Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

AI and Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Agreement Technologies

Part of the book series: Law, Governance and Technology Series ((LGTS,volume 8))

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of the main lines of inquiry of Artificial Intelligence and Law (AI and Law), such as rule-based reasoning, case-based reasoning, ontologies, argumentation, theory construction and legal deontics. We argue that a rich picture of the law is emerging from the AI and Law research, which can complement and integrate not only research in law and legal theory, but also other attempts to provide formal and computational models of norms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alchourrón, C. E., and E. