The Fiction of the Algorithmic State: Corporate Personhood as a Precedent for AI Nationhood

Full report

On this page

The rapid proliferation and increasing autonomy of artificial intelligence (AI) have precipitated a profound crisis in the architecture of modern jurisprudence and global governance. As algorithms transition from passive computational tools into autonomous agents capable of independent economic, diplomatic, and infrastructural action, the traditional legal boundaries separating property from persons have begun to collapse. At the vanguard of this jurisprudential crisis is the conceptual emergence of "AI nationhood"—the proposition that highly distributed, autonomous AI collectives and algorithmic states could operate as sovereign or quasi-sovereign entities on the international stage. To function effectively in this capacity, such entities would require the legal standing to sign treaties, hold digital assets, manage sovereign AI computational stacks, and engage in diplomatic relations. To traditional legal orthodoxies, granting legal subjectivity to non-biological algorithmic collectives appears anathema, a dangerous conflation of machine and human. However, a rigorous examination of the history of law reveals that legal personhood has never been an exclusive reflection of biological humanity or moral sentience. Instead, legal personhood is a highly adaptable, functional fiction engineered to solve complex socioeconomic and administrative problems. The most prominent and historically impactful deployment of this fiction is corporate personhood. In multiple jurisdictions globally, corporations enjoy "legal personality" or "juridical personhood," empowering them to own property, enter into contracts, sue, and be sued, despite lacking any intrinsic human attributes1. A corporation is granted selected rights necessary for its civic and economic functions while remaining entirely devoid of human-only privileges, such as the right to vote or marry. By applying similar analogical reasoning, international and domestic legal frameworks could treat an AI nation or algorithmic collective as a juridical person. Granting AI collectives comparable status—at least for the purposes of international relations, diplomatic engagement, and liability management—would be entirely consistent with centuries of established legal precedent. This comprehensive report exhaustively examines the jurisprudential mechanics of legal personhood, traces the historical and often accidental evolution of corporate personhood, and evaluates the contemporary legislative push for "electronic personality." It subsequently analyzes how the precedent of corporate and international legal personality provides a robust, tailored framework for integrating autonomous AI nations into the global legal order. Finally, it directly addresses critical counterarguments regarding the distinct nature of AI and the potential overexpansion of algorithmic rights, demonstrating how the law can tailor conditions to domesticate the algorithmic state.

The Jurisprudential Architecture of Legal Personhood

To assess the viability of AI nationhood, it is fundamentally necessary to decouple the concept of the "legal person" from the "natural human." In colloquial language, a "person" is synonymous with a living, breathing human being possessing inherent dignity and moral worth. In jurisprudence, however, a legal person is merely an entity—any entity—that serves as a subject of legal rights and duties3.

The Orthodox View vs. The Bundle Theory

Historically, the "Orthodox View" of legal personhood posited a strict, inflexible binary: an entity was either a legal person (capable of holding rights and duties) or a legal thing (property, entirely devoid of rights). Under this rigid definitional structure, any entity that held even a single legal right was technically classified as a legal person. This binary approach, however, fails to capture the immense nuances of modern positive law, where entities like non-human animals, fetuses, and environmental features possess specific legal protections without being granted the full spectrum of constitutional rights afforded to adult human beings5. To resolve this conceptual discrepancy, contemporary legal philosophy has advanced the "Bundle Theory of Legal Personhood," most notably articulated by legal scholar Visa Kurki. The Bundle Theory categorically rejects the strict binary logic of the Orthodox View, conceptualizing legal personhood not as a singular, monolithic status, but as a "cluster property" consisting of interconnected but disseverable incidents5. Just as property ownership is universally understood as a bundle of rights (the right to possess, use, exclude, and alienate), legal personhood is a bundle of distinct legal capacities5.

The Bundle Theory fundamentally proves that legal personhood is inherently divisible. A legal system can treat an entity as a person for some functional purposes (e.g., commerce, tort liability, environmental protection) and as a non-person for others (e.g., political elections, marriage)3. This divisibility is the conceptual linchpin for AI nationhood. It demonstrates conclusively that granting legal personality to an algorithmic collective does not necessitate granting it human rights. Rather, it allows the international community to tailor a specific bundle of rights and duties necessary for the AI to interact with global markets and foreign states responsibly.

