Neurotechnology, Cognitive Liberty, and the Law: Building a New Legal Architecture for Mental Autonomy in the Digital Age

Abstract

The rapid expansion of neurotechnology is transforming the foundational relationship between law, technology, and the human person. Unlike earlier technological developments that primarily affected external behavior or information flows, contemporary neurotechnologies directly intervene in the neural mechanisms of thought, emotion, memory, and decision-making. This shift generates unprecedented risks to mental autonomy, personal identity, and moral agency, exposing the structural inadequacy of existing legal doctrines centered on bodily integrity and informational privacy. Using a narrative review with descriptive analytical methodology, this study examines the technological landscape of neurotechnology, the emerging concept of cognitive liberty in contemporary legal thought, and the growing gap between technological capability and legal protection. The analysis demonstrates that current regulatory frameworks, including human rights law, constitutional law, criminal law, and data protection regimes, fail to address the unique ontological status of neural data and the profound vulnerabilities introduced by direct cognitive intervention. In response, the study develops a comprehensive legal architecture for mental autonomy grounded in the principles of mental inviolability, cognitive self-determination, neural due process, and the categorical prohibition of non-consensual cognitive interference. It further conceptualizes a system of fundamental neuro-rights, including mental privacy, psychological continuity, identity integrity, and freedom from algorithmic mental manipulation, and proposes institutional and regulatory mechanisms for their implementation at domestic and international levels. The findings underscore that the protection of mental autonomy constitutes the next frontier of human rights and represents a decisive challenge for legal systems in the digital age. Without proactive legal reconstruction, neurotechnology risks institutionalizing new forms of domination over the human mind.