LEGAL STUDY ON CITIZENSHIP OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ACROSS DIFFERENT COUNTRIES BY - ADITI MISHRA

LEGAL STUDY ON CITIZENSHIP OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ACROSS DIFFERENT COUNTRIES

 

AUTHORED BY - ADITI MISHRA

(B.B.A. LL.B.-III Year, Christ School of Law)

                                       aditi.mishra@law.christuniversity.in

 

 

ABSTRACT:

The justification for giving artificial intelligence (AI) systems some type of legal personality is becoming more persuasive as they advance in sophistication and take on more societal responsibilities.

 

In this paper, we analyse the idea of legal personality and consider whether artificial intelligence systems can be endowed with personality. The paper examines the various nations' present laws governing artificial intelligence (AI). The article discusses various current choices, including the introduction of AI as a legal subject into national legislation without any background knowledge, its legal equality with people, and whether or not it should be subject to separate legal rules. It also identifies key approaches in legislation and practice on state regulation of AI.

 

The study's foundation was a qualitative methodology. The resources comprised scholarly and media data, as well as national and international law. The study was founded on integrated legal interpretation, modeling, and comparative legal analysis.

 

This paper focuses on the grant of citizenship to the robot Sophia in Saudi Arabia and its impact on the rights of women in the respective country.

 

 

 

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

Artificial intelligence (AI) is the simulation of AI functions by machines, particularly computer systems. For the most part, AI systems function by ingesting sizable quantities of labelled training data, searching the data for correlations and patterns, and then using these patterns to predict future states. In this way, an image recognition tool can learn to recognize and describe objects in images by looking at millions of examples, just as a chatbot can learn to produce lifelike exchanges with people by being fed examples of text chats. It is the ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings.[1] The term is frequently applied to the project of developing systems endowed with the intellectual processes characteristic of humans, such as the ability to reason, discover meaning, generalize, or learn from experience.

 

1. AI TO BE INTRODUCED IN NATIONAL LEGISLATION WITHOUT ANY PRIOR NOTICE:

Currently, the approach to AI is generally accomplished either programmatically (robot, drone, etc.) as an instrument for specific goals laid out in the framework of legal relations formed by legal entities, or in the form of a software package (virtual platform, chatbots, programs, etc., which do not have a material shell).[2] However, there are instances where behaviour related to robot status deviates from the rules set forth by current national legal standards.'

With the advancement in technologies, the legality of Artificial Intelligence has become a very debatable and controversial topic. In many countries, AI has been granted the title of citizenship without any prior background in any such case. It is the first time that AI has been legalized in the country and has been granted citizenship.[3]

 

A CASE STUDY OF SAUDI ARABIA:

In 2017, Riyadh declared that the robot Sofia, who presents herself as a woman, has been given Saudi citizenship (Saudi Arabia Gives Citizenship, 2017). This initiative stands in contrast to several laws that establish the norm for how subjects of legal relations should behave under various circumstances. First of all, it goes against the accepted practice of obtaining Saudi citizenship, which can be done through the following methods (Saudi Nationality System, 2018):

1. By Birth:

• Birth in a typical Saudi Arabian family, when both the mother and the father are citizens of the country.
• The birth in a Saudi Arabian family, where the mother is not a citizen and the father is an acknowledged citizen of the country. At the same time, a notarized acknowledgment of fatherhood is deemed to be required.
• The birth of the subject by a mother who is a citizen of Saudi Arabia while the father is not a member of the RAA provided that the subject is of the required legal age, possesses a permit for permanent residence, and is fluent in Arabic as well.[4]

1. By Marriage:

If any one of the parties during the marriage is not a citizen of Saudi and he/she marries a person with citizenship will subsequently acquire citizenship of the country after fulfilling certain specified legal requirements.[5]

1. By Naturalization:

Apart from the other two stated followed practices of obtaining citizenship, the third way is by the process of naturalization where several conditions have to be fulfilled:

Achieving the legal age, speaking Arabic fluently, residing in the country for more than ten years, generating income legally, having no criminal record, and abiding by the moral standards established in the nation.

The grant of citizenship also stands in contrast to the accepted model of female behavior in Saudi Arabian society, which places limitations on certain activities for women, including the requirement to travel with a male mahram, the wearing of the hijab, restrictions on job placement and international travel, restrictive issues in family life and inheritance laws, and some other limitations derived from the Shariah law.[6]

Furthermore, robot citizenship goes against Saudi Arabia's laws protecting women, which permit women to serve in public office and participate in public life through representation in the consultative assembly (governed by Shura law).

 

A CASE STUDY OF JAPAN:

By special legislation, Japan granted Shibuya Mirai, a chatbot, a residence permit in 2017. This behaviour, however, is against Japanese law regarding the application process for resident permits. It is available to foreign professionals working for Japanese companies, family reunification program participants, business owners and investors operating in Japan, world-class scientists, artists, and athletes, foreigners who married Japanese citizens, foreign students enrolled in Japanese higher education institutions, and foreign nationals in certain circumstances (passing service, etc.).[7] The Law on Citizenship of Japan governs the granting of citizenship in Japan (Nationality Law of Japan, 2018).

 

The law for the grant of citizenship states two options, namely by birth and naturalization. In case of birth, the child should be born in the country (without reference to the nationality of the parents), or either of the parents like either mother or father should hold Japanese citizenship.

In the case of Naturalisation, the claimant person should live in the country (Japan) for a minimum of 5 years, must have a legal capacity, and must attain the age of 20 years. The person should have an adequate standard of living and the person should not have any kind of affiliation with the organizations conducting activities against Japan.[8]

 

1. 1. AI AS SUBJECT OF LAW, NOT REGULATED BY

SEPARATE LAWS

AI has been granted citizenship and status equal to the subjects and citizens of the country in Saudi Arabia and Japan, however, this process was not convenient and easy. It is important to consider the procedural process of granting citizenship.

There are several ways in which the citizenship granted to AI does not comply with National legislation. Some of them are:

• The chatbot and the robot Sofia did not apply for citizenship (a residency permit)
• They do not fulfill the requirements for ability (age qualification)
• They are not settled
• They do not speak the national language to the extent required by law[9]

By analysing the above-mentioned problems, it can be stated that there are several reasons why Sophia and Chat Bot should not be granted citizenship. They do not comply with the legislation of the host country. Firstly, the emancipated woman is a robot that should have been held administratively and criminally responsible under present Saudi Arabian law because she does not dress appropriately and behaves immorally (without a male companion). There are fewer significant difficulties with chatbots because they are dependent on the location of the server and lack a physical shell.

 

As with any citizen (or resident with a valid residence permit), AI has obligations in addition to rights. When considering Sophia, the robot, one should keep in mind that Saudi Arabia now allows women to hold executive positions, engage in labour disputes, and get married. However, there is insufficient state legislation regarding the establishment and termination of the relevant legal relations. Since the model of behaviour is not prescribed by law, there will be an issue when the robot is equated to a person in both Sharia courts and courts with general jurisdiction.[10]

 

In the instance of chat, the circumstance necessitates careful analysis via a publicly-legal perspective. This AI serves as a functional medium for communication between Shibuya County inhabitants and the public sector and government employees. Considering that this AI has been given a place to live permission as a foreign specialist (developed by Microsoft) or as a government servant (working for the area), the format of the employment contract is a matter of concern which is the sole official basis for granting a residency permit. Additionally, providing inaccurate or unsuitable counsel could result in legal consequences. Implications are given that the law cannot reflect AI's responsibility Microsoft's security as a developer is ensured by the lack of a physical shell, and AI has a separate legal entity with all ensuing consequences.

 

1. 1. CHALLENGES TO AI AS A SEPARATE SUBJECT OF LAW, NOT EQUAL TO MAN AND REGULATED BY SEPARATE RULES OF LAW

The legislative initiatives currently in effect regarding robotics are assumed to be identical in nature in cases involving ongoing initiatives from the EU member states, the EU Parliament, and Russia. In this scenario, the robot has no or limited legal capacity, and the owners are solely responsible for their actions. There are several difficult aspects present at the same time.

 

First off, the EU resolution makes no mention of the potential application range of the robot. According to current Civil Code changes, Russian legislation envisions a narrow range of robot-free usage that is limited to wholly benign uses.[11]

 

Consequently, a variety of issues develop. When a serviceman is in charge of a drone, it is just a tool being used to carry out an order; the serviceman is responsible for its proper and incorrect use. When a robot is used for military operations, the threat and risk to a person are at first inherent in the usage of a tool for the assigned tasks. As a result, the deployment of robots goes against Azimov's core beliefs, which served as the foundation for the EU resolution that served as an analogue when formulating the bill.

 

However, both in Russia and abroad, robots (drones) are used for military purposes. This calls into question whether Asimov's ideals and EU law contradict. Such is a result of the current dual use of robotic AI.[12] The robot's inability to work autonomously is the second crucial element. As Consequence, the robot is just another form of vehicle, and more regulation is required. In the spirit of this legislation, the "modernized machine" vanishes because responsibility for any action rests entirely with the creator, owner, etc. The EU resolution makes it very clear that, in the event of complete autonomy, it is impossible to hold a third party accountable for the activities of an AI robot, necessitating special attention and tailored solutions.[13]

 

1. COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RIGHTS AND CURRENT STATUS
   1.  RIGHTS OF SOPHIA, AS COMPARED TO OTHER CITIZENS

The Sharia serves as the fundamental legislation in the Kingdom because there is no formal constitution. Saudi Arabia's harsh male guardianship system, which is based on the Sharia and upholds the country's established social order, applies to women. This law discriminates violates women's rights to privacy, puts their freedom in danger, and prevents the advancement of these rights.[14] Every Saudi woman must have a male guardian under the Kingdom's system of male guardianship. Typically, a woman's father or husband fills this role and is thus granted the authority to make important decisions on her behalf, such as granting or refusing permission to access school, employment, marriage, or medical care.[15] In other words, kinship affects Saudi society on a social, economic, political, and religious level.[16] As a result of this connectivity, women become dependent on men and patriarchal structures, and it is implied that their status as family members will make them eligible for citizenship. Saudi women are similarly oppressed by these patriarchal relationships, which give their male counterparts power and supremacy. As a result, both the state and the family can provide Saudi women with security and a safety net, but they can also become a trap and a source of oppression.

 

However, Sophia is not Muslim and is not required to travel with a male companion (referred to as a guardian), and is not required to dress in the obligatory headscarf and abaya. She is free from all these restrictions and is provided with an advantage and liberty as compared to Saudi women. She is not compelled to follow the laws as per the Sharia law and is not oppressed by the norm of masculinity that Saudi women have to face in the country.[17]

 

When women are not allowed to transfer their citizenship to their husbands or children, three different outcomes can be seen. This prohibition results in the masculinization of citizenship as well as the maintenance of patriarchal family structures that prioritize elder and male relatives and are distinguished by age and gender hierarchies.[18] Due to the patriarchal nature of citizenship, women are perceived as having no political personhood. As a result, it also has substantial constraints and effects on their standing in society.

 

Even though Saudi women's personalities are distinctly constrained to that of housewives and mothers, who must suppress their sexuality and submit to male authority. They are therefore seen as representing culture and tradition and having to ensure the maintenance of the regime's religious ideals. This ultimately reduces their equality and, on the other hand, causes them to be classified as indirect or second-class citizens.[19]

However, on the other hand, it can be seen that Sophia is not subject to these restrictions and is living with equal status in society. She is not subjected to unnecessary patriarchal dominance and participated actively in the social, economic, and political processes of the country. She is been granted all the rights as that of men of the country and is not pressurized to follow the culture and tradition of the country.

1. 1. SAUDI WOMEN’S RIGHTS: BEFORE AND AFTER SOPHIA’S CITIZENSHIP

The Saudi government has made several adjustments that have eased the restrictions placed on women in recent years as it has demonstrated a decreased tendency to adopt attitudes that explicitly oppose women's participation in society. In this way, Saudi women's rights have undergone a qualitative change and are now a component of the country's sustained growth. At the United Nations Human Rights Council, the government has pledged time and time again to end the practice of male guardianship[20]. However, the majority of the guardianship system is still in place, and the modifications have never gone beyond the limits set by the religious establishment. They have also remained limited, inadequate, insufficient, and ineffectual.[21]

 

Analysing news stories, various Saudi legislation, and foreign accounts of Saudi Arabia reveals that Saudi women had been battling for and winning new rights long before Sophia was recognized as a Saudi native in October 2017. The right to vote, the ability to run for office in municipal council elections, the elimination of "language in the labour law that previously restricted women's work to certain fields," as well as the elimination of the need for a male guardian's approval to work are all examples of significant and symbolic victories for women in this regard that can already be seen in 2015.

 

This also implies that women are free to pursue their academic interests in these fields. Further, a government supreme directive from 2017 directed organizations to stop requesting consent from women's guardians to access specific procedures and services. Women were not permitted to attend public events in stadiums, movie theatres, or concert venues until 2018.[22]

 

The codification process demonstrates that subsequent modifications made after October 2017 permitted women to apply for driving licenses in 2018. A royal order was published that same year to prevent and combat any instances of harassment. According to this anti-harassment law, any speech, gesture, or action with overtly sexual overtones as well as damaging or dishonourable intents toward another person's modesty or body shall result in sanctions, such as imprisonment or a fine, for the offenders and protection for the victims.

On the different side, there have also been modifications to how women look. In 2018, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman declared that the Saudi Arabian religious police had been subdued and that wearing restrictions for women would be relaxed. Additionally, prohibitions on women were eliminated in 2019 by amending references in the Travel Documents Law. As a result, Saudi women over the age of 21 can now apply for passports and leave the country without the consent of their male guardians. Other social and economic reforms focused on ending gender segregation in the Saudi Arabian Kingdom. In some public locations, gender segregation has been lessened as of 2019. One benefit of this move is that restaurants and cafés are no longer required to provide separate entrances for women[23]. 

 

1. AI AS A SUBJECT OF LAW WITHIN THE CURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION ACROSS CONTINENTS

Given the aforementioned restrictions, most nations act quickly to establish the requisite legislative framework or advisory bodies to address the problem of regulating AI as a newly created legal subject.

 

UNITED KINGDOM- Consequently, the House of Lords AI Committee was established in the UK. As one of four "Grand Challenges" for the nation, the UK government identified "putting the UK at the forefront of the artificial intelligence and data revolution" in its Industrial Strategy in 2017. It also pledged to invest in business, research, and education in the UK to meet the challenge, including by starting an AI Sector Deal in 2018. The UK government also declared its goal for the country, which it claims is a “world first,” that it “will lead the world in the safe and ethical use of data and artificial intelligence giving confidence and clarity to citizens and businesses.” Part of how it will achieve this goal is by creating a Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation as an advisory body.[24]

Since its establishment, the Centre has not yet yielded any significant results at the time of writing. In terms of global governance, the government declared that it would “actively participate” in standard-setting in its Industrial Strategy, and oversight organizations, particularly for AI and data security.[25]

The UK Parliament has also been engaged in debating AI ethics and governance issues. A Select Committee on AI was also established in 2017 to look into the matter, hear from interested parties, and then deliver a report in 2018. An All-Party Parliamentary Group on AI was also established in 2017.

 

EUROPEAN UNION- Regarding the EU, pay close attention to the legal oversight of unmanned objects or robots. As a result, the German Traffic Act places the onus of managing an automated or semi-automated vehicle on the owner and provides for the Federal Ministry of Transport and the Digital Infrastructure to participate in some capacity. In the EU resolution on robotics, the description of current and future robotics legislation is presented in a more thorough and intelligible manner (European Parliament Resolution, 2017). It outlines several uses of AI, addresses legal and ethical concerns, and offers fundamental guidelines for behaviour for robotics inventors, operators, and manufacturers. These guidelines are based on Azimov's three laws of robot technology.[26]

 

The autonomy of the AI-equipped robot and the extent of outside engagement in robot control is the first major concerns. As a result, a legal issue develops because, under the current legal system, the robot cannot be held accountable for its conduct or inaction; instead, the user, software developer, or manufacturer is responsible.

 

 AI is also given a special disclaimer because, according to the established principles of neural networks (self-learning), its actions cannot be predicted in principle, and as a result, the current legal system cannot account for them and, as a result, cannot identify the guilty party. The aforementioned agreement is crucial since it promotes legal harmonization in the area of robotic AI[27].

 

RUSSIA- The Grishin Law (2015), which is being considered by the Russian Parliament, is a law that is similar to EU legislation. The Russian Parliament is now considering it. Regardless of a robot's level of autonomy, the draft law amends the articles of the Russian Federation's Civil Code and places full responsibility on the robot's creator, operator, or maker.[28] It also addresses matters such as the robot's representation in court and before regulatory bodies. A Model Convention on Robotics and AI is also available, which presents guidelines for developing and employing robots and AI. The document appears to be timely because it establishes the foundation for a certain branch of legal laws on AI development and societal application.[29]

 

CHINA- The New-Generation AI Development Plan, published in 2017 by China's State Council, advanced China's goal of increasing investment in the AI sector over the coming years and its ambition to become the world leader in AI innovation (FLIA 2017). An interim objective is to create new laws and regulations by 2025. China has rules, ethical standards, and policies relating to the development of AI. This comprises taking part in, or perhaps "taking the lead" in, international standard-setting activities "intensifying" worldwide collaboration on AI laws and rules.

 

The Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence published the Beijing AI Principles in May 2019, which described the core of its AI work as "the realization of positive AI for humankind and nature." The principles also considered the following:

1. The risk of human unemployment by promoting more research on Human-AI coordination;
2. Avoiding the negative effects of a "malicious AI race" by encouraging cooperation, also globally;
3. Integrating AI policy with its rapid development in a dynamic and responsive way by making special guidelines across sectors;
4. Continuously making preventive and forecasting policies with respect to risks.

The principles have received support from numerous prestigious Chinese universities and businesses, including Alibaba, Baidu, and Tencent.[30]

 

INDIA- Three major programs significantly influence how India approaches artificial intelligence. The first is called Digital India, and it intends to transform India into a knowledge-based economy. The second is Make in India, a program where the Indian government prioritizes AI technology that is designed and the third is the Smart Cities Mission, which was created in India.[31]

 

In addition, the Union Government has made a considerable investment in research, development, and training, particularly in developing technologies. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry established an AI Task Force in 2017 to examine AI as a large-scale solution to socio-economic issues. It listed 10 important industries where AI should be used in its Report (Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry 2018), including national security, manufacturing, financial technology, and agriculture, among others. Similar to this, a National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence was released in 2018 (Niti Aayog 2018) that went further and examined AI as a lever for social and economic development, as well as looked at India as a possible "garage" for AI applications. Both agreements mention ethics, but they do not address concerns about fundamental rights, justice, inclusivity, or the limitations of data-driven decision-making. 

Private actors are utilizing AI in several industries, including manufacturing, healthcare, and finance.[32]

 

Despite positive advancements, India currently lacks data privacy legislation, which raises serious concerns about how sensitive personal data is currently handled and shared. The issue of inferred data, which is crucial in the context of machine learning, is not effectively addressed by the existing laws. With a few recommendations for the use of facial recognition in the previous year, India's biometric identity project Aadhaar could also perhaps become a focal point of AI applications in the future, albeit that is not the case at the moment.[33]

 

CONCLUSION:

The findings from this research allowed for the identification of two paradigms for defining the legal relationships that arise between a robotic AI and a person, namely the equalization of human rights and those of the robot on the one hand, and the definition of a fully autonomous robotic AI's legal personality on the other.

 

We experience problems with the current legal system and a lack of efficient regulatory frameworks when it comes to the equality of human rights and those of robots. As it will be difficult for the executive bodies to establish the corpus delicti in the event of an administrative, criminal, or another occurrence, to create technologies that effectively affect behaviour, and to establish whether a third party participated in the robotic AI-committed offense.

 

Further, the exploration and evaluation of Sophia the robot's citizenship process, status, and behaviour in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the identification of Sophia's rights and liberties in Saudi Arabia, and the development of Saudi women's rights along with their current struggles have all been major goals of this research project, as thoroughly explained throughout the dissertation. The overall objective was to close this gap in the literature by analysing the most pressing issues relating to Saudi Arabian women's rights and how they relate to Sophia the robot's application for citizenship.

 

The conclusion that a robot in Saudi Arabia has greater rights than a woman does, in this sense, partially support the notion. In actuality, there is a disconnect between the liberties accorded to a humanoid robot that has a female appearance and the liberties accorded to Saudi women. In other words, Sophia has more liberty than Saudi women even though their rights have improved over the past few years. Due to the fact that the robot has more liberties than Saudi women have, the hypothesis can only be partially proven.

 

We must infer that Sophia currently has no rights because the Saudi government has not yet confirmed the rights she actually possesses. The robot's behaviour while it is in the Kingdom, including, for example, the absence of a male guardian, is instead a demonstration of greater rights and freedom than Saudi women have.

 

Overall, even though Saudi Arabia's powerful religious establishments are currently fighting for Saudi women's rights, as the Saudi government claims, and even though it is not the Saudi government's fault that Saudi women have not yet received all of the basic human rights prescribed, for example in the international treaties that Saudi Arabia has signed, it is still their responsibility to take the necessary steps in a timely manner to ensure gender equality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Saripan, H., Putera, N.S.F.M.S. and Fikriah, N.S., 2016. Are Robots human? A review of the legal personality model. World Applied Sciences Journal, 34(6), pp.824-831.

[2] Claudio Novelli, Giorgio Bongiovanni & Giovanni Sartor (2022) A conceptual framework for legal personality and its application to AI, Jurisprudence, 13(2), pp. 194-219.

[3] Atabekov, A. and Yastrebov, O., 2018. The legal status of artificial intelligence across countries: legislation on the move. European Research Studies, 21(4), pp.773-782.

[4] Zara Stone, Everything You Need To Know About Sophia, The World’s First Robot Citizen. [online] Forbes.com. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/zarastone/2017/11/07/everything-you-need-to-know-about-sophia-the-worlds-first-robot-citizen/?sh=33ce2c9b46fa [Accessed 7 Sep. 2022].

[5] Chesterman, S., 2020. Artificial intelligence and the limits of legal personality. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 69(4), pp.819-844.

[6] Parviainen, J. and Coeckelbergh, M., 2021. The political choreography of the Sophia robot: beyond robot rights and citizenship to political performances for the social robotics market. AI & Society, 36(3), pp.715-724.

[7]  Atabekov, A. and Yastrebov, O., 2018, Legal status of artificial intelligence across countries: legislation on the move. European Research Studies, 21(4), pp.773-782.

[8] Walz, A. and Firth-Butterfield, K., 2019. Implementing ethics into artificial intelligence: a contribution, from a legal perspective to the development of an AI governance regime. Duke L. & Tech. Rev., 18, pp.176.

[9] Cleve R. Wootson Jr., Saudi Arabia- which denies women equal rights, makes a robot a citizen, washingtonpost.com, September 09, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2017/10/29/saudi-arabia-which-denies-women-equal-rights-makes-a-robot-a-citizen/.

[10] Id. at 09

[11] Rodrigues, R., 2020. Legal and human rights issues of AI: Gaps, challenges, and vulnerabilities. Journal of Responsible Technology, 4, p.100005.

[12] Gerke, S., Minssen, T. and Cohen, G., 2020. Ethical and legal challenges of artificial intelligence-driven healthcare. In Artificial intelligence in healthcare (pp. 295-336). Academic Press.

[13] Ebers, M., 2019. Regulating AI and robotics: ethical and legal challenges.

[14]Gellers, J.C., 2020. Rights for Robots: Artificial Intelligence, Animal and Environmental Law (Edition 1). Routledge.

[15] Artificial Intelligence and Ethics: The Case of Sophia the Robot, Samira M. Almohawis, Alaa Halawani, and Rawan Alkhatib (2022), 21(4), pp. 532-554.

 

[17]Retto, J., 2017. Sophia, first citizen robot of the world. ResearchGate, URL: https://www. researchgate. net.

[18] Corlett, J.A., 2002. The nature and value of the moral right to privacy. Public Affairs Quarterly, 16(4), pp.329-350.

[19] Supra note 09.

[20] Fernandes, J.V., Robot citizenship, and women's rights: the case of Sophia the robot in Saudi Arabia (Doctoral dissertation), 20(5), pp. 654-668.

[21] Chikhale, S. and Gohad, V., 2018. Multidimensional Construct About The Robot Citizenship Law’s In Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies (IJIRAS), 5(1), pp.106-108.

[22] Redden, M., 2019. Sophia: The Intersection of Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights. J. Glob. Rts. & Org., 10, pp.155.

[23] Supra note 15

[24] Daly, A., Hagendorff, T., Hui, L., Mann, M., Marda, V., Wagner, B., Wang, W. and Witteborn, S., 2019. Artificial intelligence governance and ethics: global perspectives.

[25] “Artificial Intelligence and the Law: An Overview of the Global Regulatory Landscape” by Timo Minssen, Jakob Wested, and Jens Schovsbo (2021).

[26] Stix, C., 2021. Actionable principles for artificial intelligence policy: three pathways. Science and engineering ethics, 27(1), p.15.

[27] European Commission, 2022. A European approach to artificial intelligence.

[28] Petrella, S., Miller, C. and Cooper, B., 2021. Russia's artificial intelligence strategy: the role of state-owned firms. Orbis, 65(1), pp.75-100.

[29] Atabekov, A. and Yastrebov, O., 2018. The legal status of artificial intelligence across countries: legislation on the move. European Research Studies, 21(4), pp.773-782.

[30]AI, Machine Learning and Big Data Laws and Regulations (2022), Globallegalinsights.com, (August 09, 2022), https://www.globallegalinsights.com/practice-areas/ai-machine-learning-and-big-data-laws-and-regulations/china

[31] Marda, V., 2018. Artificial intelligence policy in India: a framework for engaging the limits of data-driven decision-making. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2133), p.20180087.

[32] Id. at 31.

[33] Chatterjee, S. and NS, S., 2022. Artificial intelligence and human rights: a comprehensive study from Indian legal and policy perspective. International Journal of Law and Management, 64(1), pp.110-134.