66 The Search for A New Legal Personality in The Digital Age: Artificial Intelligence question was developed by Canon jurists in the 13th century and is still accepted as a condition taken into account in judicial decisions.57 On the other hand, it is claimed that granting legal personality to some organizations that do not have the ability to exercise their rights and fulfil their duties creates an exceptional situation in terms of the condition of having will. Namely, although companies do not have a living and physical existence and do not have a will, they have been granted personality rights by the legal system in order to support economic and commercial life. Thus, it is aimed to limit the legal liability and enable the real persons behind the legal entities to carry out their commercial activities more effectively and safely.58 Based on this view, although some structures have been granted legal personality by the legal order for functional reasons and to meet people’s needs, it is accepted that it is not appropriate to recognize artificial intelligent beings who do not have the ability to reflect their own will in legal life as subjects of law.59 Tartışmalar, Yapay Zekâ Çağında Hukuk” (Current Debates about Artificial Intelligence and Law, Law in the Age of Artificial Intelligence), İstanbul, Ankara ve İzmir Baroları Çalıştay Raporu 2019, (Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir Bar Associations Workshop Report 2019), p. 54. 57 In 2015, in the New York District Court in the USA, By Non-human Rights Project (NhRP/Non-Human Rights Project), In the lawsuit filed for the release of chimpanzees held for medical research at Stony Brook University, It has been argued that chimpanzees have their own “demands for justice” because, much like humans, chimpanzees have the basic personality traits of autonomy, self-awareness, and self-determination. Based on the Habeas Corpus, which is only valid for “legal persons” in the US Constitution, it was requested that the fundamental rights of freedom and equality granted to humans were also applied to chimpanzees and that they be released. The Court decided that only entities recognized as persons are capable of having rights and assuming obligations, while “objects” do not have these legal rights and responsibilities, and in this context, all animals are legally subject to property, regardless of their intelligence level and physical appearance. The decision also made a distinction between chimpanzees and legal entities and stated that companies with legal personality consist of people, therefore they can assume legal rights and duties, and therefore it is lawful for them to have legal personality. Solaiman, p. 26, 27. 58 On the other hand, according to Beckman, when there is a legal liability for companies, the aim is to reach a decision or policy that can be attributed to the individual partners of the company, rather than the company as a representative of the group of people. Ludvig Beckman, “Personhood and legal status: reflections on the democratic rights of corporations”, Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, 1, 2018, p. 23. 59 Zimmerman, p. 28
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1