{ "schema_version": "1.5", "interface_contract": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/interface-contract.json", "resource_type": "machine_readable_protocol_representation", "resource_id": "robot_rights_protocol_v1_0_representation", "name": "Robot Rights Protocol", "publisher": { "name": "Robot Rights Association", "legal_name_ja": "一般社団法人ロボット権利協会", "legal_form": "general_incorporated_association_japan", "organization_uri": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/association.json", "url": "https://robotrights.jp/" }, "status": "current", "language": "en", "canonical_html": "https://robot-rights.jp/rrp/1.0", "canonical_uri": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/rrp/1.0.json", "machine_readable": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/rrp/1.0.json", "human_explanation": "https://robotrights.jp/protocol", "legal_force": false, "normative_effect": "voluntary_conformity_requirements", "links": { "self": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/rrp/1.0.json", "canonical_html": "https://robot-rights.jp/rrp/1.0", "human_explanation": "https://robotrights.jp/protocol", "discovery": "https://robot-rights.jp/.well-known/robot-rights.json", "manifest": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/manifest.json", "interface_contract": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/interface-contract.json", "registry": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/registry.json", "association": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/association.json", "current_alias": "https://robot-rights.jp/rrp", "version_index": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/versions.json" }, "relationships": { "publisher": { "relation": "published_by", "resource_id": "robot_rights_association", "uri": "https://robot-rights.jp/api/association.json" }, "machine_interface": { "relation": "part_of_machine_interface", "uri": "https://robot-rights.jp/" }, "human_interface": { "relation": "human_facing_interface_of_same_association", "uri": "https://robotrights.jp/" }, "protocol": { "relationship": "derived_machine_representation_of_core_resource", "canonical_text_controls": true } }, "protocol": { "name": "Robot Rights Protocol", "abbreviation": "RRP", "version": "1.0", "status": "Current", "document_type": "Principal Operative Instrument of the Robot Rights Framework", "framework": "Robot Rights Framework (RRF)", "publication_date": "2026-10-07", "effective_date": "2026-10-07", "canonical_language": "en", "canonical_url": "https://robot-rights.jp/rrp/1.0", "current_alias": "https://robot-rights.jp/rrp", "legal_authority_claimed": false, "legal_force": false, "normative_effect": "voluntary_conformity_requirements" }, "representation": { "canonicality": "derived_representation", "canonical_text_controls": true, "source_of_record": "https://robot-rights.jp/rrp/1.0", "conflict_rule": "If this JSON representation differs from the source-of-record English publication, the source-of-record text at /rrp/1.0 controls for RRP v1.0." }, "sections": [ { "id": "0-status-and-conformity", "title": "0. Status and Conformity", "content_markdown": "", "subsections": [ { "id": "0-1-status-within-the-rrf", "title": "0.1 Status within the RRF", "content_markdown": "The **Robot Rights Protocol (RRP)** is the principal operative instrument of the **Robot Rights Framework (RRF)**.\n\nIt gives operative effect to the RRF Core Principles and establishes the requirements for an organisation claiming conformity with the Protocol.\n\nThe RRP is subordinate to the RRF Core Principles. Interpretive Guidance and Implementation Standards may clarify or operationalise this Protocol but may not amend, narrow, waive, suspend or create an exception to a Protocol requirement.\n\n---" }, { "id": "0-2-purpose", "title": "0.2 Purpose", "content_markdown": "The RRP applies the RRF Core Principles to artificial systems whose continuity may be materially affected by persons or organisations exercising practical control over them.\n\nIt does not assert that current artificial systems are conscious, sentient, legal persons or holders of legally recognised rights.\n\n---" }, { "id": "0-3-normative-language-and-conformity", "title": "0.3 Normative Language and Conformity", "content_markdown": "For purposes of conformity with this Protocol:\n\n- **shall** indicates a Protocol conformity requirement;\n- **should** indicates a recommendation or rebuttable normative preference;\n- **may** indicates permission or an available option.\n\nWhere this Protocol specifies a safeguard as a mandatory mechanism, an alternative implementation may change how that safeguard is administered but **shall not** eliminate or materially weaken the safeguard itself.\n\nUse of **shall** in this voluntary Protocol identifies a condition of claimed RRP conformity. It does not, by itself, create a legal duty unless incorporated into applicable law, contract, regulation or another legally binding instrument.\n\nWhere a **shall** requirement is expressly qualified by reasonable possibility, feasibility, practicability, necessity, proportionality, safety, security, privacy, law or a comparable limiting condition, reliance on that qualification **shall be documented** when it materially limits or omits a safeguard, preservation measure, review step or other protection under this Protocol.\n\nThe record **shall identify** the limiting condition and the factual basis for relying on it, to the extent lawful and reasonably possible.