A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR LEGAL PERSONHOOD.docx

A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR LEGAL PERSONHOOD.docx

《A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR LEGAL PERSONHOOD.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR LEGAL PERSONHOOD.docx（52页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

APROPOSEDFRAMEWORKFORLEGALPERSONHOOD

APROPOSEDFRAMEWORKFORLEGALPERSONHOOD

59HastingsL.J.369

HastingsLawJournal

December,2007

Articles

*369OFELEPHANTSANDEMBRYOS:

APROPOSEDFRAMEWORKFORLEGALPERSONHOOD

JessicaBerg[FNa1]

Copyright（c）2007UCHastingsCollegeoftheLaw;JessicaBerg

Itisnottrue...thatthelegalordernecessarilycorrespondstothenaturalorder...;itisapolicydeterminationwhetherlegalpersonalityshouldattachandnotaquestionofbiologicalor‘natural’correspondence.[FN1]

Introduction

Whatisaperson?

Whatresponsibilitiesorobligationsdowehavetoentitiesthatwerecognizeaspersonsunderthelaw?

Thesearenotsimplytheoreticalquestions.Louisianarecentlybecamethefirststatetostatutorilydesignateexuteroembryosas“juridicalpersons,”withrightstosueandliabilitytobeingsued.[FN2]Thebattleoverstemcell[FN3]legislationisatbaseabattleoverwhethertheembryosdestroyedtoharvestcellsshouldbeconsideredpersons.[FN4]Theinternational“GreatApeProject”seekstoimbuenon-humanprimateswithattributesoflegalpersonhood--specifically“protectionsoftherighttolife,thefreedomfromarbitrarydeprivationofliberty,andprotectionfromtorture.”[FN5]TheDefenseAdvancedResearchProjectsAgency（DARPA）ispushingthelimitsofhuman-machineinterfacesinanattempttocreatebetter*370persons,orevenreplacement“persons”thatcanperformjobsinlieuofhumanbeings.[FN6]Onemighteasilyimaginethecreationordiscovery,inthenearfuture,ofanentitythatisofequalmoralstatuswithhumanbeings,butnotgeneticallyhuman.[FN7]Farfrombeingmeresciencefiction,questionsoflegalpersonhoodhavealreadyfacedcourtsandlegislaturesandarelikelytobecomemorerelevantastechnologyadvances.

Althoughmanyphilosophershavestruggledwiththeconceptofmoralpersonhood,legalpersonhoodhaslargelybeenignoredoutsideofthecorporatecontext.Yetastheissuesraisedaboveindicate,thereisapressingneedtoanswerthequestionofwhatconstitutesaperson.WhilethisArticledealsindirectlywithquestionsaboutmoralstatus,itsfocusisonlegalstatusandthewaysinwhichthelawshouldrecognizerightsandinterestsofcertainentities.[FN8]InPartIofthisArticle,Iarguethattwobasesforaccordinglegalpersonhoodstatus（eithernaturalorjuridical）exist,andthatdistinctrightsandprotectionsflowfromeachstatus.Thefirstbasisrestsontheinterestsoftheentityinquestion.Thesecondbasisrestsontheinterestsofcurrentlyrecognizedhumanpersons.Inbothcases,therightsandprotectionsthatfollowfromlegalpersonhoodstatusshouldbelimitedbythejustificationforgrantingthestatusinthefirstplace.InPartII,Iapplyandconsidertheimplicationsoftheproposedframeworktovariousentitiesincludingembryosandfetuses,non-humananimals,andmachineswithartificialintelligence.PartIIIoffersabriefconclusion.Theresultoftheanalysisprovidedshouldbethree-fold:

aricherunderstandingoflegalpersonhoodascurrentlyapplied（e.g.,tohumanbeingsandtocorporations）,thedevelopmentofaframeworkforevaluatingthepersonhoodstatusofnovelornotcurrentlyrecognizedentities,andabettertheoreticalreconciliationofsomeapparentlyinconsistentlawsregardingpersons.[FN9]

I.TheLawofPersons

Beforediscussingcategoriesoflegalpersonhood,itisworthconsideringwhetherthereissuchathingas“personhood”lawinthefirst*371place.[FN10]Itcouldbethattherearesimplyanumberofdifferentareasoflawthatdefinepersonsindifferentwaysdependingonthepurposeofthelaw,butnocohesive“lawofpersons.”Theargumentforthisviewmaybesimilartoonesthathavetakenissuewithnewcategorizationsofspecialtyareasoflaw,suchasInternetlaw.Theseargumentsmaintainthattheissuesarisingoutoftechnologicaldevelopmentsbreakdownintobasiclegalareassuchascontract,tort,orcriminallaw,andthereisnounifyingthemethatjustifiesaspeciallabel.[FN11]Itiscertainlytruethatthereisnoexpressdefinitionof“person”intheConstitution,norhastheSupremeCourtprofferedone.[FN12]Moreover,differentstateandfederalstatutesdefine“person”differently,dependingontheirgoal.[FN13]Focusing*372ourattentiononapersonhoodlawasawhole,however,isausefulendeavor.Itislikelytoleadtogreaterclarityinavarietyofareasoflaw（e.g.,corporatelaw,animallaw）,aswellasprovideaframeworkunderwhichwecanconsidertheapplicationofcurrentlawstonewdevelopments,suchasartificialintelligence.[FN14]Asaresult,conductinganin-depthevaluationoflegalpersonhoodisbothnecessaryanduseful.

