Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 317–335 | Cite as

An intellectual celebration: A review of the jurix legal knowledge based systems scholarship

  • Abdul Paliwala

Abstract

The Foundation for Legal Knowledge Systems (JURIX) has, sinceits foundation in 1988, become an internationally renowned forumfor Law and Artificial Intelligence in theNetherlands. This paper is based onan intellectual review of the work of JURIX requested by theorganisation as part of its 10th anniversary in December 1997 andpresented as a keynote address at the 10th anniversary conference.It has been updated to include the following two conferences. Itapplauds the overall effort but also suggests some directions forfuture development and suggests in particular:

The breadth of research has been commendable, butthere is a need to move towards greater integration of systems andmigration to internet based systems.

Tools are likely to be improved in the next generationincluding the internet. Legal Knowledge Based Systems (LKBS) researchmay need to abandon fine boundaries between AI and other applications tools.

The commendable diversity of approaches to legalknowledge representation overlays concerns about the nature of lawand its translation in LKBS.

These issues of knowledge representation, theory, costand organisation of production can be best addressed by a return to acybernetic systems theory as a basis of analysis of relationships involved,and an understanding of the implications of culture change.

An awareness that traditional legal theories were notmeant for the information age. Theorisation about law needs to beinformed by a range of new theoretical approaches which approachlegal systems as cultural systems.

There is need to study the impact on legal cultures ofthe development of knowledge based systems, that is the impact ofjurimetricisation of society.

Artificial Intelligence Cybernetics JURIX Knowledge Representation Legal Knowledge Based Systems Legal Theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. JURIX Papers: Papers published in annual volumes of Legal Knowledge Based Systems: JURIX by the Foundation for Legal Knowledge Based Systems.Google Scholar
  2. Bench-Capon, T. and Visser, P. JURIX '96. Deep Models, Onotologies and Legal Knowledge Based Systems. p. 3.Google Scholar
  3. Bench-Capon, T. et al. JURIX '91. Animation of Advice Leaflets Using Hypertext and Knowledge Based Systems Techniques. p. 53.Google Scholar
  4. *Bench-Capon, T. JURIX '94. Legal Theory and Legal kbs: A Computer Scientist's Perspective. p. 00.Google Scholar
  5. Bench-Capon, T. JURIX '98. Specification and Implementation of Toulmin Dialogue Game. p. 5.Google Scholar
  6. Bing, J. JURIX '89. Classification of Legal Knowledge Based Systems, p. 8.Google Scholar
  7. Breuker, J., de Mulder, R., and Hage, J. JURIX '91. Introduction. p. 1.Google Scholar
  8. Costa, M., Sousa, O., and Neves J. JURIX '98. An Architecture to Legal Distributed Case Repositories. p. 21.Google Scholar
  9. De Vries, W., van den, Herik, J. van den, and Schmidt, A. JURIX '91, Separate Modelling of User System Cooperation. p. 28.Google Scholar
  10. De Widt, J. et al. The Evolution of Research Aims. JURIX '91. p. 106.Google Scholar
  11. Den Haan, N. and Winkels R. JURIX '94. The Deep Structure of Law. p. 43.Google Scholar
  12. Den Haan, N. JURIX '92. TRACS: A Support Tool for Drafting and Testing Law. p. 63.Google Scholar
  13. Groendijk, C. and Tragter, M. JURIX '95. Statistical and Neural Approaches to Smart-Money Determination. p. 87.Google Scholar
  14. Grutters, C. JURIX '95. A SimulationModel for the Dutch Asylum Procedure: A Different Approach of Law and AI. p. 53.Google Scholar
  15. Hage, J. JURIX '94. Two metaphors for reasoning. p. 127.Google Scholar
  16. Herik, J. van den JURIX '97. From Chess Moves to Legal Decisions: A Position Statement. p. 107.Google Scholar
  17. Kakuta, T. and Haraguchi, M. JURIX '98. An Actual Application of an Analogical Legal Reasoning System Dependent on Legal Purposes. p. 31.Google Scholar
  18. Koppen, P. van. JURIX '92. The Sentence, the Punishment and the Prosecution. p. 17.Google Scholar
  19. Kralingen, R. van et al. JURIX '93. Norm Frames in the Representation of Laws. p. 11.Google Scholar
  20. Kralingen, R. van et al. JURIX '96. Editors' Preface. p. 1.Google Scholar
  21. Lange, A. and Schipper, P. JURIX '97. A Knowledge Based Architecture Framework for Integrated Services in an Administrative Law Environment. p. 55.Google Scholar
  22. Leitjen, J. JURIX '92. Uniformity and Sentencing Policy. p. 5.Google Scholar
  23. Lodder, A. JURIX '98. On Structure and Naturalness in Dialogical Models of Argumentation. p. 45.Google Scholar
  24. Muntjewerff, A. and Groothuismink, J. JURIX '98. PROSA. A Computer Program as Instructional Environment for Supporting the Learning of Legal Case Solving. p. 85.Google Scholar
  25. Meijers, L. JURIX '92. Instruments for Sound Sentencing. p. 11.Google Scholar
  26. Moles, R. JURIX '92. Expert Systems: The Need for Theory. p. 113.Google Scholar
  27. Noortwijk, K. van, Schmidt, A., and Winkels, R. JURIX '91. Introduction.Google Scholar
  28. Noortwijk, K. van and de Mulder, R. JURIX '96. Word Use in Legal Texts: Statistical Facts and Practical Applicability. p. 91.Google Scholar
  29. Noortwijk, K. van, Piepers, P., and van der Wees, J. JURIX '91. The JURICAS System in Practice: Decisions in a Social Security Environment. p. 79.Google Scholar
  30. Paliwala, A. JURIX '97. Artificial Blue and Deep Intelligence. p. 101.Google Scholar
  31. Quast, J. and de Widt, J. JURIX '89. Experts and Empirical Data for a Valid Legal Knowledge Based System. p. 43.Google Scholar
  32. Schmidt, J. and Besouw, J. van. JURIX '92. AI Tools Politics and Legal Theory. p. 103.Google Scholar
  33. Stranieri, A. and Zeleznikow, J. JURIX '96. Automating Legal Reasoning in Discretionary Domains. p. 101.Google Scholar
  34. Stranieri, A. and Zeleznikow, J. JURIX '98. The Role of Open Texture and Stare Decisis in Data Mining Discretion. p. 101.Google Scholar
  35. Svensson, J. and Nieuwenhuis, M. JURIX '90. Tessec: An Expert System for Social Security Legislation. p. 87.Google Scholar
  36. Tragter, M. and Oskamp, A. JURIX '95. Regulative Effects of Legal Decision Support Systems. p. 113.Google Scholar
  37. Uyttendaele, C. et al. JURIX '96. Salomon: Automatic Abstracting of Legal Cases for Effective Access to Court Decisions. p. 47.Google Scholar
  38. Verheij, B. and Hage, J. JURIX '94. Reasoning by Analogy: A Formal Reconstruction. p. 65.Google Scholar
  39. Verheij, B. and Hage, J. JURIX '97. States of Affairs, Events, and Rules: An Abstract Model of Law. p. 3.Google Scholar
  40. Verheij, B. JURIX '98. ArguMed - A Template-Based Argument Mediation System for Lawyers. p. 113.Google Scholar
  41. Visser, P. JURIX '97. Towards Distributed Legal Information Systems: A Discussion of Ontology Mismatches. p. 43.Google Scholar
  42. Voermans, W. and Verharen, E. JURIX '93. Leda: A Semi-Intelligent Legislative Drafting Support System. p. 81.Google Scholar
  43. Wahlgren, P. JURIX '94. A General Theory of AI and Law. p. 79.Google Scholar
  44. Wildemast, C. and de Mulder, R. JURIX '92. Some Design Considerations for a Conceptual Legal Information Retrieval. p. 81.Google Scholar
  45. Winkels, R., Boer, A., Breuker, J., and Bosscher, J. JURIX '98. Argument Based Legal Information Serving and Cooperative Dialogue in CLIME. p. 131.Google Scholar
  46. Wood, G. JURIX '89. On Classification and Evaluation of Knowledge Based Systems in Law. p. 9.Google Scholar

Other references

  1. Abel, R. ed. (1982). The Politics of Informal Justice. Vols 1and 2. Academic Press: New York.Google Scholar
  2. Arthurs, H. (1985). Without the Law: Administrative Justice and Legal Pluralism in Mid-19th Century England. University of Toronto Press: Toronto.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society. Sage: London.Google Scholar
  4. Benda Beckman, F. von and Thomas, L. (1985). Change and Continuity in Minangkabau Local, Regional and Historical Perspectives on West Sumatra. Ohio University Center for International Studies, Centre for Southeast Asian Studies: Athens, Ohio.Google Scholar
  5. Benda Beckman, F. von et al. (eds.) (1991). Between Kinship and State: Social Security Law in Developing Countries. Foris: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  6. Capper, P. and Susskind, R. (1989). Latent Damage: The Expert System. Butterworths: London.Google Scholar
  7. Coveney, P. and Highfield, R. (1995). Frontiers of Complexity: The Search for Order in a Chaotic World. Faber and Faber: London.Google Scholar
  8. De Landa, M. (1991). War in the Age of Intelligent Machines. Swerve: New York.Google Scholar
  9. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, Fé lex (1994). What is Philosophy? translated by Hugh Tomlinson and Graham Burchell. Verso: London.Google Scholar
  10. Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and Difference. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
  11. Fish, S. (1980). Is There a Text in this Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass. and London.Google Scholar
  12. Foucault, M. 1979. The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1. Allen Lane: London.Google Scholar
  13. Goodrich, P. 1986. Reading the Law: A Critical Introduction to Legal Method and Techniques. Basil Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
  14. Goodrich, P. (1990). Languages of Law: From Logics of Memory to Nomadic Masks. Weidenfeld and Nicolson: London.Google Scholar
  15. Griffiths, J. (1986). What is Legal Pluralism? Journal of Legal Pluralism. 24: 1.Google Scholar
  16. Luhmann, N. (1982). The Differentiation of Society. Columbia University Press: New York.Google Scholar
  17. Luhmann, N. (1985). A Sociological Theory of Law. Translated by Elizabeth King and Martin Albrow, edited by Martin Albrow. Routledge and Kegan Paul: London.Google Scholar
  18. McCarty, T. (1995). An Implementation of Eisner v Macomber. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on AI and Law, 276, ACM Press: New York.Google Scholar
  19. Moore, S. F. (1973). Law and Social Change: The Semi-Autonomous Social Field as an Appropriate Subject of Study. Law and Society Review 7: 719–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nieuwenhuis, M. A. (1989). TESSEC: An Expert System for the Dutch Social Security Act. Kluwer: Deventer.Google Scholar
  21. Paliwala, A. (1998). Co-operative Development of CAL Materials: A Case Study of IOLIS, The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT) 1998: 3. http://www.law.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/98-3/paliwala.htmlGoogle Scholar
  22. Santos, B. de Sousa (1995), Toward a New Common Sense. Law, Science and Politics in the Paradigmatic Transition. Routledge: New York and London.Google Scholar
  23. Stamper, R. (1991). Expert Systems Lawyers Beware. In Nagel, S. (ed.) Law, Decision-Making and Microcomputers, Quorum Books, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Strathern, M. (1996). Cutting the Network. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (NS) 2: 517–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Susskind, R. (1996). The Future of Law. Butterworths: London.Google Scholar
  26. Thrift, N. (1999). The Place of Complexity. Theory, Culture and Society 16(3), 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Teubner, G. 1984. Autopoiesis in Law and Society: A Rejoinder to Blankenberg. Law and Society Review 18: 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vijver, G. van de (ed.) (1992). New Perspectives on Cybernetics: Self-Organization, Autonomy, and Connectionism. Kluwer: Dordrecht and London.Google Scholar
  29. Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: or, Control and Communication in the animal and the machine. Technology Press: Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  30. Zohar, D. (1997). Rewriting the Corporate Brain: Using the New Science to Rethink How We Structure and Lead Organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abdul Paliwala
    • 1
  1. 1.School of LawUniversity of WarwickCoventryUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations