Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Agreement Technologies: A Computing Perspective Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2013 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

13. AI and Law

verfasst von : Giovanni Sartor, Antonino Rotolo

Erschienen in: Agreement Technologies

Verlag: Springer Netherlands

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of the main lines of inquiry of Artificial Intelligence and Law (AI and Law), such as rule-based reasoning, case-based reasoning, ontologies, argumentation, theory construction and legal deontics. We argue that a rich picture of the law is emerging from the AI and Law research, which can complement and integrate not only research in law and legal theory, but also other attempts to provide formal and computational models of norms.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Norms in Game Theory
Nächstes Kapitel Normative Agents
Literatur
Allen, L. E. 1957. Symbolic logic: A razor-edged tool for drafting and interpreting legal documents. Yale Law Journal 66: 833–879.CrossRef
Allen, L. E., and C. S. Saxon. 1991. A-Hohfeld: A language for robust structural representation of knowledge in the legal domain to build interpretation-assistance expert systems. In Proceedings of the first international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, 52–71, ed. J. J. C. Meyer and R. J. Wieringa. Amsterdam: Vrjie Universiteit.
Artikis, A., M. J. Sergot, and J. Pitt. 2002. Animated specifications of computational societies. In Proceeding AAMAS-2002, 1053–1061. New York: ACM.
Artikis, A., M. J. Sergot, and J. Pitt. 2003. An executable specification of an argumentation protocol. In Proceedings of the ninth international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL), 1–11. New York: ACM.
Ashley, K. D. 1990. Modeling legal argument: Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. Cambridge MA: MIT.
Ashley, K. D., and E. L. Rissland. 1988. A case-based approach to modelling legal expertise. IEEE Expert 3: 70–77.CrossRef
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. 1993. Neural networks and open texture. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, 292–297. New York: ACM.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., and H. Prakken. 2006. Justifying actions by accruing arguments. In Computational models of argument. Proceedings of COMMA-06, 247–258, ed. P. E. Dunne and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Amsterdam: IOS.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., and G. Sartor. 2000. Using values and theories to resolve disagreement in law. In Proceedings of the thirteenth annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX), 73–84, ed. J. Breuker, L. Ronald, and R. Winkels. Amsterdam: IOS.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., and G. Sartor. 2001. A quantitative approach to theory coherence. In Proceedings of the fourteenth annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX), 53–62. Amsterdam: IOS.
Bochereau, L., D. Bourcier, and P. Bourgine. 1999. Extracting legal knowledge by means of a multilayered neural network: Application to municipal jurisprudence. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL), 288–296. New York: ACM.
Branting, L. K. 1994. A computational model of ratio decidendi. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2: 1–31.CrossRef
Breuker, J., A. Valente, and R. Winkels. 1997. Legal ontologes: A functional view. In Proceedings of first international workshop on legal ontologies (LEGONT’97), 23–36, ed. P. R. S. Visser and R. G. F. Winkels. University of Melbourne, Law School, Melbourne, Australia.
Chorley, A., and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. 2003. Reasoning with legal cases as theory construction: Some experimental results. In Proceedings of the seventeenth annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX), 173–182, ed. D. Bourcier. Amsterdam: IOS.
Dung, P. M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n–person games. Artificial Intelligence 77: 321–357.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
Dung, P. M., and Thang, P. M. 2008. Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract. In Proceedings of JURIX 2008, 108–117, ed. E. Francesconi, G. Sartor, and D. Tiscornia. Amsterdam: IOS (2008).
Gangemi, A., M. T. Sagri, and D. Tiscornia. 2005. A constructive framework for legal ontologies. In Law and the semantic web, 97–124, ed. V. R. Benjamins, P. Casanovas, J. Breuker, and A. Gangemi. Berlin: Springer.
Gardner, A. v. d. L. 1987. An artificial intelligence approach to legal reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Gelati, J., A. Rotolo, G. Sartor, and G. Governatori. 2004. Normative autonomy and normative co-ordination: Declarative power, representation, and mandate. Artificial Intelligence and Law 12(1–2): 53–81.CrossRef
Gordon, T. F. 1995. The pleadings game. An artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Gordon, T. F., and D. N. Walton. 2009. Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes. In Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL 2009). New York: ACM.
Gordon, T. F., H. Prakken, and D. N. Walton. 2007. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171: 875–896 (Forthcoming.)
Gordon, T. F., G. Governatori, and A. Rotolo. 2009. Rules and norms: Requirements for rule interchange languages in the legal domain. In Rule Representation, Interchange and Reasoning on the Web, LNCS, vol. 5858, 282–296, ed. G. Governatori, J. Hall, and A. Paschke. Berlin: Springer.
Hage, J. C. 1997. Reasoning with rules: An essay on legal reasoning and its underlying logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hage, J. C. 2011. A model of juridical acts: Part 2: The operation of juridical acts. Artificial Intelligence and Law 19: 49–73.CrossRef
Herrestad, H., and C. Krogh. 1995. Obligations directed from bearers to counterparties. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL’95), 210–218. New York: ACM Press.
Hohfeld, W. N. 1911. Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. Yale Law Journal 23(16): 16–59.
Horty, J. F. 1999. Precedent, deontic logic and inheritance. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL), 23–72. New York: ACM.
Jones, A. J. I., and M. Sergot. 1996. A formal characterization of institutionalised power. Journal of the IGPL 3: 427–443.MathSciNetCrossRef
Lodder, A. R. 1999. DiaLaw: On legal justification and dialogical models of argumentation. Law and Philosophy Library. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Loui, R. P., and J. Norman. 1995. Rationales and argument moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 3: 159–189.CrossRef
Loui, R. P., J. Norman, J. Olson, and A. Merrill. 1993. A design for reasoning with policies, precedents, and rationales. In ICAIL, 202–211.
McCarty, L. T. 1986. Permissions and obligations: An informal introduction. In Automated analysis of legal texts, ed. A. A. Martino and F. Socci, 307–337. Amsterdam: North Holland.
McCarty, L. T. 1988a. Clausal intuitionistic logic. i. fixed-point semantics. Journal of Logic Programming 5: 1–31.
McCarty, L. T. 1988b. Clausal intuitionistic logic ii – tableau proof procedures. Journal of Logic Programming 5: 93–132.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
Philipps, L., and G. Sartor (eds.). 1999. Neural networks and fuzzy reasoning in the law. Special issue. Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol. 7.
Pollock, J. 1995a. Cognitive carpentry. Cambridge MA: MIT.
Pollock, J. L. 1995b. Cognitive carpentry: A blueprint for how to build a person. New York: MIT.
Prakken, H. 2010. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation 1: 93–124.CrossRef
Prakken, H., and G. Sartor. 1996. Rules about rules: Assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 331–368.CrossRef
Prakken, H., and G. Sartor. 1998a. Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6: 231–287.CrossRef
Prakken, H., and G. Sartor. 1998b. Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6(2–4): 231–287.CrossRef
Reed, C., and G. Rowe. 2007. A pluralist approach to argument diagramming. Law, Probability and Risk 6: 59–85.CrossRef
Rissland, E. L., and D. Skalak. 1993. Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1: 3–44.
Riveret, R., N. Rotolo, G. Sartor, H. Prakken, and B. Roth. 2007. Success chances in argument games: A probabilistic approach to legal disputes. In Proceeding of legal knowledge and information systems – JURIX 2007, ed. A. R. Lodder, 99–108. Amsterdam: IOS.
Sartor, G. 2002. Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10: 95–112.CrossRef
Sartor, G. 2006. Fundamental legal concepts: A formal and teleological characterisation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 21: 101–142.
Sergot, M. J., F. Sadri, R. A. Kowalski, F. Kriwaczek, P. Hammond, and H. Cory. 1986. The British Nationality Act as a logic program. Communications of the ACM 29, 370–386.CrossRef
Sartor, G., M. Rudnianski, A. Rotolo, R. Riveret, and E. Mayor. 2009. Why lawyers are nice (or nasty): A game-theoretical argumentation exercise. In Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, 108–119. New York: ACM.
Sartor, G., P. Casanovas, M. Biasiotti, and M. Fernández-Barrera (eds.). 2011. Approaches to legal ontologies. New York: Springer.
Verheij, B. 2003. Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 150, 291–324.CrossRef
Walton, D. N. 2005. Argumentation methods for artificial intelligence in law. Berlin: Springer.
Walton, D. N., and E. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Walton, D. N., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Yoshino, H. 1978. Über die notwendigkeit einer besonderen normenlogik als methode der juristischen logik. In Gesetzgebungstheorie, juristische Logik, Zivil, und Prozeßrecht. Gedächtnisschrift für Jürgen Rödig, ed. U. Klug, T. Ramm, F. Rittner, and B. Schmiedel, 140–161. Berlin: Springer.
Zeleznikow, J., and A. Stranieri. 1995. The split-up system: Integrating neural networks and rule based reasoning in the legal domain. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL), 185–194. New York: ACM.
Metadaten
Titel
AI and Law
verfasst von
Giovanni Sartor
Antonino Rotolo
Copyright-Jahr
2013
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Buch
Agreement Technologies

Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5582-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-94-007-5583-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2013

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5583-3_13