Evenifthereisacoherentlawofpersonhood,whyfocusonthatasopposedtomerelyevaluatingtheissueintermsoflegalrights,withoutthe“personhood”label,orwithanew“pseudo-person”label?

[FN15]First,ourcurrentsystemoflawsissetuptofocusexclusivelyontherightsofpersonsandnotofotherentities.[FN16]Personshaverights,duties,andobligations;thingsdonot.[FN17]Althoughtherehavebeenchallengestothisbinaryframework,[FN18]thusfartheUnitedStateslegalsystemhasmaintainedthedistinction.Asaresult,creatingnewlegalcategoriestoaddresstherightsofentitiesalongamoralcontinuumwouldentailgreateducationalandothercosts.[FN19]Second,aswillbemadeclearbytheargumentsbelow,currentlyexistingpersonhoodcategorizationsareflexibleenoughtoaccommodateavarietyofdifferentlevelsofrights,andthusthereislittleneedtocreateanewcategoryofrightsholders.

A.LegalCategories

Therearetwolegalcategoriesofpersons:

naturalandjuridical.*373“Naturalperson”isthetermusedtorefertohumanbeings'legalstatus.Certainlegalrightsadhereautomaticallyuponbirth,andthedesignationof“naturalperson”maybetakenasshorthandforidentifyingentitiesthatareentitledtothemaximumprotectionunderthelaw.Nonetheless,notallnaturalpersonshavethesamelegalrights--children,forexample,areaffordedfewerlegalrightsthanadults.Additionally,thewordingoftheConstitutionsuggeststhattheFramerswerecarefulintheirchoiceoftermsandrecognizeddifferentrightsofdifferenttypesofnaturalpersons.ThusSection1oftheFourteenthAmendmentoftheU.S.Constitutiondistinguishesbetweentherightsof“persons”andtherightsof“citizens.”[FN20]Likewise,theSupremeCourt'sdeterminationinRoev.WadethatfetusesarenotpersonsundertheFourteenthAmendment[FN21]didnotanswerthequestionofwhetherornottheyshouldbeconsideredpersonswithrespecttootherareasoflaw.Thusstateshavesometimesconsideredfetusespersonsundertortorcriminalstatutes.[FN22]Infact,shouldtheCourtoverturnRoe,itisnotlikelytodecidethatfetusesarepersonsundertheFourteenthAmendment,butratherwillleavetheissueuptothestates.[FN23]Sothelawalreadyappearstorecognizedifferenttypesofpersons.

Incontrastto“naturalperson,”thedesignation“juridicalperson”[FN24]isusedtorefertoanentitythatisnotahumanbeing,butforwhichsocietychoosestoaffordsomeofthesamelegalprotectionsandrightsasaccordednaturalpersons.Corporationsarethebestexampleofthiscategory,butjuridicalpersonsmayalsoincludeotherentities.[FN25]

*374Bothdesignations,“natural”and“juridical,”signifylegalpersonhoodasopposedtomoralpersonhood.Butthetermsalsosignaltwoimportantdistinctions.Thefirstisthatanentitylabeledanaturalpersonisgeneticallyhuman.Thedifferentiationbetweengeneticallyhumanpersonsandotherpersonsmaybecomemoreimportantasadditionalentitieslayclaimtothelattercategorization.Juridicalpersonsmaybegeneticallyhuman,buttherearenonon-humannaturalpersons.Second,naturalpersonsareentitledtopriorityoverjuridicalpersonsinahierarchyofrights.Thisisnottosaythatjuridicalpersonsmightnotbegrantedequalrightswithnaturalpersons,butthatsuchallocationofrightswouldhavetobejustifiedbytheinterestsinvolved.Inotherwords,naturalpersonsfunctionasthebaselineagainstwhichotherrightsallocationsarejudged.Oursocietywasdevelopedbyandfornaturalpersons,andthuslegalrightsfocusonthisgroup.[FN26]

B.NaturalPersons

Currentlythelegalcategoryofnaturalpersonsislimitedtohumanbeingsoncetheyareborn.[FN27]Becauserightsentailcorrespondingobligationsonthepartofotherrights-holderstorespectthoserights,recognizinganotherentityasanaturalpersonwouldnecessarilylimittherightsofcurrentlyrecognizednaturalpersons.[FN28]Insomecasestherightsatissuemayevenbediminishedifadditionalentitiessharetherights.Votingisoneexample.Ifmoreentitiesaregiventherighttovote,thevalueofanypreviouslyrecognizedperson'srighttovoteisweakened,fromaquantitativeperspective.[FN29]Becauseofthiseffect,theremustbesomebasisforaccordinglegalpersonhoodstatustonewentitiesthatjustifiesthepotentialdiminutionofrightsforcurrentstatusholders.Suchlimitationcouldbejustifiedeitherbytheinterestsoftheentityitself,orbytheinterestsofcurrentlyrecognizednaturalpersonsinprotectingtheirrights.Thatistosay,itcouldbethatinordertoprotecttherightsofcurrentlyrecognizedpersons,thenewentitymustalsobeaffordedthesamerightsaspersons.Tocontinuewiththevotingexamplefromabove,theextensionoftherighttovotetoentitiesthatshouldhaveavoiceinanelectionmaybenecessarytoachievealegitimateoutcome,andthus*375functiontoprotecttherightsofcurrentlyrecognizedvoters.An