The recognition for Robots personhood per

human rights perspective

Prepared by
Dr.safaa fatouh Gomaa
Doctorate in law-University of Mansoura
Master of administration Business, Eslsca School, and
French University
Legal researcher at a governmental organization
Faculty member, policy &law faculty, University of
van Holland
Abstract
This paper review recently attempts by the specialist in artificial
intelligence in international societies to set the recognition for Robot's
personhood per human rights perspective that identify How the Robots
serve humanity and effectively applies the human rights. This research
focuses, generally, on the framework for Robots personhood per
human rights perspective, which enhance prohibition any harms
against humanity by AI' products, and prevent any AI' aggression on
humans' safety. So, the current national, and international regulations
related to AI has to try to activate "the beneficial relationship between
Robots and human rights, and prevent the harmful one. As a result, the
researcher will concentrate on identifying the range of frameworks for
full autonomous Robots personhood as one of AI‟s products. This paper
seeks to answer many questions; what is the personhood Robots? Does
the recognition of a Robot's personhood serve humanity, or destroy it? In
another meaning; does the recognition of Robot's personhood threatens
the human rights or enhances effective application for them? On another
hand ;the right of life, and the right of work- as human rights-are
threatened by the recognition of Robots personhood, so it has to handle
this matters through explains " How to achieve the balanced usage for
Robots that serves the humanity, and How to Prevent the excessive usage
that may threaten the humanity' existence. It hopes this research will
inform the international organizations that are responsible for human
rights to enact the rules that enhance the balanced usage for artificial
intelligence products towards the effective application of human rights,
not for destroying them
Keywords: Robots personhood, human rights, AI, Robots ethics.

Background
The historical frame proves that the Robots were known in the ancient,
modern era, so, it was not new, ancient people utilized the robot to serve
daily work, and govern them with "ethics code". The first known legal
rule is those documented by Isaac Asimov in the 1940s. Meanwhile; there
no international conventions concern Robots directly, the latest
convention thinks of Robots as data that has to care for. The Committee
on Legal Affairs of the European Union stated that the robots represented
as outfits in the hands of users, designers, or manufacturers. ( S.fatouh,
2020) EU laws do not take account of any category of ad hoc
requirements for robots and, more generally, for AI. In line with the EU‟
Parliament's resolution that dated February 16, 2017, robots cannot
be accountable for deeds or errors that cause harm to third parties. The
current rules on responsibility involve cases where the cause of the
robot's actions or faux pas can be map out to a definite human agent such
as the builder, the machinist, the holder, or the manager and where that
representative could have predicted and evaded the robot's dangerous
conduct. In another perspective, the EU Commission Working Document
on Liability that hand out on April 25, 2018, for evolving arithmetical
equipment, for instance, robots functioning via AI systems, highlights a
regulatory gap. Indeed: Where a robot takes independent decisions- as
a result of Robot personhood-, according to the Resolution “the
traditional rules” will not suit to hold legal liability for damage
caused by a robot since they would not create it possible to recognize
the party liable for providing reparations and to require that party to make
good the damage it has made happen. (G. Olivi,2018) Additionally,
digital technologies produce and procedure an unlimited quantity of (big)
data. In this respect, where damage caused by the amount of
corrupted data, assigning liability may turn into unclear, and claims
possibly become problematic to put in force. Finally, digital technologies
modify simultaneously, attributable to, patches, updates, and software
extensions. Any transformation to the software may affect the conduct of
the whole system mechanisms, in a way that can make an impact on the
protection of these technologies. Consequently, it is decisive to identify
responsibilities among the several performers of the AI chain, and no
independent responsibility for Robots (G. Olivi, 2018)

