A **legal person** is an entity recognized by law as having rights, duties, and capacity separate from the human beings who compose it. This concept allows organizations, corporations, states, and in some cases parts of the natural environment to hold property, make contracts, sue and be sued, and sometimes bear responsibility under the law. See also Jurisprudence and Corporate Personhood.
# History The idea of a legal person can be traced to Roman law, which distinguished between persona (a legal role or mask) and res (things). Roman jurists recognized entities such as cities, religious institutions, and collegia as having a form of legal identity that allowed them to own property and act in court.
In the **medieval period**, collective entities like the Catholic Church, guilds, and universities were recognized as enduring bodies distinct from their members. This laid the foundation for modern corporate and municipal law.
By the **nineteenth century**, corporations in Anglo-American law were firmly established as "artificial persons" with perpetual existence and limited liability. This enabled large-scale economic activity while separating collective from individual responsibility.
# Natural and Juridical Persons A distinction is drawn between: - Natural persons: human beings, with inherent rights and obligations. - Juridical persons: non-human entities created and recognized by law, such as corporations, states, foundations, and associations.
While natural personhood is universal, juridical personhood varies by jurisdiction and reflects different cultural and political traditions. See also Legal Systems.
# Corporate Personhood In the **United States**, corporations enjoy extensive rights, including some constitutional protections. The Supreme Court has held that corporations have free speech rights in political contexts, a controversial extension of personhood (Citizens United v. FEC, 2010).
In **Europe**, corporate personhood is generally more limited. Corporations are granted economic rights and legal standing, but not expansive political rights. The emphasis is often on public regulation and accountability rather than broad person-like status - law.cornell.edu 
# Rights of Nature The idea of extending legal personhood to elements of the natural environment emerged in the twentieth century.
In 1972, legal scholar Christopher D. Stone asked Should Trees Have Standing?, and Justice William O. Douglas argued in his dissent in *Sierra Club v. Morton* that rivers and forests should be able to appear in court to defend themselves.
Internationally, several major developments followed: - **Ecuador** (2008) recognized *Pachamama* (Mother Earth) as a rights-bearing subject in its Constitution. - **Bolivia** (2010, 2012) enacted the *Law of the Rights of Mother Earth*. - **New Zealand** (2014, 2017) granted legal personhood to the Whanganui River and Te Urewera Forest, with guardians appointed to act for them. - **India** (2017) recognized the Ganges and Yamuna rivers as legal persons, though enforcement remains uncertain.
In the **United States**, some municipalities have passed ordinances recognizing rights of ecosystems, but these often face preemption challenges. In **Europe**, strong environmental regulation exists, but legal personhood for nature is rare and mostly experimental - earthlawcenter.org
# Artificial Persons and AI A newer frontier is the question of whether **artificial intelligence systems** could, or should, be recognized as legal persons. So far, most jurisdictions treat AI systems as tools or property, with liability resting on human operators, owners, or corporations. However, as AI systems become more autonomous, some scholars and policymakers suggest that a form of legal personhood could provide a framework for assigning responsibility, ownership of outputs, or even rights.
The **European Parliament** in 2017 floated the idea of creating "electronic personhood" for advanced autonomous systems, though this was controversial and has not been enacted. Critics argue that granting personhood to AI risks shielding corporations from responsibility, while others argue it may one day be necessary to regulate advanced autonomous agents. See also Artificial Intelligence and Personhood - europarl.europa.eu
# Contemporary Directions The debate over legal personhood highlights a shift from a purely anthropocentric model of law toward recognition of collective, ecological, and artificial entities.
Advocates see these developments as necessary for protecting the environment and regulating emerging technologies. Critics worry about symbolic gestures without enforcement, or about personhood being misused to dilute human accountability.
The concept of legal personhood thus continues to evolve, reflecting changing values, technologies, and relationships between humans, societies, and their environment.
# See