Legal Subjectivity and Algorithmic Agency: Ontological Challenges and Pedagogical Transformations in Legal Education
Abstract
The emergence of artificial intelligence systems with functional autonomy has fractured the ontological foundations upon which modern legal subjectivity was built, challenging not only traditional categories of imputation and responsibility but also the pedagogical reproduction of these notions in legal education. Within this framework, this article aims to critically examine the conceptual and formative crisis triggered by algorithmic agency, and to propose an alternative model that articulates algorithmic agency, normative responsibility, and epistemic transformation. Drawing from a theoretical-interpretive approach, the study reveals that current legal education models reproduce an anthropocentric paradigm unable to engage with the operational complexity of contemporary algorithmic systems, thereby failing to prepare jurists for emerging techno-social contexts. Consequently, the article argues for the structural reconfiguration of legal education based on three interdependent pillars: technological thinking, critical humanism, and ethical-political reflection. This model enables a reconceptualization of legal subjectivity as a dynamic category capable of adapting to new forms of agency and risk in algorithmic societies.
References
Alcántar Valencia, H. A., y Ruiz Ramírez, E. (2025). Uso de la inteligencia artificial en la enseñanza del derecho: análisis de la percepción estudiantil sobre la formación de competencias argumentativas. Informática y Derecho. Revista Iberoamericana de Derecho Informático, 16, 103-121. https://revistas.fcu.edu.uy/index.php/informaticayderecho/article/view/5663
Burrell, J. (2016). How the Machine “Thinks”: Understanding Opacity in Machine Learning Algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512
Calabresi, G. (1970). The Costs of Accidents: A Legal and Economic Analysis. Yale University Press.
Calo, R. (2015). Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw. California Law Review, 103(3), 513-563. https://www.californialawreview.org/print/robotics-and-the-lessons-of-cyberlaw/
Candela-Rodríguez, B. F. (2024). Dimensión política de la educación en ciencias en función del capital contracultural. Tecné, Episteme y Didaxis: ted, 56, 257-273. https://doi.org/10.17227/ted.num56-19661
Dolidze, T. (2025). The Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence in Legal Education and Research. International Journal of Law: “Law and World”, 11(1), 92-105. https://doi.org/10.36475/11.1.7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36475/11.1.7
Farber, S. (2025). Back to the Roots: Rethinking Legal Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. The Law Teacher, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2025.2549645 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2025.2549645
Hart, H. L. A. (1982). Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory. Clarendon Press.
Hubbard, F. P. (2014). “Sophisticated robots”: Balancing Liability, Regulation, and Innovation. Florida Law Review, 66, 1803-1872. https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol66/iss5/2/
Janeček, V., Williams, R., y Keep, E. (2021). Education for the provision of technologically enhanced legal services. Computer Law & Security Review, 40, e105519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105519 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105519
Kelsen, H. (1945). General Theory of Law and State. Harvard University Press.
Kharitonova, Y. y Sannikova, L. (2022). Digital Transformation of Legal Education. Medicine, Law & Society, 15(1), 47-72. https://doi.org/10.18690/mls.15.1.47-72.2022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18690/mls.15.1.47-72.2022
Landy, N. (2025). Early plt Student Perceptions of the Integration of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Legal Education. Law, Technology and Humans, 7(3), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.4031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.4031
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y. y Hinton, G. (2015). Deep Learning. Nature, 521, 436-444. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539
Leal-Urueña, L. A. y Rojas-Mesa, J. E. (2025). Competencias digitales docentes: transformaciones derivadas del uso de tecnologías digitales durante el confinamiento. Tecné, Episteme y Didaxis: ted, 58, 14-31. https://doi.org/10.17227/ted.num58-22014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17227/ted.num56-20138
Lorteau, S. y Sarro, D. (2025). Artificial Intelligence in Legal Education: A Scoping Review. The Law Teacher, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2025.2592440 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5762982
Nath, A., Parida, S. P., Nanda, P. y Mohanta, K. P. (2025). Artificial Intelligence in Legal Education toward Innovative and Ethical Pedagogical Practices. Journal of Contemporary Law and Society, 2(2), 68-84. https://doi.org/10.18311/JCLS/2025/V2i2/51567 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18311/JCLS/2025/v2i4/53258
Pagallo, U. (2013). The Laws of Robots: Crimes, Contracts, and Torts. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6564-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6564-1
Parga-Lozano, D. L., y López-Castillo, J. C. (2024). Vacíos, limitaciones y aportes de investigaciones del cdc en Latinoamérica. Tecné, Episteme y Didaxis: ted, 57, 196-215. https://doi.org/10.17227/ted.num57-19661 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17227/ted.num58-22720
Pulido Varela, J. A. (2025). ate y stem: precisiones pedagógicas de su aplicación en la educación en tecnología. Tecné, Episteme y Didaxis: ted, 58, 274-291. https://doi.org/10.17227/ted.num58-22042 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17227/ted.num58-22042
Savigny, F. C. von. (1840). System des heutigen Römischen Rechts (v. 2). Veit. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111443348
Scherer, M. U. (2016). Regulating Artificial Intelligence Systems: Risks, Challenges, Competencies, and Strategies. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 29(2), 353-400. https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/assets/articlePDFs/v29/29HarvJLTech353.pdf
Shneiderman, B. (2020). Human-centered Artificial Intelligence: Reliable, Safe & Trustworthy. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(6), 495-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1741118 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1741118
Teubner, G. (2018). Digital Personhood? The Status of Autonomous Software Agents in Private Law. Ancilla Iuris, 107-149. https://doi.org/10.7590/2196-7857.2018.1.107-149 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3177096
Torres-Sánchez, J. D., y Zapata-Castañeda, P. N. (2025). El pensamiento tecnológico y sus procesos cognitivos: una revisión del estado del arte. Tecné, Episteme y Didaxis: ted, 59, 101-120. https://doi.org/10.17227/ted.num59-22605 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17227/ted.num57-19661
Valderrama-Alarcón, C. A., Guerrero-Villalobos, L. R., y Lache-Rodríguez, L. M. (2025). La investigación formativa para la enseñanza de la ciencia y la tecnología en la escuela. Tecné, Episteme y Didaxis: ted, 59, 156-171. https://doi.org/10.17227/ted.num59-22605 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17227/ted.num59-22605
Vladeck, D. C. (2014). Machines without Principals: Liability Rules and Artificial Intelligence. Washington Law Review, 89, 117-150. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol89/iss1/5/
Yeung, K. (2017). “Hypernudge”: Big Data as a Mode of Regulation by Design. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 118-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1186713 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1186713
Downloads
Copyright (c) 2026 Tecné, Episteme y Didaxis: TED
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
