Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: the first decade

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

Abstract

The first issue of Artificial Intelligence and Law journal was published in 1992. This paper provides commentaries on landmark papers from the first decade of that journal. The topics discussed include reasoning with cases, argumentation, normative reasoning, dialogue, representing legal knowledge and neural networks.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See for example Sect. 10 of Sartor et al. (2022) elsewhere in this issue.

  2. See sect. 4 and 5 of Sartor et al. (2022) and sect. 2 of Araszkiewicz et al. (2022) elsewhere in this issue.

  3. See sect. 3 of Sartor et al. (2022) elsewhere in this volume.

  4. See Sect. 7 of Sartor et al. (2022), elsewhere is this issue.

  5. These primitives play the role of the factor partitions in Wyner and Bench-Capon (2007) and the functions in Prakken et al. (2015) used in the instantiation of their argument schemes.

  6. See Sect. 7.

  7. See Sect. 9.

  8. See Sect. 7.

  9. See Section 9.

  10. See sect. 3 of Sartor et al. (2022) elsewhere in this issue.

  11. See Sect. 9 of Sartor et al. (2022), elsewhere in this issue.

  12. See Sect. 7 of Villata et al. (2022), elsewhere in this issue.

  13. Since 1992, the journal has published 19 articles discussing techniques based on or adopting some form of deontic logic. Of those contributions, only four of them discuss actual applications based on deontic logic (contracts (Governatori et al. 2018), decision support (Islam and Governatori 2018), and compliance management ( Hashmi and Governatori (2018), and Ardila et al. (2021)).

  14. For example, questions of conforming to norms have arisen recently in the context of autonomous vehicles, e.g. (Prakken 2017; Bench-Capon and Modgil 2017; Bhuiyan et al. 2020)) and contracts (Governatori 2005).

  15. This was an extended version of Coenen and Bench-Capon (1991).

  16. For example, The Indian Pension Rules modelled in Sergot et al. (1991): “In common with many other examples of legislation and regulations, especially those that refer to periods of time, the Pension Rules arc imprecise and very casual about many of the key concepts. They are certainly not precise enough to be formulated directly as an executable program” (p 119).

  17. The MIR methodology was followed by Pepijn Visser in developing his own ontology (Visser 1995) for Dutch Unemployment law. Subsequently Visser and Bench-Capon worked together on a series of papers on ontologies including Visser and Bench-Capon (1998) which is discussed in section 2 of Araszkiewicz et al. (2022), elsewhere in this volume.

  18. Incidentally, both Di Giusto and Governatori (1999) and Maranhão (2001) independently developed techniques corresponding essentially to the intuition outlined by Sartor (and extending it to cover the full propositional language) to compile conflicts away in the context of the revision of rules/norms when contradicting rules are present.

  19. To be precise, it comprises both the pleading and the trial, but in the trial, there is only one single player, the judge, and as remarked by Lodder in his review of Gordon’s PhD thesis (Lodder 2000), it is not a very interesting game.

  20. While this feature was proposed in other work contemporary to the work of Gordon, see, for example, (Sartor 1992), a deeper investigation has been neglected until the recent work by Governatori and Olivieri (2021) that explicitly addresses the issue of modelling legal references.

  21. For the contribution of AI and Law research to Argumentation and AI in general, see Bench-Capon and Dunne (2007).

  22. See Section 7.

  23. See Sect. 9.

  24. Google Scholar, scholar.google.com, accessed February 18, 2022.

  25. See Miller (2021) for an extensive discussion of the philosophy of justice and John Rawls’ analysis of the role of procedure.

  26. See sect. 3 of Araszkiewicz et al. (2022) and sect. 3of Sartor et al. (2022) elsewhere in this issue for discussions of Bex et al. (2003) and Verheij (2003b) respectively.

  27. Google Scholar, scholar.google.com, accessed February 19, 2022.

  28. See Sect. 10 of Sartor et al. (2022), in this issue.

  29. This paper was a precursor of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks (Dung 1995). Prakken subsequently developed a dialogue game based on those frameworks in Prakken (1997b).

  30. This assumes that the conjunction of two factors favouring the same side will always be stronger that the factors individually. This assumption is queried in Prakken (2005), where an apparent counter example is given. However, such situations can be avoided by modelling the domain differently, using different factors for which the original “factors” are facts (e.g. Horty and Bench-Capon (2012), footnote 17). Arguably it is a necessary feature of factors that they always favour a particular side, and this should hold whatever the context set by other factors (Bench-Capon 2017).

  31. Such an appeal to an arbiter is a defining notion of a “hard case” in Hage et al. (1993), discussed in Secion 7.

  32. See Sect. 10 of Sartor et al. (2022), elsewhere in this issue.

  33. See Section 2 of Sartor et al. (2022), elsewhere in this issue.

  34. See the discussion in Section 2.

  35. See sect. 5 of Villata et al. (2022), elsewhere in this issue.

References

  • Akata Zeynep, Balliet Dan, De Rijke Maarten, Dignum Frank, Dignum Virginia, Eiben Guszti, Fokkens Antske, Grossi Davide, Hindriks Koen, Hoos Holger et al (2020) A research agenda for hybrid intelligence: augmenting human intellect with collaborative, adaptive, responsible, and explainable Artificial Intelligence. Computer 53(08):18–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Abdulkarim Latifa, Atkinson Katie, Bench-Capon Trevor (2016) A methodology for designing systems to reason with legal cases using ADFs. Artificial Intelligence Law 24(1):1–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alchourrón Carlos E (1986) Conditionality and the representation of legal norms. In Antonio A. Martino and Fiorenza Socci-Natali, editors, Automated analysis of legal texts, pages 175–186. North Holland

  • Alchourrón Carlos E, David Makinson (1982) On the logic of theory change: contraction functions and their associated revision functions. Theoria 48:14–37

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Alchourrón Carlos E, David Makinson (1985) On the logic of theory change: safe contractions. Stud Logica 44:405–422

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Alchourrón Carlos E, Peter Gärdenfors, David Makinson (1985) On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. J Symbolic Logic 50(2):510–530

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Aleven Vincent (2003) Using background knowledge in case-based legal reasoning: a computational model and an intelligent learning environment. Artif Intell 150(1–2):183–237

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Aleven Vincent, Ashley Kevin D (1994) An instructional environment for practicing argumentation skills. In Proceedings of AAAI 1994, pages 485–492

  • Aleven Vincent, Ashley Kevin D (1995) Doing things with factors. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 31–41

  • Alexander Larry (1989) Constrained by precedent. Southern California Law Rev 63:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Araszkiewicz Michał, Bench-Capon Trevor, Francesconi Enrico, Lauritsen Marc, Rotolo Antonino (2022) Thirty years of ai and law: overviews. Artificial Intelligence Law, 30 (4): This issue

  • Ardila Julieth Patricia Castellanos, Gallina Barbara, Governatori Guido (2021) Compliance-aware engineering process plans: the case of space software engineering processes. Artif Intell Law 29(4):587–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashley Kevin D (1990) Modeling legal arguments: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. MIT press, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley Kevin D, Aleven Vincent (1991) A computational approach to explaining case-based concepts of relevance in a tutorial context. In Proceedings of the 4th workshop on case-based reasoning, pages 257–268

  • Ashley Kevin D, Stefanie Brüninghaus (2009) Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. Artif Intell Law 17(2):125–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson Katie (2012) editor. Artificial Intelligence and Law: Special Issue on Modelling Popov v Hayashi 20:1

  • Atkinson Katie, Bench-Capon Trevor (2007) Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artif Intell 171:855–874

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson Katie, Bench-Capon Trevor (2021) Argumentation schemes in AI and law. Argument Comput 12(3):417–434

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson Katie, Baroni Pietro, Giacomin Massimiliano, Hunter Anthony, Prakken Henry, Reed Chris, Simari Guillermo, Thimm Matthias, Villata Serena (2017) Toward artificial argumentation. AI Mag 38(3):25–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Badiul Islam Mohammad, Guido Governatori (2018) Rulers: a rule-based architecture for decision support systems. Artif Intell Law 26(4):315–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baroni Pietro, Toni Francesca, Verheij Bart (2020) Introduction to the special issue ‘on the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games: 25 years later’. Argument Comput 11(1–2):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon Trevor (1989) Deep models, normative reasoning and legal expert systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 37–45

  • Bench-Capon Trevor (1993) Neural networks and open texture. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 292–297

