Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 279–315

Causation in AI and Law

Article

Abstract

Reasoning about causation in fact is an essential element of attributing legal responsibility. Therefore, the automation of the attribution of legal responsibility requires a modelling effort aimed at the following: a thorough understanding of the relation between the legal concepts of responsibility and of causation in fact; a thorough understanding of the relation between causation in fact and the common sense concept of causation; and, finally, the specification of an ontology of the concepts that are minimally required for (automatic) common sense reasoning about causation. This article offers a worked-out example of the indicated analysis. Such example consists of: a definition of the legal concept of responsibility (in terms of liability and accountability); a definition of the legal concept of causation in fact (in terms of the initiation of physical processes by an agent and of the provision of reasons and/or opportunities to other agents); CausatiOnt, an AI-like ontology of the common sense (causal) concepts that are minimally needed for reasoning about the legal concept of causation in fact (in particular, the concepts of category, dimension, object, agent, process, event and act).

Keywords

causation in fact common sense legal responsibility ontology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aqvist, L., Mullock, P. 1989Causing Harm – A Legal – Logical StudyWalter de GruyterBerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin, R. A. and Neufeld, E. (2004). The structural model interpretation of the ness test. In Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of IntelligenceGoogle Scholar
  3. Dowe, P. 1995Causality and conserved quantities: A reply to Salmon. Philosophy of SciencePhilosophy of Science62321333Google Scholar
  4. Green, L. (1930). Judge and Jury. Kansas CityGoogle Scholar
  5. Hart, H., Honoré, T. 1985Causation in the LawOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Hulswit, M. (1998). A semeiotic account of causation – The cement of the Universe from a Peircean perspective. PhD thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen: Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  7. Lehmann, J. (2003). Causation in Artificial Intelligence and Law – A modelling approach. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science and Law, Faculty of Law, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  8. Lewis, D. 1973Causation. Journal of PhilosophyJournal of Philosophy70556567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mackie, J. 1974The Cement of the Universe – A Study in CausationOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Mill, J. (1886). A System of Logic Ratiocinative and inductive. LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Pearl, J. 2000CausalityCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Prakken, H. and Renooij, S. (2001). Reconstructing causal reasoning about evidence: a case study. In Proceedings of the Legal Knowledge and Information Systems – Jurix 2001Google Scholar
  13. Russell, B. (1912). On the notion of cause. Proceedings of the Aristotelian society 1: 26.Google Scholar
  14. Russell, B. 1948Human KnowledgeSimon and SchusterNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Russell, B. 1984A History of Western PhilosophyUnwin PaperbacksLondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Salmon, W. 1984Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the WorldPrinceton University PressPrinceton, NJGoogle Scholar
  17. Valente, A. 1995Legal Knowledge Engineering – A Modelling ApproachIOS PressAmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory for Applied Ontology, Institute of Cognitive Science and TechnologyItalian National Research CouncilRomeItaly
  2. 2.Leibniz Center for Law, Faculty of LawUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Jurisprudence, Faculty of LawUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations