Skip to main content
Top

2013 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

13. AI and Law

Authors : Giovanni Sartor, Antonino Rotolo

Published in: Agreement Technologies

Publisher: Springer Netherlands

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

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.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

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!

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!

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!

Literature
go back to reference 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. 1957. Symbolic logic: A razor-edged tool for drafting and interpreting legal documents. Yale Law Journal 66: 833–879.CrossRef
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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. 2002. Animated specifications of computational societies. In Proceeding AAMAS-2002, 1053–1061. New York: ACM.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Ashley, K. D. 1990. Modeling legal argument: Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. Cambridge MA: MIT. Ashley, K. D. 1990. Modeling legal argument: Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. Cambridge MA: MIT.
go back to reference Ashley, K. D., and E. L. Rissland. 1988. A case-based approach to modelling legal expertise. IEEE Expert 3: 70–77.CrossRef Ashley, K. D., and E. L. Rissland. 1988. A case-based approach to modelling legal expertise. IEEE Expert 3: 70–77.CrossRef
go back to reference 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. 1993. Neural networks and open texture. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, 292–297. New York: ACM.
go back to reference 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 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.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Branting, L. K. 1994. A computational model of ratio decidendi. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2: 1–31.CrossRef Branting, L. K. 1994. A computational model of ratio decidendi. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2: 1–31.CrossRef
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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. 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
go back to reference 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). 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).
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Gardner, A. v. d. L. 1987. An artificial intelligence approach to legal reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Gardner, A. v. d. L. 1987. An artificial intelligence approach to legal reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
go back to reference 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 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
go back to reference Gordon, T. F. 1995. The pleadings game. An artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Gordon, T. F. 1995. The pleadings game. An artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
go back to reference 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., 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.
go back to reference 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., H. Prakken, and D. N. Walton. 2007. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171: 875–896 (Forthcoming.)
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Hage, J. C. 1997. Reasoning with rules: An essay on legal reasoning and its underlying logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Hage, J. C. 1997. Reasoning with rules: An essay on legal reasoning and its underlying logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
go back to reference Hage, J. C. 2011. A model of juridical acts: Part 2: The operation of juridical acts. Artificial Intelligence and Law 19: 49–73.CrossRef Hage, J. C. 2011. A model of juridical acts: Part 2: The operation of juridical acts. Artificial Intelligence and Law 19: 49–73.CrossRef
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Hohfeld, W. N. 1911. Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. Yale Law Journal 23(16): 16–59. Hohfeld, W. N. 1911. Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. Yale Law Journal 23(16): 16–59.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Jones, A. J. I., and M. Sergot. 1996. A formal characterization of institutionalised power. Journal of the IGPL 3: 427–443.MathSciNetCrossRef Jones, A. J. I., and M. Sergot. 1996. A formal characterization of institutionalised power. Journal of the IGPL 3: 427–443.MathSciNetCrossRef
go back to reference Lodder, A. R. 1999. DiaLaw: On legal justification and dialogical models of argumentation. Law and Philosophy Library. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Lodder, A. R. 1999. DiaLaw: On legal justification and dialogical models of argumentation. Law and Philosophy Library. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
go back to reference Loui, R. P., and J. Norman. 1995. Rationales and argument moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 3: 159–189.CrossRef Loui, R. P., and J. Norman. 1995. Rationales and argument moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 3: 159–189.CrossRef
go back to reference Loui, R. P., J. Norman, J. Olson, and A. Merrill. 1993. A design for reasoning with policies, precedents, and rationales. In ICAIL, 202–211. Loui, R. P., J. Norman, J. Olson, and A. Merrill. 1993. A design for reasoning with policies, precedents, and rationales. In ICAIL, 202–211.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference McCarty, L. T. 1988a. Clausal intuitionistic logic. i. fixed-point semantics. Journal of Logic Programming 5: 1–31. McCarty, L. T. 1988a. Clausal intuitionistic logic. i. fixed-point semantics. Journal of Logic Programming 5: 1–31.
go back to reference Philipps, L., and G. Sartor (eds.). 1999. Neural networks and fuzzy reasoning in the law. Special issue. Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol. 7. Philipps, L., and G. Sartor (eds.). 1999. Neural networks and fuzzy reasoning in the law. Special issue. Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol. 7.
go back to reference Pollock, J. 1995a. Cognitive carpentry. Cambridge MA: MIT. Pollock, J. 1995a. Cognitive carpentry. Cambridge MA: MIT.
go back to reference Pollock, J. L. 1995b. Cognitive carpentry: A blueprint for how to build a person. New York: MIT. Pollock, J. L. 1995b. Cognitive carpentry: A blueprint for how to build a person. New York: MIT.
go back to reference Prakken, H. 2010. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation 1: 93–124.CrossRef Prakken, H. 2010. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation 1: 93–124.CrossRef
go back to reference 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. 1996. Rules about rules: Assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 331–368.CrossRef
go back to reference 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. 1998a. Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6: 231–287.CrossRef
go back to reference 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 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
go back to reference Reed, C., and G. Rowe. 2007. A pluralist approach to argument diagramming. Law, Probability and Risk 6: 59–85.CrossRef Reed, C., and G. Rowe. 2007. A pluralist approach to argument diagramming. Law, Probability and Risk 6: 59–85.CrossRef
go back to reference Rissland, E. L., and D. Skalak. 1993. Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1: 3–44. Rissland, E. L., and D. Skalak. 1993. Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1: 3–44.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Sartor, G. 2002. Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10: 95–112.CrossRef Sartor, G. 2002. Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10: 95–112.CrossRef
go back to reference Sartor, G. 2006. Fundamental legal concepts: A formal and teleological characterisation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 21: 101–142. Sartor, G. 2006. Fundamental legal concepts: A formal and teleological characterisation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 21: 101–142.
go back to reference 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 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
go back to reference 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., 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.
go back to reference Sartor, G., P. Casanovas, M. Biasiotti, and M. Fernández-Barrera (eds.). 2011. Approaches to legal ontologies. New York: Springer. Sartor, G., P. Casanovas, M. Biasiotti, and M. Fernández-Barrera (eds.). 2011. Approaches to legal ontologies. New York: Springer.
go back to reference Verheij, B. 2003. Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 150, 291–324.CrossRef Verheij, B. 2003. Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 150, 291–324.CrossRef
go back to reference Walton, D. N. 2005. Argumentation methods for artificial intelligence in law. Berlin: Springer. Walton, D. N. 2005. Argumentation methods for artificial intelligence in law. Berlin: Springer.
go back to reference 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., and E. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.
go back to reference Walton, D. N., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Walton, D. N., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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. 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.
Metadata
Title
AI and Law
Authors
Giovanni Sartor
Antonino Rotolo
Copyright Year
2013
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5583-3_13

Premium Partner