  • Bench-Capon Trevor (1999) Some observations on modelling case based reasoning with formal argument models. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 36–42

  • Bench-Capon Trevor (2012) Representing Popov v Hayashi with dimensions and factors. Artif Intell Law 20(1):15–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon Trevor (2017) HYPO’s legacy: introduction to the virtual special issue. Artif Intell Law 25(2):205–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon Trevor, Atkinson Katie (2021) Precedential constraint: The role of issues. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 12–21

  • Bench-Capon Trevor, Coenen Frans (1992) Isomorphism and legal knowledge based systems. Artif Intell Law 1(1):65–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon Trevor, Dunne Paul (2007) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. artificial. Intelligence 171(10–15):619–641

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon Trevor, Forder Justin (1991)Knowledge representation for legal applications. In Trevor Bench-Capon, editor, Knowledge-Based Systems and Legal Applications, pages 245–263. Academic Press

  • Bench-Capon Trevor, Gordon Thomas F (2009) Isomorphism and argumentation. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 11–20

  • Bench-Capon Trevor, Modgil Sanjay (2017) Norms and value based reasoning: justifying compliance and violation. Artif Intell Law 25(1):29–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon Trevor, Prakken Henry (2010) Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law. Artif Intell Law 18(2):153–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon Trevor, Sartor Giovanni (2001) Theory based explanation of case law domains. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 12–21

  • Bench-Capon Trevor, Sartor Giovanni (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intell 150(1–2):97–143

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon Trevor, Sergot Marek (1988) Towards a rule-based representation of open texture in law. In: Walter C (ed) Computer power and legal language: the use of computational linguistics. Artificial Intelligence, and Expert Systems in the Law. Quorum Books, New York, pp 39–60

  • Bench-Capon Trevor, Robinson Gwen, Routen Tom, Sergot Marek (1987) Logic programming for large scale applications in law: A formalisation of Supplementary Benefit legislation. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 190–198

  • Bench-Capon Trevor, Geldard Tim, Leng Paul (2000) A method for the computational modelling of dialectical argument with dialogue games. Artif Intell Law 8(2):233–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman Donald H (1991) Developer’s choice in the legal domain: the Sisyphean journey with CBR or down hill with rules. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 307–309

  • Berman Donald H, Hafner Carole L (1987) Indeterminacy: a challenge to logic-based models of legal reasoning. Year book Law Comput Technol 3:1–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman Donald H, Hafner Carole L (1993) Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 50–59

  • Bex Floris, Prakken Henry, Reed Chris, Walton Douglas (2003) Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artif Intell Law 11(2):125–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhuiyan Hanif, Governatori Guido, Bond Andy, Demmel Sebastien, Islam Mohammad Badiul, Rakotonirainy Andry (2020) Traffic rules encoding using defeasible deontic logic. In Proceedings of JURIX 2020, pages 3–12

  • Biagioli Carlo, Mariani Paola, Tiscornia Daniela (1987) ESPLEX: A rule and conceptual model for representing statutes. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 240–251

  • Bochereau Laurent, Bourcier Danièle, Bourgine Paul (1991) Extracting legal knowledge by means of a multilayer neural network application to municipal jurisprudence. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 288–296

  • Branting L Karl (1991) Reasoning with portions of precedents. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 145–154

  • Branting L Karl (1993) A computational model of ratio decidendi. Artif Intell Law 2(1):1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branting L Karl, Pfeifer Craig, Brown Bradford, Ferro Lisa, Aberdeen John, Weiss Brandy, Pfaff Mark, Liao Bill (2021) Scalable and explainable legal prediction. Artif Intell Law 29(2):213–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewka Gerhard (1991) Nonomontonic reason. Logical Foundations of Commonsense. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Brüninghaus Stefanie, Ashley Kevin D (2003) Predicting outcomes of case based legal arguments. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 233–242. ACM

  • Burgemeestre Brigitte, Hulstijn Joris, Tan Yao-Hua (2011) Value-based argumentation for justifying compliance. Artif Intell Law 19(2):149–186

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Chalkidis Ilias, Androutsopoulos Ion, Michos Achilleas (2017) Extracting contract elements. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on articial intelligence and law, pages 19–28

