Comparative Law Review

Comparative Law Review

Autonomy: The Indefensible Assumption of Artificial Intelligence Criminal Liability Theory

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Abbas Shiri 1
Mohammad Reza Barzegar 2
1 Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 PhD Student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
10.22059/jcl.2025.390243.634723
Abstract
The theory of independent criminal liability for artificial intelligence, as an emerging paradigm in criminal law, requires establishing the autonomy of this technology in the commission of a crime, since a system that operates as no more than an instrument in the hands of its developer or user is regarded merely as a means of committing the offence, and liability will accordingly attach to the human agent. The present article addresses the antecedent question of whether artificial intelligence fundamentally possesses the attribute that constitutes the precondition of legal agency. To this end, adopting a descriptive-analytical approach and drawing upon library-based sources of both a legal and a technical nature, the various dimensions of AI autonomy, including emergent behaviour and explainability, are examined as criteria for assessing independent agency. The analysis of criminal incidents associated with such systems, undertaken as an empirical test for gauging the degree of autonomy actually manifested, likewise confirms the conclusion that contemporary artificial intelligence, even in its most advanced forms and notwithstanding its capacities for learning, adaptability, and the emergence of novel behaviours, remains confined within the framework of ends predetermined by human agents, and that its autonomy is best characterised as a "limited and heteronomous autonomy"; an autonomy which, although it poses challenges for the criminal justice system, falls short of the threshold of "independent agency", namely the fundamental precondition for artificial intelligence to qualify as a proper addressee of any model of liability. Accordingly, so long as this threshold remains unattained, treating artificial intelligence as an independent perpetrator will be devoid of any legal foundation.
Keywords
Artificial Intelligence
Autonomy
Agency
Criminal Liability.
Subjects
1.     Allhoff, F., Evans, N. G., & Henschke, A. (2013). Routledge handbook of ethics and war: Just war theory in the 21st century. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203107164
2.     Barzegar, Mohammad Reza & Gholam Hossein Elham (2020). Criminal liability of the self-driving cars for the injury caused by it, Criminal Law Research, Year 8, No. 30 (In Persian) https://doi.org/10.22054/jclr.2020.39009.1838
3.     Bathaee, Y. (2017). The artificial intelligence black box and the failure of intent and causation. Harv. JL & Tech., 31, 889.
4.     Beckers, A., & Teubner, G. (2021). Three liability regimes for artificial intelligence: Algorithmic actants, hybrids, crowds. Bloomsbury Publishing.‌  https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509949366 
5.     Bertolini, A. (2013). Robots as products: The case for a realistic analysis of robotic applications and liability rules. Law, Innovation and Technology, 5(2), 214-247.  https://doi.org/10.5235/17579961.5.2.214 
6.     Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018, January). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency (pp. 77-91). PMLR. https://doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3658947
7.     Dworkin, G. (2015). The nature of autonomy. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(2), 28479.  https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.28479 
8.     European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union, L series. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj
9.     Hallevy, Gabriel. (2019). When Robots Kill (Farhad Shahideh and Tahereh Ghavanloo, translators). Tehran: Mizan Publishing (In Persian).
10. Hellström, T. (2013). On the moral responsibility of military robots. Ethics and information technology, 15, 99-107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-012-9301-2
11. Housley W (2021) Society in the Digital Age: An Interactionist Perspective. Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526486295 
12. Kingston, J. K. (2016). Artificial intelligence and legal liability. In Research and Development in Intelligent Systems XXXIII: Incorporating Applications and Innovations in Intelligent Systems XXIV 33 (pp. 269-279). Springer International Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47175-4_20 
13. Kirpichnikov, D., Pavlyuk, A., Grebneva, Y., & Okagbue, H. (2020). Criminal liability of the artificial intelligence. In E3S web of conferences (Vol. 159). EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202015904025 
14. ‏Köhler, S., Roughley, N., & Sauer, H. (2017). Technologically blurred accountability?: Technology, responsibility gaps and the robustness of our everyday conceptual scheme. In Moral agency and the politics of responsibility (pp. 51-68). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315201399-4
15. Lima, D. (2018). Could AI agents be held criminally liable: Artificial intelligence and the challenges for criminal law. South Carolina Law Review, 69(3), 677-696. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4253&context=sclr
16. Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and information technology, 6, 175-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1 
17. Mosizadeh, Reza & Golriz, Hadi. (2015). A Comprehensive Tri-lingual Dictionary On Law. Tehran: Mizan Publishing (In Persian).
18. Najib Husni, Mahmoud. (2007). The Causal link in Criminal Law (Seyed Ali Abbas Niay Zare, translator). Tehran: Qods Cultural Institute (In Persian).
19. Novelli, C., Casolari, F., Rotolo, A., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2024). Taking AI risks seriously: a new assessment model for the AI Act. AI & SOCIETY, 39(5), 2493-2497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01723-z
20.  Oimann, A. K. (2023). The responsibility gap and LAWS: A critical mapping of the debate. Philosophy & Technology, 36(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00602-7
21. Owen, D. G. (Ed.). (1995). Philosophical foundations of tort law. Clarendon press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198265795.001.0001 
22. Rajabi, A. (2019). Liability of Artificial Intelligence; the Reflection of Developments in the Liability Rules. Comparative Law Review, 10(2), 449-466. 10.22059/JCL.2019.274782.633787
23. Santoni de Sio, F., & Mecacci, G. (2021). Four responsibility gaps with artificial intelligence: Why they matter and how to address them. Philosophy & Technology, 34, 1057–1084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00450-x
24. Schmid, U., Klügl, F., & Wolter, D. (Eds.). (2020). KI 2020: Advances in Artificial Intelligence: 43rd German Conference on AI, Bamberg, Germany, September 21–25, 2020, Proceedings (Vol. 12325). Springer Nature.‏
25. Schraagen, J. M. (2024). Bounded Autonomy. In Responsible Use of AI in Military Systems. Chapman and Hall/CRC.  https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003410379-22 
26. Stahl, B. C., Schroeder, D., & Rodrigues, R. (2023). Ethics of artificial intelligence: Case studies and options for addressing ethical challenges. Springer Nature.‏
27. Swanson, G. (2018). Non-Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Programs and Products Liability: How New AI Products Challenge Existing Liability Models and Pose New Financial Burdens. Seattle University Law Review, 42. https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2607&context=sulr
28. Totschnig, W. (2020). Fully autonomous AI. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(5), 2473-2485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00243-z 
29.  Veluwenkamp, H. (2025). What responsibility gaps are and what they should be. Ethics and Information Technology, 27, Article 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-025-09823-8
30. Walsh, K. R., Mahesh, S., & Trumbach, C. C. (2021). Autonomy in AI Systems. The Journal of Technology Studies, 47(1), 38-47. https://doi.org/10.21061/jts.400 
Comparative Law Review
Volume 17, Issue 1 - Serial Number 33
Spring & Summer 2026
August 2026
Pages 145-171