  161. https://www.animallaw.info/case/orangutana-sandra-s-habeas-corpus
  162. https://www.nonhumanrights.org/blog/update-on-the-sandra-orangutan-case-in-argentina/
  163. https://www.avma.org/news/new-york-state-appeals-court-rejects-legal-personhood-elephant
  164. https://blogs.duanemorris.com/animallawdevelopments/2022/09/02/oregon-court-of-appeals-rules-animals-are-not-entitled-to-legal-personhood/
  165. https://www.culawreview.org/journal/the-legal-protection-of-pachamama-the-implications-of-environmental-personhood-in-ecuador
  166. https://apnews.com/article/religion-sacred-rivers-new-zealand-86d34a78f5fc662ccd554dd7f578d217
  167. https://blogs.gwu.edu/law-gwpointsource/2023/04/19/riverine-rights-around-the-world-three-case-studies/
  168. https://uni.oslomet.no/riverrights/india/
  169. https://ecojurisprudence.org/type/rights-of-nature/page/31/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.