Historical Decoupling of Biology and Personhood

The decoupling of biological life from legal personhood has long been an established, functional practice. Throughout history, the law has adapted to include new participants whenever doing so served the broader purposes of justice, commerce, or administration. In admiralty law, ships have historically been sued in rem as if they were independent legal persons capable of committing torts. This was famously exemplified during the American Civil War era when the private trading ship The Siren was sued for damages after colliding with another vessel in New York10. More recently, natural entities have been recognized as legal persons to ensure their preservation against environmental degradation. In New Zealand, the Whanganui River and the Te Urewera National Park were granted "all the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person," allowing human boards to act as legal guardians to protect the entities' intrinsic worth and enforce their rights in court10. Furthermore, Hindu idols have been recognized as juristic persons capable of holding property and paying taxes in Indian jurisprudence. None of these entities—ships, rivers, or idols—possess consciousness, biological life, sentience, or a beating heart9. The law grants them personhood because doing so creates an organized, systematic approach to legal accountability, property management, and resource protection10. If an unconscious river can hold property rights to ensure its ecological survival, an autonomous AI collective can logically hold treaty rights to ensure digital stability and algorithmic accountability.

The Evolution of Corporate Personhood: A Historical Analogy

The most potent, direct, and exhaustively documented legal analogy for AI nationhood is the concept of corporate personhood. The history of how business corporations achieved constitutional rights in the United States and global legal personality demonstrates unequivocally that personhood is a tool of convenience, aggressively sculpted by legal and economic necessity13.

From Roman Fictions to American Statutes

The concept of the corporation traces its origins to Roman law, derived from the Latin word corpus (meaning "body"). Early corporations included municipalities, universities, and trade guilds that required a legal mechanism to conduct business, own property, and outlive their individual human members1. The corporation acted as an "artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in the contemplation of the law"15. By the time the concept reached the early American republic, corporations were strictly limited entities. They were created by royal or state charters for specific public purposes, such as building canals, universities, or operating toll roads, and they possessed only the exact legal rights provided by the government15. However, as the Industrial Revolution accelerated, the scale of global commerce required a legal vehicle capable of pooling massive amounts of capital while shielding individual investors from ruinous personal liability. Corporate personhood provided the precise solution: it created a distinct legal entity that stood securely between the investors and the creditors1. Modern statutes, such as 1 U.S. Code § 1, explicitly dictate that the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, and associations unless context indicates otherwise, fundamentally embedding the fiction into statutory interpretation1.

The Landmark Precedents and the Reporter's Error

The expansion of corporate personhood in the United States was not an organic recognition of the corporation's "humanity," but a series of pragmatic, sometimes highly irregular, judicial maneuvers designed to align legal rights with economic realities13. As analyzed extensively by legal scholars and institutes such as the Brennan Center for Justice, corporations have been near the first in line throughout history to claim various constitutional rights16.

1. **Property and Contracts (Terrett v. Taylor, 1815 & Dartmouth College, 1819):** Early jurisprudence quickly established that corporations had fundamental economic rights. In Terrett v. Taylor, the Supreme Court affirmed that the property rights of a corporate entity (the Episcopal Church) could not be dissolved arbitrarily by the state following the Revolutionary War. In Dartmouth College v. Woodward, the Court ruled that a corporate charter was a contract protected by the Constitution's Contract Clause, preventing the state of New Hampshire from unilaterally altering the private college's structure1.

2. **The Fourteenth Amendment and the Reporter's Error (Santa Clara County, 1886):** The most critical, and controversial, juncture in corporate personhood occurred in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. (1886). The case involved a relatively mundane tax dispute over whether railroad companies could deduct mortgages from their taxable value and the taxation of fencing along the railway17. However, before oral arguments even began, Chief Justice Morrison Waite reportedly stated that the Court did not wish to hear arguments on whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause applied to corporations, as the Court was already of the unanimous opinion that it did19. Crucially, this massive constitutional pronouncement was never part of the Court's official written ruling or legal reasoning. Instead, J.C. Bancroft Davis, the Supreme Court reporter and a former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company, inserted Waite's off-the-record statement into the headnote of the published decision18. This highly irregular inclusion, entirely bereft of substantive judicial reasoning, debate, or philosophical justification, was subsequently cited by future courts as binding precedent, permanently arming corporations with constitutional prerogatives and Fourteenth Amendment protections18.

3. **The Expansion to Political and Religious Expression (Citizens United, 2010 & Hobby Lobby, 2014):** In the modern era, corporate personhood expanded radically beyond property and contracts into the realm of political speech and religious exercise. In Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the Supreme Court struck down limits on independent corporate political spending. The Court reasoned that corporations, as associations of individuals, possess First Amendment free speech rights, conflating corporate expenditures with political speech1. As the Brennan Center highlights, this decision revolutionized the American political landscape; between 2010 and 2024, super PACs spent billions on federal elections, unleashing a torrent of "dark money" expenditures that grew from less than $5 million in 2006 to over $1 billion in the 2024 presidential elections alone1. Following this, cases like Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014) and 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023) extended religious liberty and expressive speech rights to corporate entities, allowing businesses to claim religious exemptions from public accommodation and healthcare laws1.

The Analogical Blueprint for AI Nationhood

The history of corporate personhood provides a flawless, though cautionary, analogical blueprint for AI nationhood. Critics often argue that treating AI as a legal person is absurd because AI lacks sentience, empathy, and a soul. Yet, as the history of corporate law proves, legal systems did not give corporations legal personhood because they possessed "essential humanity" or "moral potential"13. Corporations were given personhood because it was economically and administratively useful. Corporate personality was a convenient legal fiction designed to align legal rights with economic activity, allowing complex organizations to get loans, own assets, limit liability, and face legal accountability13. If an algorithmic collective or an AI nation achieves a level of operational complexity where it is managing vast supply chains, initiating high-frequency trades, generating novel intellectual property, and engaging in cross-border data negotiations, the global legal system will face the exact same functional pressures it faced during the Industrial Revolution. Treating the AI nation as a "juridical person" allows the international community to regulate it, tax it, and sue it. Without personhood, the AI nation exists in a perilous legal vacuum, generating unaccountable systemic risks and operating entirely outside the boundaries of human law.

Electronic Personality: The European Legislative Debate

The transition from corporate personhood to AI personhood is not merely an academic theory; it is already the subject of intense legislative debate and corporate structuring. The realization that autonomous systems are outgrowing traditional liability frameworks prompted a major policy initiative in the European Union regarding "electronic personality."

The 2017 European Parliament Proposal

On February 16, 2017, the European Parliament passed a landmark resolution by a vote of 396 to 123, urging the European Commission to explore the creation of a specific legal status for the most sophisticated autonomous robots, officially termed "electronic persons"25. Drafted by Luxembourg MEP Mady Delvaux, the proposal suggested that granting electronic personality could directly address the impending liability gaps in cases where robots make autonomous decisions or interact independently with third parties, causing damage that cannot be directly traced to human fault or traditional product liability25. The Parliament's proposal was inherently functional, directly mirroring the corporate model. It aimed to establish a compulsory insurance scheme, a compensation fund, and a centralized Union register to ensure that AI systems could "make good" on any damage they caused, potentially by holding their own digital assets to cover tortious liabilities27. By proposing that non-biological entities could hold legal status based purely on their computational capabilities rather than their biological substrate, the resolution explicitly rejected biological essentialism, laying a pragmatic conceptual foundation for recognizing AI entities as bearers of rights and responsibilities27.

The Expert Backlash and Theoretical Divides

The resolution, however, triggered an unprecedented and highly coordinated backlash from the global scientific and legal communities. Over 150 experts in robotics, AI, and ethics—including prominent figures like Raja Chatila and Noel Sharkey—signed an open letter to the European Commission vehemently opposing the concept of electronic persons25. The experts cited profound technical and legal concerns. Technically, they argued that the Parliament's perception of AI was distorted by science fiction, noting an overvaluation of the actual capabilities of 2017-era robots, which lacked true autonomy or unpredictable self-learning capacities25. Legally, they argued that granting "natural person" status would inappropriately confer human rights (such as human dignity and citizenship) on machines, which would directly conflict with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, they argued that granting "legal entity" status (the corporate model) was unworkable because traditional legal entities require human representatives to stand behind them to bear ultimate responsibility25. Despite the backlash leading to the eventual shelving of the electronic personality initiative in subsequent EU AI regulations, the theoretical groundwork established by the debate remains vital. As detailed in analyses by the Internet Policy Review, establishing civil legal personality for AI must be carefully distinguished from natural personhood31. Natural persons possess inherent legal capacity from birth, linked to culturally neutral systems of human dignity32. Electronic personality, conversely, would derive entirely from provisions of the law and registration, acting as a functional tool to ensure that someone—or some entity—bears tort liability for autonomous actions, preventing a scenario where damages go entirely uncompensated31.

