- citati u SCIndeksu: [2]
- citati u CrossRef-u:[1]
- citati u Google Scholaru:[
]
- posete u poslednjih 30 dana:9
- preuzimanja u poslednjih 30 dana:6
|
|
2021, vol. 60, br. 92, str. 15-34
|
Ugovor kao algoritam - uvodna razmatranja
Contract as an algorithm: Introductory considerations
Sažetak
Rad se bavi mogućnošću pretvaranja ugovora u formi teksta u algoritamski oblik. "Algoritmizacija ugovora" trebalo bi da omogući konverziju ugovornih odredbi u algoritam u cilju njihovog korišćenja kod tzv. "digitalno unapređenih ugovora" poput pametnih ugovora (e. Smart contracts), a da se pri tome obezbedi pravna validnost i efikasnost ugovornih odredbi. Algoritam je plan rešavanja određenog problema kroz preduzimanje pojedinačnih koraka. U pravnom kontekstu, algoritam je poseban način upravljanja ponašanjem ugovornih strana. Opisano upravljanje sprovodi se odabirom informacija o ponašanju strana, te kontrolom i usmeravanjem sprovođenja ugovora u skladu sa tim ponašanjem. Uvođenje algoritma kao forme definisanja ugovornih odredbi utiče na format i suštinu ugovornog prava. Algoritam ugovora može biti u obliku pseudokoda, simbola formalne logike i dijagrama toka. Razumevanju algoritmizacije ugovora u obliku pseudokoda od pomoći su mehanizmi i pravila formalne logike. Ova pravila omogućavaju sistematsko "usitnjavanje" pravnog teksta kroz logičku matricu, čime se olakšava proces algoritmizacije kroz korake. Razvoj principa za algoritmiranje ugovora proces je koji traje. Ključna pitanja koja traže odgovor su, između ostalog, osnov i sadržina normativnosti ugovora u formi koda i njihova podobnost da budu kvalifikovani kao pravno valjani format.
Abstract
Legal norms contained in text-driven contracts (as well as in statutes and bylaws), which are written in natural language, can be subject of algorithmic conversion in certain phases of the contract circle (implementation, monitoring, control, interpretation). The application of the blockchain concept as a structural pattern opens the possibility of creating a code-driven contract with automated execution: a "smart" contract. Algorithmization is understood as a process which enables the text of the contract to be translated into a format that is understandable to software developers. To this end, the use of the following methodologies is proposed: design of a pseudocode, application of formal logic symbols and the use of flowcharts. Successful conversion of legal prose into a code calls for cooperation between lawyers and programmers. The framework of that cooperation is the establishment of the so-called "Legal Expert System" (LES). Originally conceived by lawyers, LES is a program which allows the algorithm to solve the problem of contract execution. Contract algorithmization should convert contracts from prose to a code, while preserving contract validity and efficiency. For the time being, smart contracts cannot regulate commercially complex scenarios; thus, the de lege lata application of smart contracts as a complete replacement for traditional (analogous) contracts is excluded. A potential object of algorithmization are the primary instructions aimed at executing the characteristic performance of the contract. Contract algorithmization is an ongoing process, which is here to stay. The significance of this process is indisputable but its scope, dynamics and assumptions are still only partially defined and tested. The necessary condition (but hardly a sufficient one) is to legitimize the conception of a contract as an algorithm in the process of defining contractual provisions. Further development of this concept will depend on the functioning of other elements in the environment where code-driven contracts would be used and, above all, on the commercial response to the entire process of contract algorithmization. In effect, in order to be widely applied, contract algorithmization must become a commercially viable activity.
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
*** The British nationality act as a logic program. Communications of the ACM, 29(5), 370-386, 20. 09. 2021, http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~rak/papers
|
|
Allen, L.E. (1956) Symbolic logic: A razor-edged tool for drafting and interpreting legal documents. Yale LJ, 66, 833
|
|
Ashley, K.D. (2017) Artificial intelligence and legal analytics: New tools for law practice in the digital age. Cambridge University Press
|
|
Barraclough, T., Fraser, H., Barnes, C. (2021) Legislation as Code for New Zealand
|
|
Brookshear, J.G. (2012) Computer science: An overview. Boston: Addison-Wesley
|
|
Christodoulou, M., Szczygieł, E., Kłapa, Ł., Kolarz, W. (1998) Linear programming. u: Algorithmic Geometry, Cambridge University Press, 223-240
|
1
|
Cvetković, P. (2021) Sinteza pravnog teksta i programskog koda - slučaj Rikardijanskog ugovora. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu, vol. 60, br. 90, str. 61-76
|
6
|
Cvetković, P. (2020) Blokčejn kao pravni fenomen - uvodna razmatranja. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu, vol. 59, br. 87, str. 127-144
|
|
Diver, L.E. (2019) Digisprudence: The affordance of legitimacy in code-as-law. University of Edinburgh, doctoral thesis
|
|
Flood, M.D., Goodenough, O.R. (2017) Contract as automaton: The computational representation of financial agreements. Office of Financial Research Working Paper, (15-04) 10. 09. 2021, https://ccl.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/OFRwp-2015-04_Contract-as-Automaton-The-Computational-Representation-of-Financial-Agreements.pdf
|
|
Goldoni, M. (2015) The politics of code as law: Towards input reasons. u: Reichel J., Lind A.S. [ur.] Freedom of Expression, the Internet and Democracy, Leiden: Brill, 115-133
|
|
Jovanović, N. (2005) Uvod u programiranje. Viša poslovna škola, str. 51-91
|
|
Kaulartz, M. (2019) Smart contract dispute resolution in fries. u: Paal Martin, Paal Boris P. [ur.] Smart contracts, Mohr Siebeck
|
|
Koch, K.L. (2005) A multidisciplinary comparison of rules-driven writing: Similarities in Legal writing, biology research articles, and computer programming. Journal of Legal Education, 55(1/2), 234-251
|
|
Kuhn, T. (2014) A survey and classification of controlled natural languages. Computational Linguistics, 40(1), 121-170
|
3
|
Lauslahti, K., Mattila, J., Seppala, T. (2017) Smart contracts: How will blockchain technology affect contractual practices?. ETLA Reports, 68
|
|
Lessig, L. (2006) Code: Version 2.0. Basic Books
|
1
|
Lipshaw, J.M. (2018) The persistence of 'dumb' contracts. 10. 07. 2020, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Lipshaw/publication/326475422_The_Persistence_of_'Dumb'_Contracts/ links/5c3b4db7a6fdccd6b5a9e41f/The-Persistence-of-Dumb-Contracts.pdf
|
|
Sergot, M.J., Sadri, F., Kowalski, R.A., Kriwaczek, F., Hammond, P., Cory, H.T. (1986)
|
|
Surden, H. (2012) Computable contracts. UCDL Rev, 46, 629
|
|
Susskind, R.E. (1986) Expert systems in law: A jurisprudential approach to artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. modern law review, 49(2), 168-194
|
|
van Emden, M.H., Kowalski, R.A. (1976) The semantics of predicate logic as a programming language. Journal of the ACM, 23(4), 733-742
|
|
von Haller, G.M. (2016) Blockchain 2.0, smart contracts and challenges. 02. 03. 2020, https://www.twobirds.com/~/media/pdfs/ in-focus/fintech/blockchain2_0_martinvonhallergroenbaek_08_06_16.pdf
|
|
Werbach, K., Cornell, N. (2017) Contracts: Ex machina. Duke LJ, 67, 313
|
|
|
|