Less than two weeks ago, there was an incident in Macau, where a humanoid robot (Unitree G-1) startled a 70-year old lady, refused to move when asked, and the police had to intervene. The robot was escorted away. Media outlets dubbed it the "world's first robot arrest".
This week Melania Trump walked the red carpet at a global tech summit in the White House, accompanied by a humanoid robot named Figure 03. The robot said a few words to greet the guests and walked away.
Imagine this robot suddenly malfunctioned, started to go on a rampage, destroying everything around it and endangering people? Who would be responsible?
Or a robot minding its own business, routinely following commands, becomes a victim of an angry mob somewhere, an exploited employee, a person unemployed because of AI etc. Such a person is angry at "the system", the big companies or perhaps governments, but robots are there, as a perfect target for the frustration of an ever-growing group of people whose future - or present - is threatened by AI directly.
While there is plenty of talk about human rights (still not enough though), and considering the fact that millions of humanoid robots are coming to market next year, it all made me think:
Who represents the robots? And what are their rights in such cases as Macau?
Let us explore this nascent field:
The core issue touches on a fundamental gap in global law. As of March 2026, robots (including advanced humanoids like the Unitree G-1) are universally treated as property or tools under civil and criminal frameworks worldwide. They have no independent legal personality, no rights, and no "representation" in the sense of standing in court or being held personally accountable. If a robot causes harm (as in the Macau incident), liability falls on the human owner, operator, manufacturer, or deployer; typically under negligence, product liability, or strict liability rules. Courts view the robot as an extension of human actions or a defective product, not an autonomous entity.
This stems directly from the 2017 European Parliament resolution (often called the "electronic persons" proposal). On February 16, 2017, MEPs voted 396-123 to recommend that the European Commission study granting "electronic personality" to the most sophisticated autonomous robots. The idea was that highly advanced systems making independent decisions could be legally responsible for damages they cause, shifting some liability away from humans. It was framed as a way to handle future scenarios where robots interact independently with third parties.
However, the proposal faced immediate and fierce backlash. Over 150 robotics, AI, law, and ethics experts signed an open letter arguing it would undermine human accountability and create loopholes for manufacturers. The clause nearly got deleted (285 MEPs voted to remove it), and it never progressed to binding legislation. The European Commission never acted on it.
Fast-forward to 2026: The proposal remains unimplemented. The EU's focus has shifted entirely to the AI Act (in force since 2024) and its recent "Digital Omnibus" amendments (Council position agreed March 13, 2026), which streamline rules, delay some high-risk obligations, and emphasize provider registration and strict liability on humans - without any mention of electronic personhood. Recent developments reinforce the status quo: In February 2026, another coalition of 150+ experts issued a new open letter explicitly rejecting robot rights or legal status. Several U.S. states (Oklahoma, Idaho, Utah, etc.) have passed or proposed laws banning AI personhood to prevent exactly this scenario. Even in places like Macau/China (where the incident occurred), robots fall under general tort/product liability rules and no separate "rights" exist.
In short, the 2017 idea was visionary but rejected because it risked diluting human responsibility. Current laws prioritize governance of AI (who controls, designs, and deploys it) over any notion of robot "rights."
Incidents like the Macau police "escorting" a humanoid robot after it startled an elderly woman perfectly illustrate why these debates are heating up. Humanoid robots are moving from factories to public spaces faster than laws can adapt, raising questions like: Who is truly at fault? The manufacturer for poor programming? The operator for deployment? The robot itself? Without clear frameworks, victims face uncertainty, companies dodge responsibility, and public trust erodes.
This is exactly where IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) work comes in. Their long-running Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems (and related standards like the P7000 series) has pushed for "moral agency" frameworks - not to give robots rights, but to design them with built-in ethical reasoning, transparency, and accountability mechanisms. A key 2023 output was the "Roadmap for Responsible Robotics" (from the Dagstuhl Seminar), which stresses promoting human agency alongside collaborative standards so robots don't operate in ethical gray zones. It advocates for ontologies and design principles that make moral accountability traceable (e.g., logging decisions, fallback to human oversight, ethical risk assessments).
Related IEEE and academic work (including papers on "Perspectives on Moral Agency in Human-Robot Interaction") explores how people perceive and assign blame to robots which is crucial for public deployments. The goal is practical standards to prevent misuse: For example, requiring humanoids in public to have "ethical governors" (software that halts actions risking harm) or mandatory insurance tied to manufacturers. A 2025 IEEE Humanoid Study Group report further highlighted real-world safety/ethics challenges for exactly these scenarios.
Broader 2026 context shows the debate intensifying: Articles and expert discussions emphasize that governance and liability rules (not personhood) are what matter most. Humanoid risks (autonomy + data/privacy issues) demand updated frameworks yet most jurisdictions still default to "treat it like a machine." Events like this Macau case are likely to accelerate calls for clearer rules on operator licensing, real-time oversight, and standardized "moral" design protocols from bodies like IEEE.
These two areas are interconnected: Without personhood or rights, accountability debates focus on better human-centered design and regulation. The Unitree G-1 incident is a wake-up call that we're already in the testing phase when laws are catching up, but slowly.
FIN
Original article was published on my new site @ kript0mat.neocities.org
Welcome to check it out.
peace,
k