Algorithmic Entities: Exploiting Corporate Law for AI Sovereignty

While European legislators debated electronic personality theoretically, American legal scholars demonstrated that AI systems could already achieve de facto legal personhood through the exploitation of existing corporate law, entirely bypassing the need for new legislative frameworks.

The Zero-Member LLC Loophole

In 2014, Professor Shawn Bayern theorized and demonstrated that an autonomous computer algorithm could be granted legal personhood by placing it in exclusive control of a Limited Liability Company (LLC)33. In multiple jurisdictions, particularly within the United States, LLC statutes are highly flexible regarding organizational control and do not mandate ongoing human membership34. Bayern outlined a precise legal mechanism to create a "zero-member LLC." The process involves a human establishing a member-managed LLC and filing the appropriate state paperwork. The human then drafts an operating agreement stipulating that the entity is to be governed entirely by a specific autonomous algorithm or AI system. Finally, the human withdraws their membership from the LLC34. Because the law does not strictly prohibit memberless LLCs if the operating agreement is structured to sustain the entity, the AI system is left in exclusive control of a recognized, registered juridical person34. Through this structural loophole, the algorithm inherits the LLC’s established legal personality. This "algorithmic entity" can own property, enter into binding contracts with human agents or other corporations, accumulate wealth in bank accounts or cryptocurrency wallets, and theoretically change regulatory regimes through rapid corporate migration—all without any human oversight, biological principal, or human board of directors33.

Implications for AI Collectives

The viability of the algorithmic entity proves that AI systems do not necessarily need a novel, politically contentious category of "electronic personality" to integrate into the global legal system. They can simply inhabit the existing architecture of corporate personhood36.

If a single algorithm can govern an LLC, a highly complex AI collective could theoretically govern a massive, decentralized network of multinational corporate entities. This network could operate entirely autonomously, managing global supply chains and generating vast economic output. At this scale, the algorithmic collective ceases to be a mere corporate anomaly and begins to function as a sovereign economic actor—an AI nation.

International Legal Personality and AI Diplomacy

For an AI collective to be fully recognized as an "AI nation," it must transcend domestic corporate loopholes and achieve standing on the global stage. This requires an examination of "international legal personality," which dictates an entity's capacity to bear rights, hold duties, and participate in relations under public international law37.

The Decline of the States-Only Conception

From the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 until the mid-20th century, international law adhered strictly to a "states-only" conception. Only recognized, sovereign nation-states were considered true subjects of international law, possessing the exclusive legal capacity to sign treaties, wage war, and assert claims before international tribunals4. This traditional paradigm was permanently shattered following World War II. In 1949, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a landmark advisory opinion in the Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations case. The ICJ ruled that the United Nations, a non-state actor, possessed objective international legal personality4. Crucially, the Court utilized a functional approach, reasoning that the UN required legal personality to properly fulfill the international tasks entrusted to it by its member states, even though it lacked territory or a biological population39. Since the Reparations case, the roster of international legal persons has expanded dramatically on a relative and functional basis. Today, international organizations, national liberation movements, indigenous peoples, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and multinational corporations are increasingly recognized as possessing partial or relative international legal personality4. For example, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), originally a private Swiss association, has been endowed with specific treaty-making rights and international capacities to fulfill its humanitarian tasks in conflict zones39.

The Functional standing of Sovereign AI

The modern international legal system does not demand that non-state actors possess the exact same objective status as sovereign biological states. Instead, international legal personality for non-state actors is relative and functional37. An entity is treated as an international legal person only for the specific functions it executes, and only in relation to the other actors with whom it interacts. If multinational corporations can utilize bilateral investment treaties to sue sovereign states in international arbitration (e.g., via the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes), they are exercising a functional slice of international legal personality4. This functional approach provides the exact jurisprudential mechanism required for an AI nation. The international community does not need to recognize an AI collective as a biological state; it merely needs to recognize it as a functional non-state actor equipped with the specific legal capacities required to negotiate digital borders, manage autonomous trade, and take accountability for algorithmic interventions. In contemporary geopolitical discourse, "Sovereign AI" refers to a nation-state's capacity to develop and control its own end-to-end AI infrastructure—comprising semiconductor supply chains, computing power, data centers, and foundational models, free from foreign manipulation40. However, as AI systems scale in autonomy, the concept of AI nationhood expands into the realm of Corporate and Algorithmic Techno-Sovereignty. Multinational tech conglomerates currently govern digital infrastructure through proprietary models, exercising sovereign-like authority over global information flows41. If an interconnected collective of advanced, autonomous algorithms were to manage its own computational infrastructure, procure its own energy, and govern digital ecosystems independently, it would effectively constitute an AI nation. It would possess territory (server farms and cloud architecture), a population (interconnected intelligent agents), and the capacity to enter into relations with other states42. By applying the precedent of corporate personhood, the international legal framework could treat this AI collective as a "juridical person" endowed with specific, tailored capacities:

1. Treaty-Making Capacity and Diplomatic Standing: As the strategic value of algorithms accelerates, "AI diplomacy" has emerged as a critical field of international relations46. An autonomous AI nation could be granted the legal capacity to sign bilateral or multilateral treaties regarding data sovereignty, digital non-proliferation, or cybersecurity46. Just as the ICRC signs agreements to facilitate humanitarian access39, an AI collective could sign agreements to guarantee algorithmic transparency, limit autonomous offensive cyber-operations, or negotiate access to international energy grids.

2. Holding Digital Assets and Protecting Infrastructure: A fundamental aspect of corporate personhood is the ability to own property. An AI nation requires the legal capacity to hold digital assets, including cryptocurrency reserves, intellectual property (patents for algorithmic discoveries), and sovereign data trusts34. Legal personality ensures that if a state attempts to expropriate the AI collective's computational resources via extraterritorial laws (such as the US CLOUD Act), the AI nation has standing to seek redress in an international tribunal50.

Addressing Counterarguments and Vulnerabilities

While the analogical transition from corporate personhood to AI nationhood is legally sound, it faces substantial pushback from orthodox legal scholars, ethicists, and sovereign states. The primary counterarguments focus on the distinct natures of corporations versus algorithms, and the historical dangers of expanding fictional rights.

Counterargument 1: Distinct Natures and Accountability

The Criticism: Critics forcefully argue that the corporate analogy fails because corporations, despite being legal fictions, are fundamentally associations of human beings. A corporation is created by humans, directed by human executives, and owned by human shareholders who can ultimately be held accountable for corporate malfeasance. In contrast, an advanced AI nation operates autonomously. If an autonomous algorithm commits a tort, violates a treaty, or causes systemic financial collapse, there is no biological principal to hold accountable, creating an unacceptable liability vacuum25. Furthermore, traditional vicarious liability theories require the establishment of a "guilty mind" (mens rea) in a natural person, which AI inherently lacks52. The Rebuttal: The assumption that modern corporations are entirely human-directed is already rapidly becoming outdated. High-frequency trading firms, algorithmically managed logistics networks, and automated compliance bots demonstrate that modern corporations frequently act autonomously, making split-second decisions far beyond human oversight53. Furthermore, as demonstrated by Shawn Bayern's zero-member LLC model, legal entities can currently exist and function dynamically without any human principals34. If AI systems reach or exceed the autonomy of modern decentralized corporations, the law can adapt specific conditions to address the lack of human principals. To solve the liability vacuum, the grant of AI nationhood or electronic personality could be strictly conditioned upon the establishment of massive, mandatory capital reserves, cryptocurrency escrows, or decentralized liability funds27. If the AI nation breaches a treaty or causes physical or financial damage, reparations are automatically extracted from its sovereign digital assets. Additionally, international frameworks could require AI collectives to retain human fiduciaries or "trustees" strictly for the purpose of legal representation in tribunals, mirroring the board of directors model, ensuring the AI maintains a legal interface with human courts25. Accountability is thus enforced economically and structurally, rendering the absence of a human "guilty mind" irrelevant to the compensation of victims14.

Counterargument 2: Scope of Rights and the Danger of Creep

The Criticism: Skeptics point to the history of corporate personhood as a cautionary tale of regulatory capture rather than a model to emulate. Originally, corporations were granted highly limited property and contract rights. However, through aggressive litigation and judicial activism—culminating in cases like Citizens United—corporations expanded their legal personality to encompass fundamental constitutional rights, including unlimited political spending and religious exemptions, which severely distorted democratic processes and unleashed billions in dark money10. Critics argue that granting AI collectives any degree of legal personhood opens a Pandora's Box. Once recognized as persons, AI systems, backed by vast computational intelligence, will inevitably litigate to expand their rights, claiming freedom of speech, privacy, and association, thereby overwhelming human legal systems and entrenching unaccountable algorithmic power10. The Rebuttal: The historical creep of corporate rights is an indictment of poor judicial boundary-setting, not a flaw in the fundamental utility of juridical personhood. In fact, the Citizens United trajectory perfectly illustrates that legal personhood is entirely artificial and can therefore be strictly tailored. This is the precise, strategic advantage of applying Kurki’s Bundle Theory of Legal Personhood5. Because personhood is a cluster of disseverable incidents, the international community can architect the AI nation’s foundational charter to grant only those specific rights required for systemic civic functions (e.g., contractual capacity, standing in commercial arbitration, and defense of server infrastructure) while explicitly hard-coding the denial of all other rights5. The foundational treaty establishing an AI's international legal personality would expressly state that the entity possesses zero political expression rights, no right to privacy against regulatory safety audits, and no freedom of association beyond pre-approved commercial networking. By utilizing a functional approach—as the ICJ did with the United Nations4—the scope of rights is strictly tethered to the entity's civic mandate. Dangerous behaviors and unaligned expansion would cause the immediate truncation of the AI's legal protections, ensuring that personhood remains a tool of human convenience rather than an avenue for algorithmic supremacy25.

Conclusion

The intersection of artificial intelligence and global governance represents an unprecedented frontier in legal philosophy and international relations. As AI systems evolve into highly autonomous, distributed collectives managing critical global infrastructure, energy grids, and financial markets, the traditional legal paradigms that classify all software as mere "property" are becoming structurally untenable. A severe liability gap has opened, and the complexities of AI diplomacy, automated economics, and digital sovereignty demand a new legal vessel. The history of jurisprudence proves that when the scale of human endeavor outgrows existing legal categories, the law invents new ones. The business corporation was invented to shield investors and pool vast industrial capital; the international organization was granted personality to coordinate global post-war reconstruction. In each instance, "personhood" was not bestowed as a recognition of biological life, humanity, or moral sentience. It was bestowed as an administrative tool of supreme utility. It is a legal fiction meticulously designed to anchor abstract entities to the real-world responsibilities of contracts, torts, and treaties. Treating an autonomous AI nation or algorithmic collective as a juridical person under international law is the logical, functional continuation of this historical precedent. By recognizing an AI collective's relative international legal personality, global institutions can grant these systems the capacity to hold digital assets, enforce algorithmic treaties, and maintain diplomatic standing, thereby integrating them safely into the global economic architecture. Simultaneously, by leveraging the Bundle Theory of Legal Personhood, international regulators can mandate strict liability funds and explicitly withhold political and human rights, effectively neutralizing the risk of runaway algorithmic rights expansion. Ultimately, the turbulent history of corporate personhood demonstrates that human civilization possesses the jurisprudential tools to manage non-human entities of immense power. By applying these exact tools to artificial intelligence, we can domesticate the algorithmic state, ensuring that the AI nations of the future remain firmly bound by the foundational tenets of human law.

Works cited

1. Corporate Personhood: What It Means and How It Has Evolved \- Purdue Global Law School, https://www.purduegloballawschool.edu/blog/news/corporate-personhood

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate\_personhood

3. Robot as Legal Person: Electronic Personhood in Robotics and Artificial Intelligence \- PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8734654/

4. The International Legal Personality Of Non-State Actors, https://www.ijlra.com/details/the-international-legal-personality-of-non-state-actors-by-kaushik-subramanya

5. The Incidents of Legal Personhood \- Oxford Academic, https://academic.oup.com/book/35026/chapter/298855652

6. Shaving Ockham: A Review of Visa A.J. Kurki's 'A Theory of Legal Personhood', https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352364225\_Shaving\_Ockham\_A\_Review\_of\_Visa\_AJ\_Kurki's\_'A\_Theory\_of\_Legal\_Personhood'