  • Chalkidis Ilias, Jana Abhik, Hartung Dirk, Bommarito Michael, Androutsopoulos Ion, Katz Daniel, Aletras Nikolaos (2022) LexGLUE: A benchmark dataset for legal language understanding in English. In Proceedings of the 60th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4310–4330

  • Coenen Frans, Bench-Capon Trevor (1991) Exploiting isomorphism: development of a kbs to support british coal insurance claims. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 62–68

  • Coenen Frans, Bench-Capon Trevor (1992) Building knowledge based systems for maintainability. In Proceedings of DEXA 1992, pages 415–420. Springer

  • Di Giusto Paolo, Governatori Guido (1999) A new approach to base revision. In Pedro Barahona and José Júlio Alferes, editors, Progress in Artificial Intelligence, 9th portuguese conference on artificial intelligence, volume 1695 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 327–341. Springer

  • Changshun Du, Huang Lei (2018) Text classification research with attention-based recurrent neural networks. Int J Comput Commun Control 13(1):50–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dung Phan Minh (1993) An argumentation semantics for logic programming with explicit negation. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on logic programming, pages 616–630

  • Dung Phan Minh (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 77(2):321–357

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dunne Paul, Bench-Capon Trevor (2003) Two party immediate response disputes: properties and efficiency. Artif Intell 149(2):221–250

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner Anne von der Lieth (1987) An Artificial Intelligence approach to legal reasoning. MIT press, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Geffner Hector, Pearl Judea (1992) Conditional entailment: bridging two approaches to default reasoning. Artif Intell 53(2–3):209–244

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman Seth R, Dyer Michael C, Flowers Margot (1987) Precedent-based legal reasoning and knowledge acquisition in contract law: A process model. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 210–221

  • Gordon Thomas F (1991) An abductive theory of legal issues. Int J Man Mach Stud 35:95–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon Thomas F (1993) The pleadings game. Artif Intell Law 2(4):239–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon Thomas F (1995) The pleadings game: an artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Springer, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon Thomas F (2013) Introducing the Carneades Web application. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 243–244

  • Gordon Thomas F, Walton Douglas (2012) A Carneades reconstruction of Popov v Hayashi. Artif Intell Law 20(1):37–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon Thomas F, Walton Douglas (2016) Formalizing balancing arguments. In Proceedings of COMMA 2016, pages 327–338

  • Gordon Thomas F, Prakken Henry, Walton Douglas (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171(10–15):875–896

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Governatori Guido (2005) Representing business contracts in RuleML. Int J Cooperative Inform Syst 14(2–3):181–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Governatori Guido (2015) Thou shalt is not you will. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 63–68

  • Governatori Guido, Olivieri Francesco (2021) Unravel legal references in defeasible deontic logic. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 69–78

  • Governatori Guido, Padmanabhan Vineet, Rotolo Antonino, Sattar Abdul (2009) A defeasible logic for modelling policy-based intentions and motivational attitudes. Logic J IGPL 17(3):227–265

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Governatori Guido, Idelberger Florian, Milosevic Zoran, Riveret Régis, Sartor Giovanni, Xiwei Xu (2018) On legal contracts, imperative and declarative smart contracts, and blockchain systems. Artif Intell Law 26(4):377–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabmair Matthias (2016) Modeling purposive legal argumentation and case outcome prediction using argument schemes in the value judgment formalism. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh

  • Grabmair Matthias (2017) Predicting Trade Secret case outcomes using argument schemes and learned quantitative value effect tradeoffs. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 89–98

  • Hafner Carole D, Berman Donald H (2002) The role of context in case-based legal reasoning: teleological, temporal, and procedural. Artif Intell Law 10(1):19–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hage Jaap (1993) Monological Reason-Based Logic: A low level integration of rule-based reasoning and case-based reasoning. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 30–39

  • Hage Jaap (1996) A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artif Intell Law 4(3):199–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hage Jaap (1997) Reasoning with rules. Kluwer Academic Publishers, An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hage Jaap (2000) Dialectical models in artificial intelligence and law. Artif Intell Law 8(2):137–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hage Jaap, Leenes Ronald, Lodder Arno R (1993) Hard cases: a procedural approach. Artif Intell Law 2(2):113–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashmi Mustafa, Governatori Guido (2018) Norms modeling constructs of business process compliance management frameworks: a conceptual evaluation. Artif Intell Law 26(3):251–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrestad Henning (1991) Norms and formalization. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 175–184

  • Hochreiter Sepp, Schmidhuber Jürgen (1997) Long short-term memory. Neural Comput 9(8):1735–1780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holzenberger Nils, Van Durme Benjamin (2021) Factoring statutory reasoning as language understanding challenges. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th international joint conference on natural language processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2742–2758

  • Horty John F (2011) Reasons and precedent. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 41–50

  • Horty John F, Bench-Capon Trevor (2012) A factor-based definition of precedential constraint. Artif Intell Law 20(2):181–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter Dan (1999) Out of their minds: legal theory in neural networks. Artif Intell Law 7(2):129–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaap van den Herik H (1991) Kunnen Computers Rechtspreken? (Can Computers Decide Legal Cases?). Gouda Quint, Arnhem

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones Andrew, Sergot Marek (1992) Deontic logic in the representation of law: towards a methodology. Artif Intell Law 1(1):45–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamond Grant (2005) Do precedents create rules? Leg Theory 11(1):1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauritsen Marc (2015) On balance. Artif Intell Law 23(1):23–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leenes Ronald (2001) Burden of proof in dialogue games and Dutch civil procedure. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 109–118

  • Liu Fenrong, Marra Alessandra, Portner Paul, Van De Putte Frederik (2021) editors. Deontic logic and normative systems, DEON 2020/2021. College Publications

  • Lodder Arno R (1999) DiaLaw: on legal justification and dialogical models of argumentation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lodder Arno R, Gordon Thomas F (2000) The pleadings game – an artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Artif Intel Law 8(23):255–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loui Ronald P, Norman Jeff (1995) Rationales and argument moves. Artif Intell Law 3(3):159–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie Geraldine, Vincent Andrew, Zeleznikow John (2015) Negotiating about charges and pleas: balancing interests and justice. Group Decis Negot 24(4):577–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie James D (1979) Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. J Philosoph Logic, pages 117–133

  • Maranhão Juliano (2001) Refinement: A tool to deal with inconsistencies. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 52–59

  • Thorne McCarty L (1997) Some arguments about legal arguments. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 215–224

  • Thorne McCarty L (1984) Intelligent legal information systems: problems and prospects. In C. Campbell, editor, Data processing and the Law, pages 125–151. Sweet and Maxwell, London

  • Miah Shah Jahan, Blake Jacqueline, Kerr Don (2020) Meta-design knowledge for clinical decision support systems. Australas J Inf Syst 24:1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller David (2021) Justice. In E. N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, Stanford

  • Modgil Sanjay, Prakken Henry (2013) A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artif Intell 195:361–397

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Modgil Sanjay, Prakken Henry (2014) The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argument Comput 5(1):31–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moulin Bernard, Irandoust Hengameh, Bélanger Micheline, Desbordes Gaëlle (2002) Explanation and argumentation capabilities: towards the creation of more persuasive agents. Artif Intell Rev 17(3):169–222

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Neill James O’, Buitelaar Paul, Robin Cecile, Brien Leona O’ (2017) Classifying sentential modality in legal language: a use case in financial regulations, acts and directives. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on articial intelligence and law, pages 159–168

  • Nguyen Truong-Son, Nguyen Le-Minh, Tojo Satoshi, Satoh Ken, Shimazu Akira (2018) Recurrent neural network-based models for recognizing requisite and effectuation parts in legal texts. Artif Intell Law 26(2):169–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock John L (1992) How to reason defeasibly. Artif Intell 57(1):1–42

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken Henry (1995) From logic to dialectics in legal argument. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 165–174

  • Prakken Henry (1997a) Logical tools for modelling legal argument. a study of defeasible reasoning in law. Springer Science and Business Media B.V., Dordrecht

  • Prakken Henry (1997b) Dialectical proof theory for defeasible argumentation with defeasible priorities (preliminary report). In ModelAge workshop on formal models of agents, pages 202–215. Springer

  • Prakken Henry (2005) A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 85–94

  • Prakken Henry (2008) A formal model of adjudication dialogues. Artif Intell Law 16(3):305–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken Henry (2010) An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument Comput 1(2):93–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken Henry (2012) Reconstructing Popov v. Hayashi in a framework for argumentation with structured arguments and Dungean semantics. Artif Intell Law 20(1):57–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken Henry (2017) On the problem of making autonomous vehicles conform to traffic law. Artif Intell Law 25(3):341–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken Henry (2019) Modelling accrual of arguments in ASPIC+. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 103–112

  • Prakken Henry (2021) A formal analysis of some factor-and precedent-based accounts of precedential constraint. Artif Intell Law 29(4):559–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken Henry, Sartor Giovanni (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 4:3–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken Henry, Sartor Giovanni (1998) Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artif Intell Law 6(2–4):231–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken Henry, Sartor Giovanni (2015) Law and logic: a review from an argumentation perspective. Artif Intell 227:214–245

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken Henry, Wyner Adam, Bench-Capon Trevor, Atkinson Katie (2015) A formalization of argumentation schemes for legal case-based reasoning in ASPIC+. J Log Comput 25(5):1141–1166

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Reed Chris, Norman Tim (eds) (2004) Argumentation machines. new frontiers in argument and computation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

  • Rigoni Adam (2015) An improved factor based approach to precedential constraint. Artif Intell Law 23(2):133–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rissland Edwina L (1983) Examples in legal reasoning: Legal hypotheticals. In Proceedings of the 8th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, pages 90–93

  • Rissland Edwina L (2013) From UUM and CEG to CBR and ICAIL: A journey in AI and Law. In From Knowledge representation to argumentation in AI, law and policy making. a festschrift in honour of trevor bench-capon on the occasion of his 60th birthday, pages 191–212. College Publications, London

  • Rissland Edwina L, Ashley Kevin D (1987) A case-based system for Trade Secrets law. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 60–66

  • Rissland Edwina L, Skalak David B (1991) Cabaret: statutory interpretation in a hybrid architecture. Int J Man Mach Stud 34:839–887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rissland Edwina L, Valcarce Eduardo M, Ashley Kevin D (1984) Explaining and arguing with examples. In Proceedings of the 4th AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, pages 288–294

  • Rissland Edwina L, Skalak David B, Friedman M Timur (1996) Bankxx: supporting legal arguments through heuristic retrieval. Artif Intell Law 4(1):1–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rissland Edwina L, Skalak David B, Friedman M Timur (1997) Evaluating a legal argument program: the bankxx experiments. Artif Intell Law 5(1):1–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robert Alexy (1989) A theory of legal argumentation. Clarendon Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartor Giovanni (1992) Normative conflicts in legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 1(2–3):209–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sartor Giovanni, Araszkiewicz Michał, Atkinson Katie, Bench-Capon Trevor, Bex Floris, Engers Tom van, Francesconi Enrico, Prakken Henry, Sileno Giovanni (2022) Thirty years of AI and Law: The second decade. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 30 (4): This issue

  • Sergot Marek J, Sadri Fariba, Kowalski Robert A, Kriwaczek Frank, Hammond Peter, Cory H Terese (1986) The British nationality act as a logic program. Commun ACM 29(5):370–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sergot Marek J, Kamble A S, Bajaj K K (1991) Indian central civil service pension rules: A case study in logic programming applied to regulations. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 118–127

  • Shein Esther (2021) Converting laws to programs. Commun ACM 65(1):15–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman David M (1987) A Prolog model of the Income Tax Act of Canada. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 127–136

  • Simari Guillermo, Loui Ronald P (1992) A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its applications. Artif Intell 53:125–157

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sirin Evren, Parsia Bijan, Grau Bernardo Cuenca, Kalyanpur Aditya, Katz Yarden (2007) Pellet: a practical OWL-DL reasoner. J Web Semantics 5(2):51–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skalak David B, Rissland Edwina L (1992) Arguments and cases: an inevitable intertwining. Artif Intell Law 1(1):3–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steging Cor, Renooij Silja, Verheij Bart (2021) Discovering the rationale of decisions: towards a method for aligning learning and reasoning. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 235–239

  • Stranieri Andrew, Zeleznikow John (1998) Split up: the use of an argument based knowledge representation to meet expectations of different users for discretionary decision making. In Proc AAAI/IAAI 1998:1146–1151

    Google Scholar 

  • Stranieri Andrew, Zeleznikow John, Gawler Mark, Lewis Bryn (1999) A hybrid rule-neural approach for the automation of legal reasoning in the discretionary domain of family law in Australia. Artif Intell Law 7(2):153–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin Stephen E (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheij Bart (2003) Deflog: on the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. J Log Comput 13(3):319–346

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Verheij Bart (2003) Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: an approach to legal logic. Artif Intell Law 11(2):167–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verheij Bart (2005) Virtual arguments. on the design of argument assistants for lawyers and other arguers. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Verheij Bart (2017) Formalizing arguments, rules and cases. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 199–208

  • Verheij Bart (2020) Artificial intelligence as law. Artif Intell Law 28(2):181–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verheij Bart, Hage Jaap, van den Herik H Jaap (1998) An integrated view on rules and principles. Artif Intell Law 6(1):3–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villata Serena, Araszkiewicz Michał, Ashley Kevin, Bench-Capon Trevor, Branting L Karl, Conrad Jack G, Wyner Adam (2022) Thirty years of AI and Law: The third decade. Artif Intell Law, 30 (4): This issue

  • Visser Pepijn (1995) Knowledge specification for multiple legal tasks; a case study of the interaction problem in the legal domain. Kluwer Law International

  • Visser Pepijn, Bench-Capon Trevor (1998) A comparison of four ontologies for the design of legal knowledge systems. Artif Intell Law 6(1):27–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Wright, George Henrik (1951) Deontic logic. Mind 60:1–15

  • Vreeswijk Gerard (1997) Abstract argumentation systems. Artif Intell 90:225–279

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswik Gerard, Prakken Henry (2000) Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In European workshop on logics in artificial intelligence, pages 239–253. Springer

  • Walton Douglas (1996) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

  • Walton Douglas (2003) Is there a burden of questioning? Artif Intell Law 11(1):1–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton Douglas (2015) The basic slippery slope argument. Informal Logic 35(3):273–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton Douglas, Reed Chris, Macagno Fabrizio (2008) Argumention schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wardeh Maya, Bench-Capon Trevor, Coenen Frans (2009) Padua: a protocol for argumentation dialogue using association rules. Artif Intell Law 17(3):183–215

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wyner Adam, Bench-Capon Trevor (2007) Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning. In Proceedings of JURIX 2007, pages 139–149. Citeseer

  • Zhengchuan Xu, Yuan Yufei (2009) Principle-based dispute resolution for consumer protection. Knowl-Based Syst 22(1):18–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yearwood John L, Stranieri Andrew (2006) The generic/actual argument model of practical reasoning. Decis Support Syst 41(2):358–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleznikow John, Stranieri Andrew (1995) The Split-Up system: integrating neural networks and rule-based reasoning in the legal domain. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 185–194

  • Zeleznikow John, Stranieri Andrew (1997) Knowledge discovery in the Split-Up project. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 89–97

  • Zeleznikow John, Stranieri Andrew (1998) Split-Up: an intelligent decision support system which provides advice upon property division following divorce. Int J Law Inform Technol 6(2):190–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleznikow John, Stranieri Andrew, Gawler Mark (1995) Project report: split-up - a legal expert system which determines property division upon divorce. Artif Intell Law 3:267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng Heng, Grossi Davide, Verheij Bart (2021a) Hardness of case-based decisions: a formal theory. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 149–158

  • Zheng Lucia, Guha Neel, Anderson Brandon R, Henderson Peter, Ho Daniel E (2021b) When does pretraining help? Assessing self-supervised learning for law and the CaseHOLD dataset of 53,000+ legal holdings. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 159–168

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brisbane, Australia

    Guido Governatori

  2. University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    Trevor Bench-Capon

  3. University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Bart Verheij

  4. Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

    Michał Araszkiewicz

  5. National Research Council of Italy (IGSG-CNR), Florence, Italy and European Parliament, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Enrico Francesconi

  6. Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Matthias Grabmair

Authors
  1. Guido Governatori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Trevor Bench-Capon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bart Verheij
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michał Araszkiewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Enrico Francesconi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matthias Grabmair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trevor Bench-Capon.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Governatori, G., Bench-Capon, T., Verheij, B. et al. Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law: the first decade. Artif Intell Law 30, 481–519 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-022-09329-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-022-09329-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation