“Personality” is a fundamental term for legal theorists. The “legal person” plays an important role in legal doctrine, and the “legal person” plays a fundamental role in moral and political theory. The purpose of this article was to give you a very rough idea of some of the issues surrounding these concepts. Further reading can be found in the bibliography. Intelligence – One possibility is that possession of “intelligence” (at a certain threshold level) is the criterion of legal personality. Of course, “intelligence” itself is not a transparent term. Having presented arguments in support of this thesis, we can conclude that the subject of this study is not part of the natural person. Therefore, it can be applied to legal entities that are fictional entities in the real world but very real in the legal world. A generally accepted principle of biomedical ethics is respect for autonomy.

This is sometimes referred to as respect for personal autonomy or considered an aspect of respect for persons. Consider whether “person” was chosen over “human” here for a reason, and whether it means the same as “human” or different. It is not only a historical question, but one of the current intentions, to support this principle with such a formulation. In business, various legal instruments are used to validate, clarify and execute transactions. These are often atypical or non-standardized contracts. It is important to remember that constitutional amendments are at the end of a series of legal and social reforms, not at the beginning. They are the “culmination” of a series of legislative and cultural changes rather than the catalyst that triggers such change. In the past, the changes have acted as a “reinforcement” of already existing legal policies and cultural values. The history that led to the passage of the 13th and 19th amendments are perfect examples of this principle and this historical trend.

The term collective legal entity is used by Francisco Carnelutti and has been studied in various areas of common law. See Francisco Carnelutti, General Theory of Law, p. 153 (Private Law Publiser, 1955). This theory was developed by Rudolph von Ihering,31 who believes that the law consists of two elements. One is substantial, involves a specific purpose and the use or enjoyment of something of economic or moral value. The other is formalistic and concerns only the protection of this right.32 Since legal personality is a prerequisite for legal capacity (the capacity of any legal person to modify (conclude, transfer, etc.) rights and obligations), it is a prerequisite for an international organization to be able to sign international treaties in its own name. Examples will help. Companies and government entities are legal entities – they have legal rights and obligations and can sue and be sued, but we are not saying that companies are natural or legal persons. (Specifically, the claim that corporations are corporations would be controversial.) A company is not a natural person because it is not natural in the relevant sense of the term. Corporations are artificial or unnatural because they are the creation of the law. Similarly, all persons are generally considered to be “natural persons”, but not all persons have all the rights and obligations associated with legal persons. For example, infants and incapacitated persons may not be able to sue on their own behalf and may not take full legal responsibility for their actions.

Friedrich Carl von Savigny35 theorized that only a natural person is capable of exercising rights and duties. This theory is considered the oldest and most widely used in Germany (since the mid-nineteenth century), Italy and France (since the mid-twentieth century).36 Despite the fact that legal persons have their own interests or rights, personality is not based solely on laws granting these interests or rights. Rather, the person is the legal entity or substance to which the rights and obligations are assigned. A person with such characteristics is called a “natural person” by lawyers. Many fundamental human rights are implicitly granted only to natural persons. For example, a law that prevents discrimination or prohibits the government from denying certain rights based on sex applies only to natural persons. Another example of the difference between natural and legal persons is that a natural person may hold public office, but not a corporation.33 Carnelutti8 understands the term “person” in a triangular sense. He considers the subject to be the summit where personal interests (economic element) and substantive law (legal element) meet against a legal relationship. The categories of man and person are involved in some of the most controversial debates in moral, political and legal theory. Above all, the debate on abortion.

One step that can be taken in the abortion debate is simply to deny the distinction between man and person. Thus, it could be that the relevant moral and legal category is “human person” and that all members of the species homo sapiens are members of this category. Or it could be argued that “human” and “person” are morally and legally distinct categories.