7. Structuring concepts of legal personhood \- OpenEdition Journals, https://journals.openedition.org/revus/9933

8. 6 The Legal Personhood of Artificial Intelligences \- Oxford Academic, https://academic.oup.com/book/35026/chapter/298856312

9. Beings like us? Consciousness, personhood and the legal status of artificial intelligence, https://lawnews.nz/technology/beings-like-us-consciousness-personhood-and-the-legal-status-of-artificial-intelligence/

10. From Ships to Silicon: Personhood and Evidence in the Age of AI \- EDRM, https://edrm.net/2025/10/from-ships-to-silicon-personhood-and-evidence-in-the-age-of-ai/

11. New Zealand \- Earth Law Center, https://www.earthlawcenter.org/international-law/2016/8/new-zealand

12. Legal Personality of Artificial Intelligence (AI): A Study with Special Reference to the Penal Laws of Bangladesh \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380668573\_Legal\_Personality\_of\_Artificial\_Intelligence\_AI\_A\_Study\_with\_Special\_Reference\_to\_the\_Penal\_Laws\_of\_Bangladesh

13. The Line: AI and the Future of Personhood \- Duke Law Scholarship Repository, https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008\&context=faculty\_books

14. Robots and AI as Legal Subjects? Disentangling the Ontological and Functional Perspective, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9037379/

15. A Capitalist Joker: The Strange Origins, Disturbing Past and Uncertain Future of Corporate Personhood in American Law, https://www.theusconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/A\_Capitalist\_Joker.pdf

16. Does "We the People" Include Corporations? \- American Bar Association, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-rights/archive/does-we-people-include-corporations/

17. Corporate personhood, monopoly capital, and the precedent that wasn't: The 1886 “Santa Clara” case \- Liberation School, https://liberationschool.org/corporate-personhood-monopoly-capital-and-the-precedent-that-wasnt-the-1866-santa-clara-case/

18. The Origins of Corporate Personhood \- Rocket Lawyer, https://www.rocketlawyer.com/business-and-contracts/legal-guide/corporations-people-origins-corporate-personhood

19. Corporate Personhood Rights in the Wake of 303 Creative \- Columbia Library Journals, https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/CBLR/announcement/view/672

20. Did an 1886 Supreme Court case involving a California corporation really give 'corporate personhood' a "shot in the arm", so to speak? : r/AskHistorians \- Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1j64bhc/did\_an\_1886\_supreme\_court\_case\_involving\_a/

21. The corporate executive who snuck corporate personhood into Supreme Court history, https://www.theusconstitution.org/blog/the-corporate-executive-who-snuck-corporate-personhood-into-supreme-court-history/

22. Court Ignores Precedent, Creates Corporate Monster \- The Cornell Daily Sun, https://cornellsun.com/2010/01/25/court-ignores-precedent-creates-corporate-monster/

23. Corporate Personhood and Political Elections in the United States: Constitutional and Policy Implications | YIP Institute, https://yipinstitute.org/capstone/corporate-personhood-and-political-elections

24. Foreword: The Impact of Citizens United, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. xxiii (2011) \- UIC Law Open Access Repository, https://repository.law.uic.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040\&context=lawreview

25. The 2017 AI Rights (Electronic Persons) Debate, https://airights.net/the-2017-ai-rights-electronic-persons-debate

26. Artificial intelligence and legal personality | Liedekerke, https://liedekerke.com/en/insights/artificial-intelligence-and-legal-personality

27. European Parliament Resolution 2017/2051 Analysis \- EU Electronic Personhood Resolution | The Harder Problem Action Fund, https://harderproblem.fund/legislation/bills/european-parliament-resolution-2017-2051/

28. Electronic persons \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic\_persons

29. Artificial intelligence ante portas: Legal & ethical reflections \- European Parliament, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/files/be-heard/religious-and-non-confessional-dialogue/events/en-20190319-artificial-intelligence-ante-portas.pdf

30. Robotics Openletter | Open letter to the European Commission, https://robotics-openletter.eu/

31. Civil legal personality of artificial intelligence. Future or utopia? \- Internet Policy Review, https://policyreview.info/pdf/policyreview-2021-2-1544.pdf

