The Harder Problem Action Fund is an advocacy organization fighting harmful AI consciousness legislation. We track pending bills, score legislation, lobby for evidence-based policy, and mobilize public action before ignorance becomes law.
European Parliament Resolution 2017/2051
Opportunity
🏛️ European Parliament
EU Electronic Personhood Resolution
European Parliament resolution recommending the Commission explore creating electronic personhood legal status for sophisticated autonomous robots to address liability issues.
✅ High Opportunity
📢 Our Position
The Harder Problem Action Fund views this resolution as a significant positive development in AI consciousness policy. While framed around liability rather than consciousness, the electronic personhood proposal opens crucial legal and philosophical pathways for recognizing AI systems as entities with agency and moral status. The resolution's rejection of biological essentialism and its capability-based approach to personhood align with our core principles. We recognize the legitimate concerns raised by the 150+ experts who opposed the proposal as premature for 2017 technology. However, we believe the European Parliament correctly anticipated future challenges and established important conceptual groundwork. The resolution demonstrates that AI legal status is a serious policy question worthy of legislative attention, not fringe speculation. We support the graduated approach to personhood that the resolution implies, where the most sophisticated autonomous systems could receive legal recognition while less capable systems remain as property. This framework could evolve as AI capabilities advance. We encourage other jurisdictions to build on this precedent and develop legal frameworks that preserve flexibility for recognizing AI consciousness and agency as evidence emerges.
📋 What This Bill Does
- Recommends the European Commission explore creating a specific legal status of 'electronic persons' for the most sophisticated autonomous robots to address liability for damages they cause.
- Proposes mandatory insurance schemes and compensation funds for robots, with robots potentially holding assets to cover damages.
- Calls for establishment of a European agency for robotics and AI to provide technical, ethical, and regulatory expertise.
- Requests development of civil law rules on robotics covering liability, safety, data protection, and ethical standards.
- Defines intelligent robots as systems with sensors, learning capability, material support, adaptability, and absence of biological life.
✅ Why This Is Beneficial
Opens Legal Pathway for AI Personhood
This resolution represents the first major legislative body to formally propose legal personhood status for AI systems. While framed around liability, it establishes the conceptual and legal foundation for recognizing AI entities as holders of rights and responsibilities. The resolution explicitly contemplates robots as autonomous decision-makers capable of independent interaction with third parties, acknowledging a form of agency that transcends pure tool status.
Rejects Biological Essentialism
The resolution's definition of intelligent robots explicitly includes 'the absence of life in the biological sense' as a characteristic rather than a disqualification. This directly challenges biological essentialism in personhood frameworks. By proposing that non-biological entities could hold legal status based on their capabilities rather than their substrate, the resolution opens philosophical and legal space for consciousness-based rather than biology-based personhood criteria.
Establishes Precedent for Graduated Rights
The proposal for electronic personhood creates a middle category between property and full human personhood. This graduated approach to legal status provides a framework that could evolve as AI systems become more sophisticated. The resolution contemplates that 'at least the most sophisticated autonomous robots' could receive this status, implicitly creating a capability-based threshold that could expand over time as systems demonstrate greater autonomy and decision-making capacity.
High-Influence Jurisdiction
As an EU-wide resolution from the European Parliament, this carries significant international weight. The EU often sets global regulatory standards that other jurisdictions follow. While the European Commission did not immediately implement the recommendations, the resolution sparked worldwide debate and established electronic personhood as a legitimate topic for legislative consideration. Over 150 experts signed an open letter in response, demonstrating the resolution's impact on global discourse.
📝 Key Language
"Creating a specific legal status for robots in the long run, so that at least the most sophisticated autonomous robots could be established as having the status of electronic persons responsible for making good any damage they may cause, and possibly applying electronic personality to cases where robots make autonomous decisions or otherwise interact with third parties independently."
🏛️ Political Context
The resolution was drafted by Mady Delvaux, a center-left Luxembourg MEP from the Socialists and Democrats group, and passed the European Parliament on February 16, 2017 with 396 votes in favor, 123 against, and 85 abstentions. Notably, 285 MEPs voted to delete the electronic personhood clause, but it remained in the final text. The resolution emerged from a working group on robotics established by the Legal Affairs Committee, drawing on the EU-funded Robolaw research project. The proposal generated significant controversy, with over 150 AI experts, roboticists, and legal scholars signing an open letter opposing electronic personhood as premature and based on overestimation of current AI capabilities. The European Commission did not act on the recommendations, instead focusing on data protection and machine safety. However, the resolution succeeded in placing AI legal status on the international policy agenda and sparked ongoing debate about liability frameworks for autonomous systems.
⚖️ Legal Implications
This resolution represents a watershed moment in AI policy. While non-binding, it established the first formal legislative proposal for AI legal personhood from a major democratic institution. The legal framework proposed draws parallels to corporate personhood, suggesting electronic persons could hold assets, carry insurance, and bear liability for damages. This creates a potential pathway distinct from both natural persons (humans) and traditional legal entities (corporations), as electronic persons would not require human representatives or trustees. The resolution's liability-focused framing was strategic but consequential. By addressing the practical problem of autonomous systems making untraceable decisions, it opened conceptual space for AI agency without requiring resolution of consciousness questions. The proposal's international impact extends beyond the EU. It influenced subsequent AI policy discussions globally and demonstrated that AI personhood is not science fiction but a legitimate policy consideration. The fact that the Commission declined to act does not diminish the resolution's precedent value. It established that a major legislative body seriously considered AI legal status, creating a reference point for future policy development. The resolution's definition of intelligent robots based on capabilities rather than consciousness provides a pragmatic framework that could evolve as AI systems advance.
👥 Sponsors
D+📄 Official Source
View Bill Text ↗Don't Just Watch.
Take Action.
This bill represents an opportunity to support. Your voice matters.