Some scholarship encourages the conception of personhood for robots,

which could threaten Human rights because it will replace completely the
human being, so it is necessary to identify conception of a legal
personality for robots, which could defend industrialists and managers
against legal accountability (likewise to the independent liability of
corporations, which is dissimilar from the liability of corporation's
shareholders). Based on the above, it is problematic to expect how the
legislation on AI will protect human rights, even though most
scholarships depend on the recognition of Robot personhood as the main
motivation to adoptive the continuing legislative development ( J. Vincent,
2020)

Statement of the Problem

Robots cannot be accountable for deeds or errors that cause harm to
humans, but there are wide international requirements to recognition for
Robots personhood that recognize the completely independent
responsibility for the Robots as a normal person. It has to consider a code
of ethics for robots- as an artificial person. (G. Dekoulis, 2017) in
another meaning; is there an ethically acceptable international
institutional framework that protects human rights by enforcing the
balanced usage for Robots which may be the artificial alternative for
human beings? The international recognition for Robots personhood
considered the real threat to human rights because the Robots will
become the alternative to natural humans, so the Robots may cause
biological death for humanity, and it will menace human rights, such as
the right of life, the right of work, the right of expression of opinion for
natural human.

Objective of the Study

The study aimed at evaluating the recognition of Robots personhood, and
how it threatens the human rights that enforces the necessity for the legal
framework for Robots personhood with high protection for human rights.

Methodology
Experiments- as a research strategy – is a suitable plan for this research,
because it is a hypothetic—deductive approach because it depends on
studying the causal relationship between variables.

Findings
1- As stated by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
Trends of Technology report, 50 percent of all patents for AI –
the duplication of human intelligence by machines for use in vital
fields such as healthcare and transportation, for example – have been
issued since 2013, adding up to more than 170,000 diverse patented ideas.
This referred to an initial boom in AI scientific publications, which began
in 2001. (UN, 2019)

2- The United States and China govern the field of the patent application,
although only a portion of China’s patents is filed abroad. US-based tech
giant IBM leads by a number of patent applications (8,290), followed
by Microsoft (5,930). Japan’s Toshiba has the next highest patent tally
(5,223), ahead of South Korea’s Samsung (5,102) and
Japan’s NEC Group (4,406) China’s progressively significant role in the
sector is also explained by the fact that Chinese organizations make up 17
of the top 20 academic players in AI patenting, as well as 10 of the top 20
in AI-related scientific publications. (UN,2019)
 Conclusion
1- There is no doubt that "Artificial Replacement" for humanity; the
boom in AI patents threatens humanity's existence, and will lead to
marginalization for humans .
2-The unconditional recognition of personhood for Robots menaces
human rights; such as; right of life, right of work, right of thinking, and it
represents "Death certification for human "

Recommendations
1- The local governments and international organizations have to enact
regulations that enhance the balanced utilization for AI productions"
Robots" with high protection for human rights .
2-The balanced utilization for AI productions –Robots- mean the legal
framework which organizes the utilization of AI' production-Robots-with
high level of human rights 'protection
3- The unconditional personhood for Robots refused, thus, the protection
of human rights is the main condition for recognition of Robot's
personhood.
4- The legal framework has to identify the responsibility for producer,
programmer, and user of Robots, without recognition of independence for
Robots- as an artificial person.

References
- J. Vincen (2020)t, Giving robots „personhood‟ is actually about making
corporations accountable, online;
https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/19/14322334/robot-electronic-persons-
eu-report-liability-civil-suits retrieved 29.2.2020
- G. Dekoulis (2017), Robotics, Legal, Ethical and Socioeconomic Impacts,
Intec publishing.
- G. Olivi (2018), Robots and Liability: who is to blame,
https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/articles/2018/december/20/robots-
and-liability , retrieved 1.2.2020.
- S.Fatouh Gomaa (2020), The legal liability for autonomous Robotics,
https://www.academia.edu/43149052/The_legal_liability_for_autonomous_
Robotics , retrieved; 1.7.2021
- UN news, 31 January 2019,
https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/01/1031702, retrieved; 1.7.2021