Data and behavioral contracts for web services

The recent trend in Web services is fostering a computing scenario where loosely coupled parties interact in a distributed and dynamic environment. Such interactions are sequences of xml messages and in order to assemble parties – either statically or dynamically – it is important to verify that the “contracts” of the parties are “compatible”. The Web Service Description Language (wsdl) is a standard used for describing one-way (asynchronous) and request/response (synchronous) interactions. Web Service Conversation Language extends wscl contracts by allowing the description of arbitrary, possibly cyclic sequences of exchanged messages between communicating parties. Unfortunately, neither wsdl nor wscl can effectively define a notion of compatibility, for the very simple reason that they do not provide any formal characterization of their contract languages. We define two contract languages for Web services. The first one is a data contract language and allow us to describe a Web service in terms of messages (xml documents) that can be sent or received. The second one is a behavioral contract language and allow us to give an abstract definition of the Web service conversation protocol. Both these languages are equipped with a sort of “sub-typing” relation and, therefore, they are suitable to be used for querying Web services repositories. In particular a query for a service compatible with a given contract may safely return services with “greater” contract.

Implications of Blockchain-Based Smart Contracts on Contract Law

Smart contracts are the most advanced blockchain applications. They can also be used in the contractual domain for the encoding and automatic execution of contract terms. Smart contracts already existed before the blockchain, but they take advantage of the characteristics of that technology. Namely, the decentralised and immutable characters of the blockchain determine that no single contracting party can control, modify, or interrupt the execution of smart contracts. As every new phenomenon, blockchain-based smart contracts have attracted the attention of institutions. For example, in its Resolution of 3 October 2018 on distributed ledger technologies and blockchain, the European Parliament has stressed the need to undertake an in-depth assessment of the legal implications,starting from the analysis of existing legal frameworks. Indeed, the present research thesis aims to verify how blockchain-based smart contracts fit into contract law. To this end, the analysis starts from the most discussed and relevant aspects and develops further considerations. Before that, it provides a detailed description and clarifications about the characteristics, the functioning, and the development of the technology, which is an essential starting point for a high-level quality legal analysis. It takes into considerations already existing rules concerning the use of technology in the life cycle of contracts, from vending machines to computable contracts, and verifies its applicability to blockchain-based smart contracts. The work does not limit to consider the mere technology, but some concrete scenarios of adoption of blockchain-based smart contracts in the contractual domain. Starting from the latter, it focuses on the implications of blockchain-based smart contracts on contract formation, contract performance, and applicable law and jurisdiction.

AI and legal personhood: a theoretical survey

I set out the pros and cons of conferring legal personhood on artificial intelligence systems (AIs), mainly under civil law. I provide functionalist arguments to justify this policy choice and identify the content that such a legal status might have. Although personhood entails holding one or more legal positions, I will focus on the distribution of liabilities arising from unpredictably illegal and harmful conduct. Conferring personhood on AIs might efficiently allocate risks and social costs, ensuring protection for victims, incentives for production, and technological innovation. I also consider other legal positions, e.g., the capacity to act, the ability to hold property, make contracts, and sue (and be sued). However, I contend that even assuming that conferring personhood on AIs finds widespread consensus, its implementation requires solving a coordination problem, determined by three asymmetries: technological, intra-legal systems, and inter-legal systems. I address the coordination problem through conceptual analysis and metaphysical explanation. I first frame legal personhood as a node of inferential links between factual preconditions and legal effects. Yet, this inferentialist reading does not account for the ‘background reasons’, i.e., it does not explain why we group divergent situations under legal personality and how extra-legal information is integrated into it. One way to account for this background is to adopt a neo-institutional perspective and update its ontology of legal concepts with further layers: the meta-institutional and the intermediate. Under this reading, the semantic referent of legal concepts is institutional reality. So, I use notions of analytical metaphysics, such as grounding and anchoring, to explain the origins and constituent elements of legal personality as an institutional kind. Finally, I show that the integration of conceptual and metaphysical analysis can provide the toolkit for finding an equilibrium around the legal-policy choices that are involved in including (or not including) AIs among legal persons.

Ex ante contracts to arbitrate tort claims - A law and economics perspective

This research addresses the use of ex ante contracts to arbitrate tort claims in domestic settings using law and economics research methodologies. Potential economic benefits from using arbitration, particularly between informed and knowledgeable parties and in international business transactions, are not guaranteed in domestic disputes. Arbitration can potentially be used to manipulate the adjudication process. This research has several findings. There is a lack of information available concerning the use of arbitration to adjudicate tort claims. Proxy measurements concerning the demand for third party adjudication and other legal indicators are a poor substitute for the information hidden behind the veil of arbitration. There is the potential for the strategic use of ex ante contracts to arbitrate tort claims by repeat player tortfeasors to domestic tort claims, both individually and in concert with other repeat player firms. These strategic efforts aim to: manipulate enforcement errors for tort claims, avoid procedural rules which have the effect of lowering enforcement errors, enable a unique type of domestic forum arbitrage, shirk from taking due care, capture the economic benefit of using arbitration, manipulate the stock of precedents and production of public goods from courts, collude in these underlying efforts, restrain competition, indirectly fix prices, and other aims which increase the repeat player tortfeasor’s or their industries economic gains related to their underlying contracts and tort disputes. This research also demonstrates how this subject is appropriate for further academic research and why states should be cautious of giving carte blanche to arbitrate all domestic tort claims.