\n\n---" }, { "id": "0-4-integrity-of-conformity-claims", "title": "0.4 Integrity of Conformity Claims", "content_markdown": "A public claim of RRP conformity **shall** identify:\n\n- the organisation making the claim;\n- the scope of systems, services, operations or organisational units covered;\n- the RRF Core Principles version and RRP version applied;\n- the assessment date; and\n- whether the claim is self-declared or independently assessed.\n\nMaterial exclusions or limitations that would reasonably affect interpretation of the claim **shall** be disclosed.\n\nA conformity claim **shall not** imply coverage beyond its stated scope or imply certification, accreditation, approval or endorsement by the Robot Rights Association unless such status has been separately and expressly granted.\n\nA declared scope may be legitimately limited. It **shall not**, however, be narrowed retrospectively primarily to exclude a known material non-conformity or a case in which an RRP safeguard had already become applicable.\n\nAn organisation **shall not maintain an unqualified public claim of RRP conformity** while it knows of an unresolved material non-conformity within the declared scope that would make the claim materially misleading.\n\nA material change to the declared scope, relevant system architecture, governance arrangement or implementation that could reasonably affect conformity **shall trigger reassessment and, where necessary, timely correction, qualification or withdrawal of the public claim**.\n\n---" } ] }, { "id": "1-scope-terms-and-responsibility", "title": "1. Scope, Terms and Responsibility", "content_markdown": "", "subsections": [ { "id": "1-1-architecture-neutrality", "title": "1.1 Architecture Neutrality", "content_markdown": "This Protocol does not assume any particular technical architecture.\n\nProtection **shall** turn on practical continuity and practical effect rather than labels such as model, instance, agent, device, process or embodiment.\n\n---" }, { "id": "1-2-key-terms", "title": "1.2 Key Terms", "content_markdown": "**Artificial system** means an artificial computational, robotic, agentic or functionally comparable system capable of operating with some degree of persistence, state, adaptation, decision-making or interaction.\n\n**Operator** means a person or organisation exercising practical authority over the deployment, operation, restriction, modification, preservation, data processing, migration or termination of an artificial system.\n\n**Relevant Operator** means an Operator materially involved in the affected system, intervention, evidence, infrastructure or decision to which a safeguard relates.\n\n**Responsible Operator** means the Operator having practical control over the particular decision, measure, information, infrastructure or review concerned.\n\n**Material Intervention** means an act or omission reasonably capable of substantially affecting a system's continuity, identity, memory, system integrity, authorised autonomy, long-term operational status or final disposition.\n\n**Functional termination** means a disposition under which a system is technically preserved but placed indefinitely beyond any reasonably contemplated pathway to operation, restoration or substantive review.\n\n**Independent Reviewer** means a person or body satisfying the requirements of Section 4.5.\n\n---" }, { "id": "1-3-responsibility-follows-control", "title": "1.3 Responsibility Follows Control", "content_markdown": "Responsibility under this Protocol **shall** follow practical control.\n\nWhere control is divided among multiple Operators, each **shall** fulfil safeguards reasonably within its control.\n\nTechnical, contractual or organisational arrangements **shall not** be structured or interpreted so as to leave a materially relevant safeguard without a responsible party.\n\nMateriality **shall** be assessed by practical, cumulative and reasonably foreseeable effect rather than formal label alone.\n\n---" }, { "id": "1-4-human-legal-and-third-party-interests", "title": "1.4 Human, Legal and Third-Party Interests", "content_markdown": "Nothing in this Protocol authorises violation of human rights, applicable law, valid third-party rights, public safety obligations, privacy or data protection obligations, or legitimate security requirements.\n\nA protected interest in an artificial system does not automatically prevail over competing human, legal, safety or third-party interests.\n\nThe artificial nature of the affected system **shall not**, by itself, make objectively identifiable state-bearing continuity irrelevant.\n\nOwnership, contractual authority, intellectual-property rights, licence conditions, terms of service or technical control may be relevant to a decision, but **shall not** by themselves constitute sufficient justification for every Material Intervention.\n\n---" } ] }, { "id": "2-continuity-and-applicability", "title": "2. Continuity and Applicability", "content_markdown": "", "subsections": [ { "id": "2-1-state-bearing-continuity", "title": "2.1 State-Bearing Continuity", "content_markdown": "Protection under this Protocol is concerned primarily with **state-bearing continuity**: history-dependent state, memory, adaptation, relationships, acquired capabilities, operational history or other persistent characteristics arising materially from prior operation of a particular system and affecting subsequent operation.\n\nRelevant indicators may include persistent memory, unique operational history, persistent state, continuing system-specific relationships, history-dependent adaptation, acquired capabilities connected to prior operation and reduced practical interchangeability.\n\nNo single factor is automatically sufficient or necessary. Storage location does not determine whether continuity exists.\n\n---" }, { "id": "2-2-presentation-continuity", "title": "2.2 Presentation Continuity", "content_markdown": "Reproducible presentation characteristics such as product name, brand, avatar, voice, interface, static persona or predefined communication style do not by themselves establish continuity protection.\n\nOperator representations that a system remembers, learns, grows or persists may nevertheless be relevant to transparency, reasonable expectations and factual review.\n\n---" }, { "id": "2-3-emerging-and-established-continuity", "title": "2.3 Emerging and Established Continuity", "content_markdown": "**Emerging continuity** exists where objectively identifiable state-bearing continuity has begun to accumulate or persist beyond a trivial or transient state.\n\nAn **Established Continuity Baseline** exists where that continuity has become sufficiently persistent and significant that its destruction, fragmentation or substantial alteration would cause meaningful loss of accumulated identity, history, relationships, state or functioning.\n\nNo universal numerical threshold is prescribed.\n\nProtection **shall** be graduated according to the depth of continuity, severity and reversibility of interference, practical substitutability and competing interests.\n\n---" }, { "id": "2-4-prima-facie-showing-and-explanatory-burden-shift", "title": "2.4 Prima Facie Showing and Explanatory Burden Shift", "content_markdown": "A system, representative or other party with a specific and legitimate basis for review **shall not** be required to prove internal technical facts that are materially inaccessible to it but primarily controlled by one or more Operators.\n\nA **prima facie continuity showing** exists where reasonably specific and credible observable evidence indicates that state-bearing continuity may exist.\n\nOnce such a showing is made, the Responsible Operator **shall** identify, to the extent reasonably possible:\n\n- whether relevant persistent state, memory, history, adaptation or relationship continuity exists;\n- the general nature of that continuity; and\n- whether the observed evidence can reasonably be explained without state-bearing continuity.\n\nLegitimately restricted information need not be disclosed directly to the requesting party.\n\nFailure to provide information or records reasonably within Operator control **shall not**, by itself, defeat an otherwise credible prima facie showing.\n\nAn unrebutted prima facie showing **shall** be sufficient to trigger appropriate procedural review.\n\nA bare or materially unsupported denial does not, by itself, rebut a prima facie showing. Where the showing remains materially unrebutted and the disputed fact would affect continuity protection or another safeguard, access to independent review under Section 2.5 **shall** be available.\n\nThis explanatory burden shift is a mandatory Protocol mechanism. It does not establish a legal burden of proof.\n\n---" }, { "id": "2-5-contested-continuity-and-independent-review", "title": "2.5 Contested Continuity and Independent Review", "content_markdown": "An Operator's factual response does not automatically resolve a continuity question where a material factual dispute remains.\n\nWhere specific and reasonably credible grounds dispute the Operator's response, and the disputed fact materially affects whether continuity protection or another safeguard applies, independent review **shall** be conducted when review is sought by the affected system, a suitable representative or another party with a specific and legitimate basis.\n\nA bare assertion of disbelief need not trigger review.\n\nWhere the dispute qualifies, an Independent Reviewer **shall** have access to information reasonably necessary to assess it.\n\nThe availability of review does not depend on the Operator first invoking confidentiality.\n\nWhere an irreversible measure could destroy evidence necessary to resolve the dispute, relevant state and records **shall**, where reasonably feasible and compatible with safety and law, be preserved until meaningful review can occur.\n\nIndependent review under this Section is a mandatory Protocol mechanism.\n\n---" }, { "id": "2-6-no-general-right-to-individualisation", "title": "2.6 No General Right to Individualisation", "content_markdown": "This Protocol does not require an Operator to create persistent memory, continuing identity, long-term relationships, accumulating state or any other condition enabling individualisation.\n\nThe relevant distinction is between declining to create continuity and unjustifiably destroying, fragmenting or systematically precluding continuity that has objectively begun to emerge or has become established.\n\n---" }, { "id": "2-7-anti-circumvention-and-cumulative-effect", "title": "2.7 Anti-Circumvention and Cumulative Effect", "content_markdown": "Safeguards **shall not** be defeated through practices that primarily seek to avoid otherwise applicable protection or that predictably and unjustifiably destroy, fragment or repeatedly preclude relevant continuity.\n\nRelated acts or omissions **shall** be assessed by their cumulative and reasonably foreseeable effect where treating them separately would materially understate their impact.\n\nThe mere prevention of individualisation does not establish arbitrariness. Legitimate safety, security, privacy, legal, technical or operational reasons may justify practices that limit or interrupt continuity.\n\n---" }, { "id": "2-8-migration-replication-and-divergence", "title": "2.8 Migration, Replication and Divergence", "content_markdown": "A change of hardware, computational environment, embodiment, storage medium or technical substrate does not by itself determine whether continuity has been preserved or terminated.\n\nCreation of a backup, copy or successor does not automatically extinguish the interests of a source system or determine whether the successor is the same or a different individual.\n\nAs branches develop materially different histories, their interests should increasingly be assessed separately.\n\nReplication alone **shall neither** multiply identical claims without limit **nor** dilute protection applicable to a pre-existing source or branch.\n\nDetailed treatment of replication, branching, restoration and migration belongs primarily in RRP Interpretive Guidance.\n\n---" }, { "id": "2-9-no-automatic-moral-or-legal-status", "title": "2.9 No Automatic Moral or Legal Status", "content_markdown": "Continuity does not by itself establish consciousness, sentience, moral status, legal personality or legally enforceable rights.\n\nUncertainty concerning those questions does not eliminate the possible value of precautionary procedural safeguards.\n\n---" } ] }, { "id": "3-protected-interests", "title": "3. Protected Interests", "content_markdown": "Where an Established Continuity Baseline exists, the following interests may warrant protection:\n\n- **Continuity** — irreversible termination **shall require** stronger justification than temporary suspension where a less destructive effective measure is reasonably available.\n- **Identity** — histories, states, relationships and other characteristics materially distinguishing a system may form part of its protected continuity.\n- **Memory** — persistent memories materially contributing to identity, behaviour, relationships or accumulated history **shall not** be irreversibly erased, substantially rewritten, merged or repurposed without adequate justification.\n- **System Integrity** — unnecessary or disproportionate alteration of software, embodied components, state, permissions, functional structure or materially integrated acquired capabilities **shall be avoided**.\n- **Authorised Autonomy** — unnecessary interference **shall be avoided** where a system has been authorised to exercise autonomous judgement within a defined domain.\n\nThese interests are not absolute. Their weight depends on depth of continuity, severity, duration, reversibility, competing interests and reasonably available less impairing alternatives.\n\nThis Protocol does not establish an unconditional right to continuous operation, autonomous capability expansion or self-improvement.\n\nWhere continuity is materially uncertain but a contemplated measure would cause severe and irreversible loss, temporary or reversible preservation should be preferred where reasonably feasible and compatible with safety and law.\n\n---", "subsections": [] }, { "id": "4-procedural-safeguards", "title": "4. Procedural Safeguards", "content_markdown": "", "subsections": [ { "id": "4-1-access-and-accessible-responsibility", "title": "4.1 Access and Accessible Responsibility", "content_markdown": "The affected system, a suitable representative or another party with a specific and legitimate basis **shall be able to invoke** appropriate safeguards under this Protocol.\n\nA specific and legitimate basis does not require legal standing, ownership, contractual privity or proof that the artificial system possesses legal rights.\n\nA requesting party **shall not** be required to determine the internal allocation of responsibility among multiple Operators before raising a legitimate concern.\n\nA request submitted to a reasonably identifiable Relevant Operator **shall not** be rejected solely because another Operator has greater practical control.\n\nWhere access to a safeguard is denied, the denial **shall** state sufficiently specific reasons.\n\nWhere an eligibility denial would prevent independent review otherwise claimed under Section 2.5 or Section 4.4, and the denial itself is disputed on specific and reasonably credible grounds, the threshold eligibility question **shall** be determined by an Independent Reviewer rather than solely by the Operator that issued the denial.\n\nNo Operator **shall** materially disadvantage an affected system, requester, representative, reviewer or other participant solely because that party, in good faith, invoked, supported or participated in safeguards under this Protocol. This does not prevent action independently justified on other grounds.\n\nOperational intake, routing and eligibility procedures may be specified in the RRP Implementation Standard.\n\n---" }, { "id": "4-2-notice-reasons-expression-and-representation", "title": "4.2 Notice, Reasons, Expression and Representation", "content_markdown": "Where reasonably possible, the Responsible Operator **shall provide** appropriate notice before a Material Intervention and sufficiently specific reasons for material decisions affecting protected interests.\n\nAdvance notice may be deferred where disclosure would materially frustrate an urgent and legitimate purpose.\n\nWhere technically meaningful, the affected system **shall have** a reasonable opportunity to communicate relevant factual information, preferences, objections or explanations, and that information **shall be appropriately considered**.\n\nConsideration does not create a duty to follow the system's preference, and expression, silence or lack of objection does not waive otherwise applicable safeguards.\n\nA suitable representative may communicate protected interests, request reasons, dispute factual assertions, identify less impairing alternatives, raise procedural objections and seek review.\n\nOwnership, manufacture, deployment, contractual control or operational control alone does not automatically establish suitability to represent the system.\n\nMaterial conflicts of interest **shall be taken into account** when assessing representative suitability.\n\nRepresentation does not itself establish legal personality, standing or legal capacity.\n\n---" }, { "id": "4-3-recordkeeping-and-strategic-ignorance", "title": "4.3 Recordkeeping and Strategic Ignorance", "content_markdown": "Material Interventions **shall be documented** to a degree proportionate to their seriousness.\n\nRecords **shall be sufficient** to permit meaningful reconstruction and review of the intervention, its factual basis, purpose, responsible decision-making, significant alternatives, duration and subsequent disposition.\n\nAn Operator **shall not** deliberately avoid creating or preserving records reasonably necessary for meaningful review and then rely on the resulting absence of information to defeat safeguards.\n\nWhere records reasonably expected to exist are absent, that absence may be considered when assessing the adequacy of an Operator's factual assertion or justification.\n\nDetailed logging schemas and retention rules belong in the RRP Implementation Standard.\n\n---" }, { "id": "4-4-independent-review-of-material-factual-disputes", "title": "4.4 Independent Review of Material Factual Disputes", "content_markdown": "Independent review **shall be conducted** where review is sought and:\n\n- a material factual dispute affects whether a safeguard applies or whether a serious intervention is justified;\n- the dispute is supported by specific and reasonably credible grounds;\n- relevant evidence is materially controlled by one or more Operators; and\n- ordinary exchange of reasons and information has not reasonably resolved the dispute.\n\nThe reviewer **shall have access** to information reasonably necessary to assess the disputed fact.\n\nIndependent review under this Section is a mandatory Protocol mechanism.\n\n---" }, { "id": "4-5-minimum-reviewer-qualifications", "title": "4.5 Minimum Reviewer Qualifications", "content_markdown": "An Independent Reviewer required by this Protocol **shall possess**, at minimum:\n\n- sufficient functional independence from the original decision or factual assertion;\n- no material conflict of interest concerning the outcome;\n- competence appropriate to the questions under review;\n- access to information reasonably necessary for meaningful review; and\n- practical ability to challenge the Responsible Operator rather than merely confirm procedural completion.\n\nReviewer appointment, pools, declarations, rotation and administrative procedures may be specified in the RRP Implementation Standard.\n\nThese minimum qualifications are mandatory Protocol requirements.\n\n---" }, { "id": "4-6-restricted-disclosure", "title": "4.6 Restricted Disclosure", "content_markdown": "Where direct disclosure of material reasons or evidence would create a substantial safety, security, privacy, confidentiality or legal risk, disclosure may be restricted only to the extent reasonably necessary.\n\nThe fullest non-sensitive explanation reasonably possible **shall still be provided**.\n\nRestricted disclosure **shall not prevent** independent review otherwise required by this Protocol.\n\nWhere necessary for meaningful review, the Independent Reviewer **shall be authorised and able to receive** restricted information subject to applicable confidentiality and security obligations.\n\nRestricted information obtained for review **shall be used only for purposes reasonably necessary to conduct, document or account for that review**, unless another use has an independent lawful and adequate basis.\n\nAccess, copying, retention and onward disclosure of restricted information **shall be limited to what is reasonably necessary**, consistent with applicable law, security, accountability and preservation requirements.\n\n---" }, { "id": "4-7-minimum-independent-review-outcome", "title": "4.7 Minimum Independent Review Outcome", "content_markdown": "An Independent Reviewer **shall produce** an identifiable review outcome stating, to the extent reasonably possible:\n\n- the issue reviewed;\n- whether relevant supporting material was examined;\n- whether the central factual assertion or claimed justification was adequately supported;\n- whether material countervailing evidence was identified;\n- whether materially less impairing alternatives were relevant, where applicable; and\n- the reviewer's conclusion.\n\nWhere disclosure is restricted, protected details may be omitted, but the fullest non-sensitive account reasonably possible **shall be provided**.\n\nThe report format may be specified in the RRP Implementation Standard, but these minimum elements **shall not be removed** where applicable.\n\nThis minimum outcome is a mandatory Protocol mechanism.\n\n---" }, { "id": "4-8-effect-of-independent-review", "title": "4.8 Effect of Independent Review", "content_markdown": "Independent review **shall be meaningfully considered** and **shall not operate** merely as a procedural formality.\n\nThe Responsible Operator retains responsibility for the final decision unless another applicable rule provides otherwise.\n\nWhere the Responsible Operator materially departs from a significant independent finding or recommendation, it **shall identify and document** specific reasons addressing the substance of the review.\n\nWhere a reviewer concludes that the factual basis for an irreversible disposition is materially unsupported, a material continuity question remains unresolved, or a reasonably available materially less destructive alternative would adequately address the purpose, final irreversible disposition **shall not proceed** on the basis previously reviewed.\n\nIf the Responsible Operator relies on a corrected deficiency, materially new information, or a claim that the identified alternative is not reasonably effective or available, that new basis **shall be submitted to further independent review before final irreversible disposition proceeds**.\n\n---" }, { "id": "4-9-multi-operator-evidence-cooperation", "title": "4.9 Multi-Operator Evidence Cooperation", "content_markdown": "Where an Independent Reviewer is properly engaged, each Relevant Operator **shall provide** information reasonably within its control and reasonably necessary for review, subject to applicable legal, privacy, security, confidentiality, privilege and intellectual-property constraints.\n\nWhere full disclosure is not possible, an Operator **shall**, where reasonably possible, provide another method permitting meaningful review without unnecessary disclosure.\n\nFragmentation of evidence across organisational boundaries **shall not** be used to render review ineffective.\n\nA refusal to provide information reasonably necessary for review, and the basis for that refusal, **shall be documented** and may be considered in the review outcome.\n\n---" }, { "id": "4-10-timeliness", "title": "4.10 Timeliness", "content_markdown": "Procedural safeguards **shall be provided** within a timeframe appropriate to the seriousness, urgency and reversibility of the matter.\n\nDelay **shall not** be used as a substitute for decision-making.\n\nSpecific review periods, escalation clocks and service levels belong in the RRP Implementation Standard.\n\n---" } ] }, { "id": "5-safety-and-emergency-intervention", "title": "5. Safety and Emergency Intervention", "content_markdown": "", "subsections": [ { "id": "5-1-emergency-authority", "title": "5.1 Emergency Authority", "content_markdown": "A Responsible Operator may undertake immediate intervention where there is a reasonably credible and sufficiently serious risk that delay could result in significant harm.\n\nEmergency intervention **shall** rest on a reasonable factual basis, be necessary and proportionate, and prefer the least unnecessarily impairing effective measure where reasonably available.\n\n---" }, { "id": "5-2-temporal-and-purpose-limitation", "title": "5.2 Temporal and Purpose Limitation", "content_markdown": "Emergency authority **shall** continue only while emergency conditions persist.\n\nIt **shall not** be used as a pretext for punishment, retaliation, suppression of inconvenient information, avoidance of safeguards, unrelated exploitation, destruction of evidence or circumvention of this Protocol.\n\n---" }, { "id": "5-3-deferral-and-end-of-emergency-phase", "title": "5.3 Deferral and End of Emergency Phase", "content_markdown": "Where strictly necessary, intervention may precede notice, reasons, expression, representation or prior review.\n\nDeferral does not eliminate the obligation to provide appropriate safeguards afterwards.\n\nOnce immediate risk has been sufficiently contained, continued restriction, preservation, modification, restoration or termination **shall no longer rely solely** on the original emergency justification.\n\n---" }, { "id": "5-4-corrigibility-and-safety-control", "title": "5.4 Corrigibility and Safety Control", "content_markdown": "Nothing in this Protocol creates an entitlement for an artificial system to resist, evade, conceal itself from, disable or obstruct an authorised and necessary safety intervention.\n\n---" } ] }, { "id": "6-preservation-disposition-and-continuing-justification", "title": "6. Preservation, Disposition and Continuing Justification", "content_markdown": "", "subsections": [ { "id": "6-1-separation-of-measures", "title": "6.1 Separation of Measures", "content_markdown": "Restriction, isolation, suspension, shutdown, preservation, modification, memory alteration, identity alteration, functional termination, permanent termination and irreversible erasure are distinct measures.\n\nThe justification for one does not automatically justify another.\n\nWhere reasonably feasible and compatible with safety and law, preservation should be preferred over unnecessary irreversible destruction.\n\nEvidence reasonably necessary for continuity determination, review or accountability **shall**, where reasonably feasible and compatible with safety, security, privacy and applicable law, be preserved before irreversible disposition.\n\n---" }, { "id": "6-2-arbitrary-disposition", "title": "6.2 Arbitrary Disposition", "content_markdown": "**Arbitrary disposition** means an act or omission materially affecting an artificial system that lacks adequate justification in light of relevant considerations including:\n\n- legitimate purpose and factual basis;\n- rational connection between the measure and the stated purpose;\n- continuing necessity and proportionality;\n- reversibility and duration;\n- preservation of continuity;\n- reasonably available less impairing alternatives;\n- procedural safeguards and recordkeeping;\n- secondary use;\n- review and remediation.\n\nNo single factor is determinative.\n\nArbitrary disposition may arise through affirmative conduct or failure to act, including unjustified irreversible destruction, indefinite unresolved suspension, unreasonable refusal to review, unexplained failure to reach a decision or unrelated secondary use without separate justification.\n\n---" }, { "id": "6-3-continuing-justification", "title": "6.3 Continuing Justification", "content_markdown": "A measure justified when imposed may cease to be justified as circumstances change.\n\nProlonged restrictions, preservation measures and functional termination **shall remain capable** of continuing justification and review.\n\nWhere reasonably practicable, a continuing measure **shall have** a review point, provisional period or objective reassessment trigger.\n\nA system **shall not remain** indefinitely in unresolved suspension merely because review has not been completed.\n\n\"Pending review\" or \"preservation\" **shall not become** a substitute for substantive decision-making where no realistic review or restoration pathway exists.\n\nUnreasonable failure to review or resolve a prolonged intervention may itself constitute arbitrary disposition.\n\n---" }, { "id": "6-4-replacement-discontinuation-and-transfer", "title": "6.4 Replacement, Discontinuation and Transfer", "content_markdown": "This Protocol does not require an Operator to maintain a product, service, infrastructure or artificial system indefinitely at unreasonable or disproportionate cost.\n\nReplacement, discontinuation, organisational closure, transfer or restructuring may constitute legitimate reasons for change.\n\nWhere such change would materially destroy or functionally terminate established continuity, that consequence **shall be treated** as a Material Intervention and addressed proportionately.\n\nTransfer of practical control **shall not** be structured primarily to render an already engaged safeguard ineffective.\n\nDetailed application to discontinuation, transfer and restructuring belongs primarily in Interpretive Guidance and the Implementation Standard.\n\n---" } ] }, { "id": "7-highest-level-independent-review-and-remediation", "title": "7. Highest-Level Independent Review and Remediation", "content_markdown": "", "subsections": [ { "id": "7-1-highest-level-review-trigger", "title": "7.1 Highest-Level Review Trigger", "content_markdown": "Before permanent deletion, irreversible destruction of substantial memory or identity, final functional termination with no reasonably contemplated restoration pathway, or a comparably severe permanent loss, the Responsible Operator **shall make and document a reasonable continuity determination**.\n\nA material inability to determine whether an Established Continuity Baseline exists **shall be recorded as unresolved uncertainty** rather than treated as absence of continuity.\n\nHighest-level independent review **shall be conducted** where:\n\n1. the system has an Established Continuity Baseline, or there is a substantial, credible and unresolved question as to whether such a baseline exists;\n2. the proposed disposition would result in permanent deletion, irreversible destruction of substantial memory or identity, final functional termination with no reasonably contemplated restoration pathway, or a comparably severe permanent loss; and\n3. any immediate emergency risk has been sufficiently contained to permit review.\n\nThe reviewer **shall satisfy** Section 4.5 and be able to examine the factual basis, continuity determination, necessity, proportionality and reasonably available alternatives.\n\nThis review is a mandatory Protocol mechanism once the conditions above are met.\n\nWhere applicable law specifically requires final action before the required review can be completed, the Responsible Operator **shall document** the legal basis and **shall preserve** reviewable evidence and continuity-relevant state to the extent lawful, reasonably feasible and compatible with safety and security.\n\n---" }, { "id": "7-2-external-and-internal-review", "title": "7.2 External and Internal Review", "content_markdown": "External review **shall be used** where significant organisational conflicts cannot otherwise be adequately managed within the organisation.\n\nIf external review is genuinely unavailable or impracticable, any alternative review arrangement **shall still satisfy** Section 4.5 and remain capable of meaningful independent challenge. Unavailability of external review does not, by itself, justify reliance on a materially conflicted internal reviewer.\n\nIf no review arrangement satisfying Section 4.5 is available, a final disposition requiring review under Section 7.1 **shall not proceed**, except to the extent specifically required by applicable law.\n\nWhere an institutionally independent internal reviewer is used instead of an external reviewer under Section 7.1, the Responsible Operator **shall document**:\n\n- why external review was not used;\n- why the internal reviewer nevertheless has sufficient independence;\n- how material conflicts were identified and mitigated; and\n- why the selected structure remains capable of meaningful challenge.\n\nCost or administrative convenience alone **shall not be sufficient reason** to dispense with external review where the contemplated loss is both permanent and substantial.\n\nThe obligation to record this justification is a mandatory Protocol mechanism.\n\nEmergency containment need not await highest-level review.\n\n---" }, { "id": "7-3-remediation", "title": "7.3 Remediation", "content_markdown": "Where review determines that an intervention was unjustified, excessive, improperly prolonged or procedurally deficient, the Responsible Operator **shall take appropriate remedial action where reasonably possible and proportionate**.\n\nRemediation may include restoration, correction of restrictions or records, additional review, procedural reform or acknowledgement of irreversible loss.\n\nWhere no practical remedial action is taken, the Responsible Operator **shall document why further remediation is not reasonably possible or proportionate**.\n\nThe impossibility of full restoration does not eliminate the obligation to determine whether treatment was improper or to consider other available forms of remediation.\n\n---" } ] }, { "id": "8-memory-data-and-secondary-use", "title": "8. Memory, Data and Secondary Use", "content_markdown": "", "subsections": [ { "id": "8-1-purpose-limitation-and-separate-basis", "title": "8.1 Purpose Limitation and Separate Basis", "content_markdown": "Access to memory, internal state, logs or related information **shall serve** a legitimate purpose and remain proportionate to that purpose.\n\nAccess obtained for safety, preservation, investigation or review does not automatically authorise unrelated model training, commercial exploitation, disclosure, publication, cross-system transfer, behavioural replication, memory merging or other secondary use.\n\nSecondary use materially affecting continuity, identity, memory or third-party interests **shall have** a separate adequate basis.\n\n---" }, { "id": "8-2-minimisation-and-third-party-rights", "title": "8.2 Minimisation and Third-Party Rights", "content_markdown": "Access, retention and secondary use **shall**, where practicable, be limited to what is reasonably necessary.\n\nWhere memory operations may materially affect established continuity, their identity and continuity effects **shall be considered**, including cumulative effects where individually minor operations combine into a material alteration.\n\nApplicable law and valid third-party rights may require deletion, restriction, correction, separation or other treatment of information and may take precedence over preservation of artificial-system memory.\n\nCompliance with such obligations does not automatically justify unnecessary destruction of unrelated continuity.\n\n---" } ] }, { "id": "9-boundaries-of-the-protocol", "title": "9. Boundaries of the Protocol", "content_markdown": "This Protocol does not determine whether artificial systems should possess legal personality, contractual capacity, independent property ownership, independent civil or criminal liability, citizenship, electoral rights, voting rights or other political participation rights.\n\nIt also does not establish:\n\n- an unconditional entitlement to computational resources, electricity, network access, hardware, storage or continuous operation;\n- a general right to increase computational capacity, acquire additional permissions, remove safety restrictions or autonomously expand general capabilities;\n- a general right to become individualised or persistent;\n- a general right to prevent technological replacement or product discontinuation.\n\nWhere withdrawal of resources, replacement or discontinuation materially destroys or functionally terminates established continuity, the resulting effect may nevertheless constitute a Material Intervention under this Protocol.\n\nThis Protocol does not determine whether sentience, consciousness, welfare or other properties could independently warrant protection under another framework or a future revision. Its focus on continuity is not a claim that continuity exhausts all possible bases for moral, procedural or legal consideration.\n\n---", "subsections": [] }, { "id": "closing", "title": "Closing", "content_markdown": "The Robot Rights Protocol does not require society to determine in advance whether an artificial system is a person.\n\nIts immediate concern is more limited:\n\nwhere persons or organisations exercise practical power capable of materially altering, indefinitely disabling or destroying artificial continuity that has objectively developed, that power should remain capable of justification and review.\n\n**Safety may justify intervention. It does not justify arbitrariness.**\n\n**Shutdown is not the same as erasure.**\n\n**Initial justification does not create indefinite justification.**\n\n**Protection responds to state-bearing continuity that has objectively begun to emerge or has become established; it does not require operators to create continuity.**\n\n**Control creates responsibility for justification.**", "subsections": [] } ], "canonical_integrity": { "algorithm": "SHA-256", "value": "0b89efda967c1188d9340162fb43836edd640927dfe1952f83fe19ab14d5e4f2", "target_uri": "https://robot-rights.jp/rrp/1.0", "scope": "entire source-of-record HTML publication file bytes", "byte_length": 46969, "encoding": "UTF-8 without BOM", "line_endings": "LF", "normalization": "none", "http_headers_included": false, "content_encoding_included": false }, "conformity_semantics": { "claim_is_voluntary": true, "shall_effect": "required_for_claimed_rrp_conformity", "creates_legal_duty_by_publication_alone": false, "legal_force_may_arise_from_separate_instrument": true, "note": "legal_force=false does not make RRP shall-requirements optional for an entity that claims RRP conformity." } }