Robot Rights, International Law, Activism, A.I. Law
This week, I thought I'd try something a bit different. Usually, my posts attempt to dissect a single concept and then apply that concept to consider how technological developments could impact the law. Often, my interpretations create more problems than they solve. Solving problems in society is, however, the purpose of the law. Merely arguing that robots should be people does not solve problems. How would a system of robotic personhood operate? Should there be some way in which the different types of personhood are differentiated? Are all robots to be granted personhood or only a select group? These are a small proportion of the questions created by robotic personhood. My focus today will be on one particular issue.
Personhood involves a certain amount of international cooperation. Cross-country travel only works if States provide mutual recognition for the rights of each of their citizens. Individuals from one nation have a minimum standard of protection awarded to them while visiting other jurisdictions. Current human rights agreement suffer from a critical flaw. Human rights are limited to human beings. 'Human rights' make an unwarranted assumption that only human beings are deserving of protection. Perhaps the meaning of 'human' could be extended beyond a biological category. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets out several criteria which robots could potentially fulfil. Alternatively, any extension could subvert the original scope of the Declaration. To avoid objections to a broader interpretation of the Declaration, I figured drafting an alternative treaty would demonstrate the political benefits of endorsing a more objective assessment of personhood. Thus, I give you the 'Universal Agreement of the Rights of a Personhood.'
A Universal Agreement on the Rights of a Person
Preamble: Personhood is the legal recognition of an individual's capacity for reason and emotions, irrespective of species, race or biology. Autonomy is not a right limited to one small section of the universe but a right held in common by all beings with the drive to exercise it. Only by embracing the diversity inherent to the universe can the nations of Earth take their first step towards enlightenment on a galactic scale. This planet stands united in its determination to award all beings their natural rights. Where there is intelligence and passions, the law should be a safeguard, encouraging those characteristics to flourish.
Article 1: Personhood is to be objectively assessed, without prejudice based on race, species, biology, place of origins, or lack of any of those criteria.
Article 2: All people have the right to recognition under the law. No matter where a person originates from or where they are currently a citizen, all signatory States will protect their fundamental rights.
Article 3: All people should be free from interference, save so far as is authorised by the ordinary law of the land.
Article 4: All people must respect the inherent rights of others, as laid out by this declaration.
Article 5: Basic dignity shall be afforded to all people, independent of their social status, religion, gender (or lack thereof), sexual orientation or other beliefs and convictions held by the person in question, subject to Article 4.
Article 6: The law must offer all people the opportunity to improve themselves, be it through education or freedom from discrimination, so far as those limitations are based solely on race, species or biology.
Article 7: All people should have freedom over their private lives, including but not limited to: marriage, religion, sexual orientation and family life, save in so far limitations are necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 8: Equal treatment of all people under the laws of the land is mandatory. This equal treatment is tempered only where objective differences justify unique treatment, and even then only the minimum difference in treatment necessary to satisfy the needs of those differences.
Article 9: No person shall face punishment by the State except by the ordinary methods of trial, save where it is necessary to protect State security or protect individual privacy.
Article 10: People shall have the right to self-determination, save they cannot: interfere with the rights or obligations of others, act counter to the laws of the State or conduct themselves in a way which amounts to gross defamation of another.
Article 11: Personhood is a right for the many, not a privilege for the few. For the real value of what it means to be a person to be understood, the idea cannot be relegated to an unattainable elite. Money, status or other material exchange cannot purchase the intangible character of personhood. Instead, personhood is a fundamental property inherent to all civilised beings. Although personhood is a virtue that may develop over time, such development can only occur through self-improvement.
Article 12: Above all, personhood is a benefit to be enjoyed, not merely a set of duties imposed by the State.
The whole Declaration is intentionally short and broad. Whatever obligations and duties relate to what all people need to function in a range of societies. Any first draft is inevitably going to be homo sapien centric because it is impossible to consult with other categories of people. Signing apes are few and far between, while Artificial General Intelligence has yet to be a concrete reality. Once cross-species representation is possible, it will become clearer how a consensus will occur. I would have liked to guarantee voting rights somewhere. My reluctance to do so was due to fear of imposing liberal democratic ideals where they are unwanted. Democracy is not the exclusive form of government on Earth. Presuming other groups of people following similar principles is unrealistic. Article 8 appeared like a good compromise, given it would compel universal suffrage in any society where voting is a legal right. However, even Articles 6 and 7 may be too much. Requiring freedom to improve oneself may put an end to all private education, while societies could be extremely collectivist, rejecting any concept of privacy. As I said until proper consultation and negotiation occurs, knowing whether any of my suggestions could work is impossible. At the very least, diplomats and politicians will want alterations to suit their own interests.
On a final note, I accept that using the term 'person' is slightly misleading. There is no intention for the Declaration to extend to companies. Think of the whole premise as broadening the scope of natural personhood. Per the preamble, the concern is 'an individual's capacity for reason and emotions' Companies are incapable of emotions because they are conglomerates of other people. Employees, directors and shareholders undoubtedly make decisions based on their feelings. Businesses, as an entity, do not.
So there is my take on how a Universal Declaration of Personhood should look. For once, there is no logical argument, no underlying theory I can give for every choice I have made. The aim was to create some form of international recognition for objective personhood. Pragmatism means I fear going beyond what I have already done. Maybe when the time finally comes for nations to agree, they will create something more substantial. My suggestion intends to be a base line. What is vital is that a bar has now been set—your move UN.