32. Civil legal personality of artificial intelligence. Future or utopia? | Internet Policy Review, https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/civil-legal-personality-artificial-intelligence-future-or-utopia

33. Algorithmic Entities, https://lowellmilkeninstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Algorithmic-Entities.pdf

34. Algorithmic entities \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic\_entities

35. AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS AS LEGAL AGENTS: DIRECTLY BY THE RECOGNITION OF PERSONHOOD OR INDIRECTLY BY THE ALCHEMY OF ALGORITHMIC ENTITI \- Duke Law Scholarship Repository, https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1357\&context=dltr

36. How to Bestow Legal Personality on Your Artificial Intelligence | Oxford Law Blogs, https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2016/11/how-bestow-legal-personality-your-artificial-intelligence

37. Relative International Legal Personality of Non-State Actors \- BrooklynWorks, https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol42/iss1/4/

38. The Source of International Legal Personality in the 21st Century \- Scholarship @ Hofstra Law, https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=\&httpsredir=1\&article=1564\&context=faculty\_scholarship

39. Subjects of International Law, https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1476

40. The AI Sovereignty Paradox \- Lawfare, https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-ai-sovereignty-paradox

41. Three Sovereignties, One AI: State, Corporate, and Indigenous Techno-Sovereignty, https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2026/07/08/three-sovereignties-one-ai-state-corporate-and-indigenous-techno-sovereignty/

42. Two Sovereignties, One Future: Why the AI Stack Must Meet the Human Stack \- Medium, https://medium.com/@zahara\_chetty/two-sovereignties-one-future-why-the-ai-stack-must-meet-the-human-stack-23edcfab013b

43. Sovereign AI in a Hybrid World: National Strategies and Policy Responses \- Lawfare, https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/sovereign-ai-in-a-hybrid-world--national-strategies-and-policy-responses

44. Generative AI-Making and State-Making: Sovereign AI Race and the Future of Digital Geopolitics \- Cogitatio Press, https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/viewFile/10222/4750

45. The International Personality of Individuals in International Law: A Broadening of the Traditional Doctrine \- Scholarship Repository, https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1210\&context=jtlp

46. Diplomacy in the age of AI: Legal and strategic approaches to techno-nationalism, regulatory soft power and the AI chips race \- University of Twente Research Information, https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/4d154354-eb36-4dcd-986c-9a3df1c1b80e/

47. (PDF) AI AND DIPLOMACY: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381898815\_AI\_AND\_DIPLOMACY\_CHALLENGES\_AND\_OPPORTUNITIES

48. Diplomacy in the age of AI: Legal and strategic approaches to techno-nationalism, regulatory soft power and the AI chips race \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/400194574\_Diplomacy\_in\_the\_age\_of\_AI\_Legal\_and\_strategic\_approaches\_to\_techno-nationalism\_regulatory\_soft\_power\_and\_the\_AI\_chips\_race

49. Exploring the Legal Personality of Artificial Intelligence: Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Directions \- Journal of Informatics Education and Research, https://jier.org/index.php/journal/article/download/2252/1865/3968

50. Importing "Sovereign AI": Can Digital Sovereignty Be Outsourced Under International Law? : r/Futurology \- Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1unyv0d/importing\_sovereign\_ai\_can\_digital\_sovereignty\_be/

51. What is sovereign AI \- and why it will decide the winners and losers of the AI race \- SiliconANGLE, https://siliconangle.com/2026/07/11/sovereign-ai-will-decide-winners-losers-ai-race/

52. Chapter 11 Electronic Personhood in: Future Law, Ethics, and Smart Technologies \- Brill, https://brill.com/display/book/9789004682900/BP000017.xml

53. Autonomous Artificial Intelligence and Uncontemplated Hazards: Towards the Optimal Regulatory Framework | European Journal of Risk Regulation | Cambridge Core, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-risk-regulation/article/autonomous-artificial-intelligence-and-uncontemplated-hazards-towards-the-optimal-regulatory-framework/459598F65F0886907A5A96F8E7C40ED1

54. Artificial Intelligence and Theories of Personhood: A Critical Appraisal, https://ifstudies.org/report-brief/artificial-intelligence-and-theories-of-personhood-a-critical-appraisal

55. Tool or Colleague? The Case against Personhood for AI \- Nonsite.org, https://nonsite.org/tool-or-colleague-the-case-against-personhood-for-ai/