Law Making in the Conditions of Algorithmization of Law

The paper is devoted to the study of law and computer algorithms as tools regulating social and technical processes. The purpose of this work is to study the possibilities of using computer code to regulate public relations, as well as the impact of this process on traditional legislative procedures.

The paper puts forward the thesis that computer code regulating technical processes can be used to a certain extent in the legal sphere of activity. To use computer code in law making, it is necessary to define the scope of legal regulation, develop an appropriate programming language and adopt a system of internal and external code audit measures that will ensure transparency, legality of the code and, as a result, public confidence in the adopted normative legal acts.

One example is smart contracts used in certain areas. The authors have studied various approaches to the definition of the term "smart contract" and formulated an integrative definition of this concept. When using a smart contract in the legal sphere, this term should be understood as a legally binding contract drawn up in the form of computer code and supported by appropriate legal remedies.

In this paper, the authors investigate the possible consequences of using computer code in law making and propose a number of additional measures (requirements) to the procedure for adopting regulatory legal acts. The authors summarize that law is to a certain extent an algorithm, which means that the same methods can be used to regulate public relations that are used in the technical sphere to fix the sequence of various operations. 

1. Caria R. Definitions of Smart Contracts: Between Law and Code. In: DiMatteo L, Cannarsa M, Poncibò C, editors. The Cambridge Handbook of Smart Contracts, Blockchain Technology and Digital Platforms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2019. (In Eng.)

2. De Filippi P, Wright A. Blockchain and the Law: The Rule of Code. Harvard University Press; 2019. (In Eng.)

3. Jaccard G. Smart Contracts and the Role of Law. 2018 January 10. [cited 2020 April 03]. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3099885 ; http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3099885 (In Eng.)

4. Kroll JoA, Huey J, Barocas S, Felten EW, Reidenberg JR, Robinson DG, Yu H. Accountable Algorithms. U. Pa. L. Rev. 2017;165:633. (In Eng.)

5. Mik E. Smart Contracts: Terminology, Technical Limitations and Real World Complexity [Internet]. 2017 August 17. [cited 2020 April 03]. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3038406 ; http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3038406 (In Eng.)

6. O’Shields R. Smart Contracts: Legal Agreements for the Blockchain. North Carolina Banking Institute. 2017;21(1). (In Eng.)

7. Smart Contracts: Building Blocks for Digital Markets [Internet]. [cited 2020 April 03]. Available from: http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/rob/Courses/InformationInSpeech/CDROM/Literature/LOTwinterschool2006/szabo. best.vwh.net/smart_contracts_2.html (In Eng.)

8. Sokolov M. Smart Legal Contract as a Future of Contracts Enforcement [Internet]. 2018 May 25. [cited 2020 April 03]. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3208292 ; http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3208292 (In Eng.)

9. Tjong Tjin Tai E. Force Majeure and Excuses in Smart Contracts. Tilburg Private Law Working Paper Series [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2020 April 03];10. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3183637 ; http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3183637 (In Eng.)