Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On transparent law, good legislation and accessibility to legal information: Towards an integrated legal information system

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper connects to Jon Bing’s great vision of an integrated national legal information system. The intention of this paper is to variegate Bing’s vision of an integrated information system by shifting the focus to the lay users, thus to those, who are subject to the law. The modified vision is an integrated information system that supports intelligible access to law for the citizens. This presupposes however an unambiguous and transparent legal system. Accordingly, it is also stressed that intelligent legal knowledge engineering has high potential to increase precision and rationality in law, and hence safeguard the predictability of law and legal certainty. The central hypothesis is that putting the person who is subject to the law at the centre provides more rational reason to aim for the greatest possible precision of law by exploiting the means and technologies of our time than to uphold strategic vagueness. On this basis, the paper proposes the development of a basic set of controllable and justiciable basic legal drafting standards on EU and on national level, and promotes a transparency by design approach for legal knowledge engineering in order to enhance precision, integrity, comprehensibility and accessibility of law. Similarly to Jon Bing’s vision, this modified vision of an integrated legal information systems is, most probably, also likely to remain unfulfilled. However, what would science be without visions and (science) fictions?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Cf. Luhmann (1988); or the one-right-answer-thesis of Dworkin (1985).

  2. Arguing in detail and defending this point, e.g. Beaucamp (2011), with many further references.

  3. Cf. also the detailed discussion on the vagueness in law in Liebwald (2013b).

  4. VfGH B777/03 (12. 12. 2003).

  5. Most recently and from a very challenging perspective Britz (2008), who argues that statistics-based generalisation may contradict justice in the individual case. Significantly, Hart’s (Hart 1961, p. 128) indeterminacy theses, and his assertion that “uncertainty at the borderline is the price to be paid for the use of general classifying terms in any form of communication concerning matters of fact.”

  6. Cf., Bülow (1903); Koch and Rüßmann (1982); Alexy (1989).

  7. Cf. Poscher (2012); Soames (2012); Endicott (2000); Harrell (1951).

  8. See also Hadfield (1994), pp. 550 et seq.

  9. See, e.g., (Staudinger and Thöni 2010), and in particular the paper of Hellbert therein (pp. 45–90).

  10. Cf. Rüthers (2005), and (1986); Welan in: (Noll and Welan 2004); Hotz (2008); Gadamer (1972); Esser (1972); Bülow (1903).

  11. See also (Müller et al. 1997); (Noll and Welan 2004); (Ballweg and von Schlieffen 2009); (Gabriel and Gröschner 2012), and in particular the paper of Gräfin von Schlieffen therein (pp. 379–419). For fundamental work on legal argumentation see Alexy (1989); see also (Koch and Rüßmann 1982); in respect to performativity of speech see, in particular, Austin (1962); Searle (1969).

  12. See also the concept of a semantic battle in Liebwald (2007).

  13. See, in particular, Jackson (1985); Kevelson (1988); Wagner and Cacciaguidi-Fahy (2006).

  14. Most recently Beaucamp (2011). For detailed evidence on the different positions see Müller (2006), fn. 630 and 641.

  15. CJEU Rs C-59/88, C-131/88, C-361/88, C-162/99, C-220/94, C-236/95. See also ECtHR, Appl. 6538/74 (26.04.1979), para. 49.

  16. Cf., in particular, CJEU Rs C-59/88, C-131/88, C-361/88, C-162/99, C-220/94, C-236/95.

  17. Cf. Schwerdtfeger (1977); Karpen (1989); Hoffmann (1990); Lücke (2001).

  18. For an overview, see Grüner (2011, 414 et seq.).

  19. In this respect it is noteworthy that the Austrian Chancellery created already in 1970 some preliminary directives for the drafting of automation-friendly norms (BKA-VD GZ 45.373-2a/70; 23. 12. 1970). However, those directives were not officially published.

  20. E.g., Pozzo (ed., 2006); Müller and Burr (2004). Taking a critical view, however, Hanschmann in: Müller and Burr (2004), pp. 63–110.

  21. See Düro (2009), Liebwald (2009).

  22. Most prominent Grimm (1995); and the Manifeste Druon of 2004, which suggests French as the single language for EU legislation; more recent Grüner (2011), who calls to restrict the official languages to German, English, and French.

  23. See in particular the pioneering work of Allen (e.g., Allen 1980, Allen and Saxon 1998).

  24. For an overview see Sartor et al. (2011). Most noteworthy are the European projects ONE-LEX, MetaLex (metalex.eu), and ESTRELLA (estrellaproject.org); the Italian Norme in Rete (ittig.cnr.it); the European network LEXML (lexml.de); and Akoma Ntoso, an initiative of the Africa i-Parliament Action Plan (akomantoso.org).

  25. See in particular Falkiner (1992); Beer (1995), see also Suhr (1967).

References

  • Alexy R (1989) Theory of legal argumentation: the theory of rational discourse as theory of legal argumentation. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen LE (1980) Language, law, and logic: plain legal drafting for the electronic age. In: Niblett B (ed) Computer science and law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 75–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen LE, Saxon CH (1998) The legal argument game of legal relations. Murdoch Uni Electron J Law 5(3)

  • Austin JL (1962) How to do things with words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Austrian Chancellary (Bundeskanzleramt Verfassungsdienst) (2008) Österreichisches Handbuch „Bessere Rechtsetzung“. Österreichisches Bundeskanzleramt, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballweg O, von Schlieffen K (2009) Analytische Rhetorik: Rhetorik, Recht und Philosophie. Frankfurt am Main, Lang

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaucamp G (2011) Verständlichkeit und bestimmtheit—zwei welten? Rechtstheorie 42:21–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1995) Brain of the firm, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Bing J (ed) (1984) Handbook of legal information retrieval. Elsevier, Amsterdam, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bing J (2003) The policies of legal information services: a perspective of three decades with special reference to developing countries. In: Bygrave L (ed) Yulex 2003. Institutt for rettsinformatikk, Oslo, pp 37–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Bing J (2010) Let there be LITE: a brief history of legal information retrieval. Eur J Law Technol 1(1)

  • Bing J, Schoenberg MG (1994) Regulatory management and information systems. Public Management Occasional Papers 1994/8

  • Britz G (2008) Einzelfallgerechtigkeit versus Generalisierung: verfassungsrechtliche Grenzen statistischer Diskriminierung. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Bülow O (1903) Klage und urteil. Zeitschrift für deutschen Civilprozess 31(1903):191–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Düro M (2009) Crosswalking Eur-Lex. Office for Official Publications of the EC, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1985) A matter of principle. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmenegger S (2006) Gesetzgebungskunst: gute Gesetzgebung als Gegenstand einer legislativen Methodenbewegung in der Rechtswissenschaft um 1900—zur Geschichte der Gesetzgebungslehre. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Endicott TAO (2000) Vagueness in law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Esser J (1972) Vorverständnis und Methodenwahl, 2nd edn. Athenäum Fischer, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkiner TS (1992) Scientific legislation. Falkiner, Camberwell

  • Gabriel G, Gröschner R (eds) (2012) Subsumtion: Schlüsselbegriff der Juristischen Methodenlehre. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadamer H-G (1972) Wahrheit und Methode. Mohr, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Grüner Ch (2011) Quantität und Qualität der europäischen Rechtsetzung. Frankfurt am Main, Lang

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadfield GK (1994) Weighing the value of vagueness: an economic perspective. Calif Law Rev 82(1994):541–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haft F (1994) Recht und Sprache. In: Kaufmann A, Hassemer W (eds) Einführung in Rechtsphilosophie und Rechtstheorie, 6th edn. Müller, Heidelberg, pp 269–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrell JG (1951) Value, vagueness, and verifiability. J Philos 48(19):587–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (1961) The concept of law, vol 3. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann G (1990) Das verfassungsrechtliche Gebot der Rationalität im Gesetzgebungsverfahren: zum “inneren Gesetzgebungsverfahren” im bundesdeutschen Recht. ZG 5:97–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Hotz KE (2008) Richterrecht zwischen methodischer Bindung und Beliebigkeit? Plädoyer für eine offene Anerkennung richterlicher Rechtsmitgestaltungspflicht und eine verstärkte öffentliche Begleitung richterlicher Rechtsgewinnung. Dike Verlag, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson BS (1985) Semiotics and legal theory. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Karpen U (1989) Gesetzgebungs-, Verwaltungs- und Rechtsprechungslehre: Beiträge zur Entwicklung einer Regelungstheorie. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Kevelson R (1988) The law as a system of signs. Plenum Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koch H-J, Rüßmann H (1982) Juristische Begründungslehre: eine Einführung in Grundprobleme der Rechtswissenschaft. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Larenz K (1940) Zur Logik des konkreten Begriffs. DRW 5(1940):279–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Larenz K (1971) Aufgabe und Eigenart der Jurisprudenz. JuS 11(1971):449–455

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebwald D (2007) Semantic spaces and multilingualism in law. Proc ICAIL/LOAIT 2007:131–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebwald D (2009) Interfacing between different legal systems. In: Grewendorf G, Rathert M (eds) Formal linguistics and law. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, pp 257–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebwald D (2013a) Europäische Rechtsbegriffe und österreichische Rechtssprache: die Transformation von EU-Richtlinien in nationales Recht. J für Rechtspolit 21(2013):294–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebwald D (2013b) Law’s capacity for vagueness. Int J Semiot Law 2(26):391–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lücke J (2001) Die allgemeine Gesetzgebungsordnung. ZG 16(2001):1–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N (1988) Social systems (firstly published in 1988; trans by Bednarz 1996. Stanford University Press, Standford)

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller G (1982) Die verständliche Norm. In: Schäffer, Triffterer (eds) Rationalisierung der Gesetzgebung. Manz, Wien, pp 35–44

  • Müller F, Christensen R, Sokolowski M (1997) Rechtstext und Textarbeit. Schriften zur Rechtstheorie Heft, vol 179, pp 1–197

  • Müller G (1999/2006) Elemente einer Rechtssetzungslehre (1st edn 1999; 2nd edn 2006). Schulthess, Zürich

  • Müller F, Burr I (eds) (2004) Rechtssprache Europas. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Noll AJ, Welan M (2004) Sprachen des Rechts & Recht der Sprache. Czernin, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Poscher R (2012) Ambiguity and vagueness in legal interpretation. In: Tiersma PM, Solan M (eds) The Oxford handbook of language and law. Oxford University Press, Oxfort, pp 128–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Pozzo B (ed) (2006) Multilingualism and the harmonisation of European law. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Radbruch G (1969) Einführung in die Rechtswissenschaft, 12th edn. Koehler, Stuttgart (firstly published in 1910, Quelle & Meyer, Leipzig)

  • Rüthers B (1986) Rechtsordnung und Wertordnung: zur Ethik und Ideologie im Recht. Universitätsverlag Konstanz, Konstanz

    Google Scholar 

  • Rüthers B (2005) Die unbegrenzte Auslegung. Zum Wandel der Privatrechtsordnung im Nationalsozialismus, vol 6. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Rüthers B (2011) Rechtstheorie mit Juristischer Methodenlehre, 6th edn. C. H. Beck, München

  • Sartor G et al (eds) (2011) Legislative XML for the semantic web: principles, models, standards for document management. Springer, Dordrecht, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäffer H (1991) Über Wert und Wirkungsmöglichkeiten von Legistischen Richtlinien. Überlegungen anläßlich der neuen “Legistischen Richtlinien 1990″. ÖJZ 1991:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäffer H, Triffterer O (eds) (1982) Rationalisierung der Gesetzgebung. Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt C (1922) Constitutional theory (firstly published in 1922; trans by Seitzer 1928, reprint 2008). Duke University Press, Durham)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt C (1934) On the three types of juristic thought (firstly published in 1934, trans by Bendersky 2004). Praeger, Westport)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwerdtfeger G (1977) Optimale Methodik der Gesetzgebung als Verfassungspflicht. In: Stödter R, Thieme W (eds) Hamburg. Deutschland. Europa. Beiträge zum deutschen und europäischen Verfassungs-, Verwaltungs- und Wirtschaftsrecht. Festschrift für Hans P. Ipsen zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 173–188

  • Searle JR (1969) Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Soames S (2012) Vagueness and the law. In: Marmor A (ed) The Routledge companion to philosophy of law. Routledge, New York, pp 95–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobota K (1996) Argumente und stilistische Überzeugungsmittel in Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Eine Rhetorik-Analyse auf empirischer Grundlage. Juristische Rhetorik 15:115–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Staudinger R, Thöni M (eds) (2010) Das Medizinische Gutachten im Verfahren. Verlag Österreich, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Suhr D (1967) Ansätze zur kybernetischen Betrachtung von Recht und Staat. Der Staat 6(1967):197–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Voermans W (1995) Modelling the draughtman’s craft: the LEDA-project legimatics and legimatica-projects in the Netherlands. In: Sartor G, Biagioli C, Mercatali P (eds) Legimatica: informatica per legiferare. Edizioni scientifiche italiane, Napoli, pp 109–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner A, Cacciaguidi-Fahy S (eds) (2006) Legal language and the search for clarity: practice and tools. Peter Lang, Bern, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wintgens LJ (2006) Legisiprudence as a new theory of legislation. Ratio Juris 19(2005):1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vienna, Austria

    Doris Liebwald

Authors
  1. Doris Liebwald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Doris Liebwald.

Additional information

In Honour of Jon Bing.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liebwald, D. On transparent law, good legislation and accessibility to legal information: Towards an integrated legal information system. Artif Intell Law 23, 301–314 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-015-9172-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-015-9172-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation