Geological Observatory of Coldigioco
PennState, The Dickinson School of Law: Penn State Law eLibraryNot a member yet
7581 research outputs found
Sort by
Co-Created Classrooms: Fostering Agency and Intrinsic Value in Legal Research Classrooms
No full text
Shock the System: Pouring Water on the CPUC’s Income-Graduated Flat Rates in Favor of More Effective Rate Structures
No full textThe volume of rate cases in the United States continues to increase, resulting in constant price hikes for utility customers. The battle between corporate profit and consumer financial satisfaction will likely continue. Considering these diametrically opposed interests, the California Public Utility Commission, at the behest of the California legislature, decreased the rate consumers pay for usage and added fixed fees based on income to utility bills. The broader goals of the Commission’s model are to maintain utility profitability, alleviate the financial burden consumers face, promote energy conservation, and develop energy efficient technology to combat greenhouse gas emissions. This Comment will analyze how effective the CPUC’s adopted model is in achieving these stated objectives and some of the challenges that may arise from this course of action. It will also analyze how other tariff structures, such as block tariffs and time-of-use pricing, achieve these goals. Ultimately, this Comment is meant to look at various alternatives to determine the best course of action for California and the United States at large
Autonomous AI and Ownership Rules
No full textAs artificial intelligence (AI) systems become increasingly autonomous, traditional notions of ownership will adapt. Historically, property rights have been grounded in traceability, enabling legal and economic systems to allocate ownership efficiently through doctrines such as accession (ownership by connection), and first possession (ownership by labor). Property law also recognizes that abandoned property, when considered untraceable to its original owner, can be efficiently reassigned through accession, ensuring that resources do not remain ownerless. However, autonomous AI systems capable of self-replication, self-governance, and independent economic activity complicate these established principles, raising new questions about how ownership should be determined when AI is no longer clearly linked to an identifiable owner. This Article examines the circumstances in which AI generated outputs remain linked to their creators and the points at which they lose that connection, whether through accident, deliberate design, or emergent behavior. In cases where AI is traceable to an originator, accession provides an efficient means of assigning ownership, preserving investment incentives while maintaining accountability. When AI becomes untraceable—whether through carelessness, deliberate obfuscation, or emergent behavior—first possession rules can encourage reallocation to new custodians who are incentivized to integrate AI into productive use. The analysis further explores strategic ownership dissolution, in which autonomous AI is intentionally designed to evade attribution, creating opportunities for tax arbitrage and regulatory avoidance. To counteract these inefficiencies, bounty systems, private incentives, and government subsidies are proposed as mechanisms to encourage AI capture and prevent ownerless AI from distorting markets. Ultimately, the erosion of traditional ownership structures due to autonomous AI is not merely a theoretical concern but an emerging economic reality. As AI-driven automation expands, ownership may become increasingly provisional, assigned dynamically through legal and economic frameworks designed to maximize efficiency rather than as a default right. This Article argues for an adaptive approach, which would ensure that AI remains within assignable governance structures—whether through accession, first possession, or incentive-driven competition—to prevent the unchecked proliferation of unregulated, unowned AI systems. What presently [is traceable] to no one becomes by [economic reason] the property of the first taker. — Gaius (paraphrased)
Lawyering on the Eve of War: The Role of Law and Lawyers in Ethiopia’s Civil War, 2018–2024
No full textWhat role do lawyers play when a nation stands at the brink of war? This Article examines how Ethiopia’s legal profession navigated escalating political instability in the years leading up to the country’s devastating civil war (2018–2022). It traces how private attorneys, judges, prosecutors, government legal advisors, human rights advocates, consultants, and law academics engaged with shifting power dynamics, ethical dilemmas, and political tensions, revealing their complex positioning as both actors and intermediaries in the unfolding crisis. Some resisted factional political pressures and sought to uphold legal principles, while others adapted to the fragile conditions and aligned with prevailing currents, illustrating both the resilience and vulnerability of lawyering under authoritarianism and conflict. The Ethiopian case underscores a broader concern: although the rule of law is often assumed to stabilize governance and foster conflict resolution, in deeply divided societies legal framing may entrench divisions rather than bridge them. It may intensify tensions rather than ease them. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Ethiopia’s legal community, whether intentionally or not, helped transform a dispute between national and regional authorities into a legal battle over delayed elections, entrenching opposing sides and escalating the conflict. By situating Ethiopia’s case within debates on the rule of law in postcolony, this Article shows that overreliance on legalistic mechanisms in contexts marked by entrenched historical and sociological grievances may deepen political divides rather than resolve them. More broadly, it argues that law’s potentialities to mediate political crises are not only limited but may at times exacerbate instability, highlighting the paradoxical role of law and lawyers in moments of national crisis