Monthly Archives: May, 2019

Francesco Paolo Patti, ‘The European Road to Autonomous Vehicles’

ABSTRACT The present contribution intends to outline a ‘European regulatory strategy’ in order to address technological and legal challenges posed by autonomous vehicles. Starting with a recent communication of the EU Commission, the paper provides a critical analysis of the EU policies on the legal issues of liability related to autonomous vehicles. The ongoing discussions […]

Parchomovsky and Stein, ‘Autonomy’

ABSTRACT Personal autonomy is a constitutive element of all rights. It confers upon a rightholder the power to decide whether, and under what circumstances, to exercise her right. Every right infringement thus invariably involves a violation of its holder’s autonomy. The autonomy violation consists of the deprivation of a rightholder of a choice that was […]

Burke and Molitorisova, ‘What Does It Matter Who is Browsing? ISP Liability and the Right to Anonymity’

ABSTRACT Disputes concatenating privacy, speech and security through the right to anonymity are particularly hard cases to adjudicate. The traditional paradigm, according to which anonymity plays a double role – protecting fundamental rights, as well as potentially threatening them – continues to drive policies that, in turn, emphasise the risks and downplay the opportunities of […]

Zou, Cheng and Heredia, ‘In Code We Trust? Trustlessness and Smart Contracts’

ABSTRACT The term ‘trustlessness’ has given rise to a common misperception of smart contracts reducing or even eliminating the need for trust. At first glance, smart contracts appear to do away with the need for trust in the counterparty. Since performance is automatic, smart contracts enable the promisee to obtain what has been promised to […]

Ivana Tucak, ‘Bentham’s Analysis of Legal Rights’

ABSTRACT Topic of this paper is Bentham’s analysis of legal rights. The paper is divided into several parts. The first section deals with the features of Bentham’s imperative theory of law. The second section is entitled ‘legal fictions’ and expounds the general methodology which was utilized by Bentham to designate the meaning of terms. The […]

Aditi Bagchi, ‘Interpreting Contracts in a Regulatory State’

ABSTRACT Some scholars would limit courts to the text of written agreements when interpreting contracts on the theory that parties meant what they said, and said what they meant. Other scholars would have courts take into account the factual context surrounding contract formation. Both sides of this debate assume that contract interpretation is largely limited […]

Adam Perry, ‘Strained Interpretations’

ABSTRACT Judges often give statutes strained interpretations. What makes an interpretation strained? What, if anything, justifies a strained interpretation? Is there always a point past which an interpretation would be too strained, or are there some interpretations which judges are entitled to adopt, whatever a statute says? I claim to answer all of these questions. […]

James Grimmelmann, ‘All Smart Contracts Are Ambiguous’

ABSTRACT Smart contracts are written in programming languages rather than in natural languages. This might seem to insulate them from ambiguity, because the meaning of a program is determined by technical facts rather than by social ones. It does not. Smart contracts can be ambiguous, too, because technical facts depend on socially determined ones. To […]

Aditi Bagchi, ‘Production Liability’

ABSTRACT It is well known that many consumer goods are produced under dangerous working conditions. Employers that directly supervise the production of these goods evade enforcement. Activists and scholars have argued that we must hold the manufacturers and retailers that purchase goods made in sweatshops accountable. However, there has been little movement toward such accountability. […]

Visa Kurki, ‘Are Legal Positivism and the Interest Theory of Rights Compatible?’

ABSTRACT The Whanganui River has recently been declared a legal person and a right-holder according to New Zealand legislation. However, many theorists propounding the interest theory of rights, such as Matthew Kramer and Joseph Raz, would deny that rivers can hold rights. Their denial is based on moral considerations: rivers are not morally ultimately valuable […]