Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 397–428 | Cite as

Norm conflict identification in contracts

  • João Paulo Aires
  • Daniele PinheiroEmail author
  • Vera Strube de Lima
  • Felipe Meneguzzi
Original Research
  • 763 Downloads

Abstract

The exchange of goods and services between individuals is often formalised by a contract in which the parties establish norms to define what is expected of each one. Norms use deontic statements of obligation, prohibition, and permission, which may be in conflict. The task of manually detecting norm conflicts can be time–consuming and error-prone since contracts can be vast and complex. To automate such tasks, we develop an approach to identify potential conflicts between norms. We show the effectiveness of our approach and its individual components empirically using two publicly available corpora, and contribute with a new annotated test corpus for norm conflict identification.

Keywords

Norms Natural language processing Normative conflicts Deontic logic 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank HP PROFCSI for funding our research. Felipe thanks CNPq for support within Grant Number 306864/2016-4 under the PQ fellowship project.

References

  1. Aires JP, Pinheiro D, Meneguzzi F (2017) Norm dataset: dataset with norms and norm conflicts. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.345411
  2. Athan T, Boley H, Governatori G, Palmirani M, Paschke A, Wyner A (2013) Oasis legalruleml. In: Proceedings of ICAIL, pp 3–12Google Scholar
  3. Axelrod R (1986) An evolutionary approach to norms. Am Polit Sci Rev 80(4):1095–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azzopardi S, Gatt A, Pace GJ (2016) Integrating natural language and formal analysis for legal documents. In: Language technologies & digital humanitiesGoogle Scholar
  5. Azzopardi S, Gatt A, Pace GJ (2016) Reasoning about partial contracts. In: Legal knowledge and information systems—JURIX 2016: the twenty-ninth annual conference, pp 23–32. doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-726-9-23
  6. Bird S (2006) NLTK: the natural language toolkit. In: ACL 2006, 21st international conference on computational linguistics and 44th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, proceedings of the conference, Sydney, Australia, 17–21 July 2006. http://aclweb.org/anthology/P06-4018
  7. Carmo J, Jones AJI (2002) Deontic logic and contrary-to-duties. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 265–343. doi: 10.1007/978-94-010-0387-2_4 Google Scholar
  8. Curtotti M, Mccreath E (2010) Corpus based classification of text in Australian contracts. In: Proceedings of the Australasian language technology association workshop, Melbourne, Australia, pp 18–26Google Scholar
  9. Curtotti M, McCreath EC (2011) A corpus of Australian contract language: description, profiling and analysis. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, New York, NY, USA, ICAIL ’11, pp 199–208, doi: 10.1145/2018358.2018387
  10. Fenech S, Pace GJ, Schneider G (2009a) Automatic conflict detection on contracts. In: International colloquium on theoretical aspects of computing. Springer, pp 200–214Google Scholar
  11. Fenech S, Pace GJ, Schneider G (2009b) CLAN: a tool for contract analysis and conflict discovery. In: Liu Z, Ravn AP (eds) Automated technology for verification and analysis, 7th international symposium, ATVA 2009, Macao, China, October 14–16, 2009. Proceedings, Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5799, pp 90–96. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-04761-9_8
  12. Figueiredo KS, da Silva VT (2013) An algorithm to identify conflicts between norms and values. Coordination. Organisations, Institutions and Norms in Multi-Agent Systems, pp 259–274Google Scholar
  13. Gabbard J, Sukkarieh JZ, Silva F (2015) Writing and reviewing contracts: don’t you wish to save time, effort, and money? In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, New York, NY, USA, ICAIL ’15, pp 229–230. doi: 10.1145/2746090.2746534
  14. Gao X, Singh MP (2013) Mining contracts for business events and temporal constraints in service engagements. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 99:1–1. doi: 10.1109/TSC.2013.21 Google Scholar
  15. Gao X, Singh MP (2014) Extracting normative relationships from business contracts. In: Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, international foundation for autonomous agents and multiagent systems, Richland, SC, AAMAS ’14, pp 101–108Google Scholar
  16. Gao X, Singh MP, Mehra P (2012) Mining business contracts for service exceptions. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 5(3):333–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gorín D, Mera S, Schapachnik F (2011) A software tool for legal drafting. In: Proceedings fifth workshop on formal languages and analysis of contract-oriented software, FLACOS 2011, Málaga, Spain, 22nd and 23rd September 2011., pp 71–86. doi: 10.4204/EPTCS.68.7
  18. Governatori G (2005) Representing business contracts in RuleML. Int J Coop Inf Syst 14(2–3):181–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jenks CW (1953) The conflict of law-making treaties. BYIL 30:401Google Scholar
  20. Jiang JJ, Conrath DW (1997) Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy. CoRR http://arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/9709008
  21. Jones AJI, Sergot MJ (1992) Deontic logic in the representation of law: towards a methodology. Artif Intell Law 1(1):45–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kollingbaum MJ, Norman TJ, Preece A, Sleeman D (2007) Norm conflicts and inconsistencies in virtual organisations. In: Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems II. Springer, pp 245–258Google Scholar
  23. Leacock C, Chodorow M (1998) Combining local context and wordnet similarity for word sense identification. WordNet Electron Lex Database 49(2):265–283Google Scholar
  24. Li Y, McLean D, Bandar Z, O’Shea J, Crockett KA (2006) Sentence similarity based on semantic nets and corpus statistics. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 18(8):1138–1150. doi: 10.1109/TKDE.2006.130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lin D (1998) An information-theoretic definition of similarity. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth international conference on machine learning (ICML 1998), Madison, WI, USA, July 24–27, 1998, pp 296–304Google Scholar
  26. Pace GJ, Schapachnik F (2012) Contracts for interacting two-party systems. In: Proceedings sixth workshop on formal languages and analysis of contract-oriented software, FLACOS 2012, Bertinoro, Italy, 19 September 2012, pp 21–30. doi: 10.4204/EPTCS.94.3
  27. Palmer FR (2001) Mood and modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peters W, Wyner AZ (2016) Legal text interpretation: identifying hohfeldian relations from text. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on language resources and evaluation LREC 2016, Portorož, Slovenia, May 23–28, 2016., http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2016/summaries/253.html
  29. Resnik P (1995) Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI 95, Montréal Québec, Canada, August 20–25 1995, vol 2, pp 448–453Google Scholar
  30. Rosso P, Correa S, Buscaldi D (2011) Passage retrieval in legal texts. J Logic Algebraic Program 80(3–5):139–153. doi: 10.1016/j.jlap.2011.02.001 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Rousseau DM, McLean Parks J (1993) The contracts of individuals and organizations. JAI Press LTD, GreenwichGoogle Scholar
  32. Sadat-Akhavi A (2003) Methods of resolving conflicts between treaties. Graduate Institute of International Studies (Series), vol 3. M. Nijhoff, BostonGoogle Scholar
  33. Steedman MJ (1977) Verbs, time, and modality. Cogn Sci 1(2):216–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vasconcelos WW, Kollingbaum MJ, Norman TJ (2009) Normative conflict resolution in multi-agent systems. Auton Agent Multi Agent Syst 19(2):124–152. doi: 10.1007/s10458-008-9070-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vranes E (2006) The definition of ’norm conflict’ in international law and legal theory. Eur J Int Law 17(2):395–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Winikoff M, Padgham L, Harland J, Thangarajah J (2002) Declarative & procedural goals in intelligent agent systems. In: Proceedings of the eights international conference on principles and knowledge representation and reasoning (KR-02), Toulouse, France, April 22–25, 2002, pp 470–481Google Scholar
  37. von Wright GH (1951) Deontic logic, new series. Oxford University Press on behalf of the Mind Association, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. Wu Z, Palmer M (1994) Verbs semantics and lexical selection. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting on association for computational linguistics, association for computational linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, ACL ’94, pp 133–138. doi: 10.3115/981732.981751
  39. Wyner AZ, Peters W (2011) On rule extraction from regulations. In: legal knowledge and information systems - jurix 2011: the twenty-fourth annual conference, University of Vienna, Austria, 14th–16th December 2011, pp 113–122. doi: 10.3233/978-1-60750-981-3-113

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Porto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations