Advertisement

Using Case-Based Reasoning to Support Alternative Dispute Resolution

  • Davide Carneiro
  • Paulo Novais
  • Francisco Andrade
  • John Zeleznikow
  • José Neves
Part of the Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing book series (AINSC, volume 79)

Abstract

Recent trends in communication technologies led to a shift in the already traditional Alternative Dispute Resolution paradigm, giving birth to the Online Dispute Resolution one. In this new paradigm, technologies are used as a way to deliver better, faster and cheaper alternatives to litigation in court. However, the role of technology can be further enhanced with the integration of Artificial Intelligence techniques. In this paper we present UMCourt, a tool that merges concepts from the fields of Law and Artificial Intelligence. The system keeps the parties informed about the possible consequences of their litigation if their problems are to be settled in court. Moreover, it makes use of a Case-based Reasoning algorithm that searches for solutions for the litigation considering past known similar cases, as a way to enhance the negotiation process. When parties have access to all this information and are aware of the consequences of their choices, they can take better decisions that encompass all the important aspects of a litigation process.

Keywords

Online Dispute Resolution Case-based Reasoning Multi-agent System 

References

  1. 1.
    Bellucci, E., Lodder, A., Zeleznikow, J.: Integrating artificial intelligence, argu-mentation and game theory to develop an online dispute resolution environment. In: 16th IEEE International Conference on Tools with AI, pp. 749–754 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klaming, L., Van Veenen, J., Leenes, R.: I want the opposite of what you want. In: Expanding the horizons of ODR. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR Workshop 2008), Firenze, Italy, pp. 84–94 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goodman, J.W.: The pros and cons of online dispute resolution: an assessment of cyber-mediation websites. In: Duke Law and Technology Review (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Notini, J.: Effective Alternatives Analysi. In: Mediation: BATNA/WATNA Analysis Demystified (2005), http://www.mediate.com/articles/notini1.cfm
  5. 5.
    De Vries, B.R., Leenes, R., Zeleznikow, J.: Fundamentals of providing negotia-tion support online: the need for developing BATNAs. In: Proceedings of the Second International ODR Workshop, pp. 59–67. Wolf Legal Publishers, Tilburg (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peruginelli, G., Chiti, G.: Artificial Intelligence in alternative dispute resolution. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on the law of electronic agents – LEA (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aamodt, A., Plaza, E.: Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Communications 7(1), 39–59 (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simpson, R.L.: A Computer Model of Case-Based Reasoning in Problem Solving: An Investigation in the Domain of Dispute Mediation. Technical Report GIT-ICS-85/18, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Information and CS, Atlanta, US (1985)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bain, W.M.: Case-Based Reasoning: A Computer Model of Subjective Assessment. Ph.D. Thesis, Yale University, Yale, CT, US (1986)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ashley, K.D.: Arguing by Analogy in Law: A Case-Based Model. In: Analogical Reasoning: Perspectives of AI, Cognitive Science, and Philosophy, D. Reidel (1988)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rissland, E.L., Skala, D.B.: Combining case-based and rule-based reasoning: A heuristic approach. In: Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 1989, Detroit, Michigan, pp. 524–530 (1989)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wooldrige, M.: An Introduction to Multiagent Systems. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Andrade, F., Novais, P., Carneiro, D., Zeleznikow, J., Neves, J.: Using BATNAs and WATNAs in Online Dispute Resolution. In: JURISIN 2009 - Third International Workshop on Juris-informatics, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 15–26 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Riesbeck, C., Bain, W.: A Methodology for Implementing Case-Based Reasoning Systems, Lockheed (1987)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Watson, I., Marir, F.: Case-based reasoning: A Review. Knowledge Engineering Review 9, 327–354 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wildeboer, G., Klein, M., Uijttenbroek, E.: Explaining the Relevance of Court Decisions to Laymen. In: Lodder, A.R., Mommers, L. (eds.) Proceedings of JURIX 2007, pp. 129–138. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kersten, G.E., Noronha, S.J.: Negotiation via the World Wide Web: A Cross-cultural Study of Decision Making. Group Decision and Negotiation 8, 251–279 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ashley, K.D.: Case-based reasoning and its implications for legal expert systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1, 113–208 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guasco, M.P., Robinson, P.R.: Principles of negotiation. Entrepreneur Press (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carneiro, D., Novais, P., Andrade, F., Balke, T., Neves, J.: TIARAC Technical Report, http://tiaracserver.di.uminho.pt/tiarac/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davide Carneiro
    • 1
  • Paulo Novais
    • 1
  • Francisco Andrade
    • 1
  • John Zeleznikow
    • 2
  • José Neves
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MinhoBragaPortugal
  2. 2.Victoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations