Publications

Rassegna Osservatorio Air, 1

Rassegna trimestrale dell’Osservatorio AIR, n. XII-1, Gennaio 2021

in Studi Parlamentari e di Politica Costituzionale, anno 54, n. 209, 1 semestre 2021, pp. 137 – 156

Rassegna trimestrale dell’Osservatorio AIR, n. XII-4, Ottobre 2021

​

​

​

This is the second of two companion papers that discuss accidents caused by robots. In the first paper (Guerra et al., 2021), we presented the novel problems posed by robot accidents, and assessed the related legal approaches and institutional opportunities. In this paper, we build on the previous analysis to consider a novel liability regime, which we refer to as ‘manufacturer residual liability’ rule. This makes operators and victims liable for accidents due to their negligence – hence, incentivizing them to act diligently; and makes manufacturers residually liable for non-negligent accidents – hence, incentivizing them to make optimal investments in R&D for robots' safety. In turn, this rule will bring down the price of safer robots, driving unsafe technology out of the market. Thanks to the percolation effect of residual liability, operators will also be incentivized to adopt optimal activity levels in robots' usage.

In robot torts, robots carry out activities that are partially controlled by a human operator. Several legal and economic scholars across the world have argued for the need to rethink legal remedies as we apply them to robot torts. Yet, to date, there exists no general formulation of liability in case of robot accidents, and the proposed solutions differ across jurisdictions. We proceed in our research with a set of two com-panion papers. In this paper, we present the novel problems posed by robot accidents, and assess the legal challenges and institutional prospects that policymakers face in the regulation of robot torts. In the companion paper, we build on the present analysis and use an economic model to propose a new liability regime that blends negligence-based rules and strict manufacturer liability rules to create optimal incentives for robot torts.

This book seeks to enrich and, in some cases, reverse current ideas on corruption and its prevention. It is a long held belief that sanctions are the best guard against corrupt practise. This innovative work argues that in some cases sanctions paradoxically increase corruption and that controls provide opportunities for corrupt transactions. Instead it suggests that better regulation and responsive enforcement, not sanctions, offer the most effective response to corruption. Taking both a theoretical and applied approach, it examines the question from a global perspective, drawing on in particular a regulatory perspective, to provide a model for tackling corrupt practises.