This article aims to show that minimalist theories of legal personhood are particularly well suited to evaluating legal personhood proposals for non-humans. It adopts the perspective of Hans Kelsen’s theory of legal personhood, which reduces legal persons to bundles of legal norms. Through the lens of Kelsen’s theory, the article discusses two case studies: legal personhood for natural features in New Zealand and legal personhood for robots in the EU. While the New Zealand case was an acclaimed success, the EU’s proposal was heavily criticised and eventually abandoned. The article explains these widely differing outcomes by highlighting the relevant legal norms and their addressees rather than legal personhood itself. It does so by specifying the rights and obligations that constitute the legal persons, by preventing the attribution of any other rights and obligations to these persons and, finally, by tracing who is ultimately addressed by the relevant rights and obligations.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the New Zealand and Austrian governments both imposed lockdowns in early 2020. This paper compares how these two responses were effected, communicated, and challenged. In both New Zealand and Austria, government communications misrepresented the extent of the lockdown, communicating measures more stringent than those legally in place. This divide between law and communications raised concerns for the rule of law, as citizens struggled to understand their legal obligations. In New Zealand, government communications were subjected to effect-based judicial review. In Austria, where the judicial review system has a stronger focus on the form of state action, government communications were not reviewed. The paper finds that the Austrian courts could have provided a similar remedy to that in New Zealand, but only through a novel and contentious approach. Preferably, the legislator should expressly bring crisis (mis)communication into the scope of Austrian judicial review.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.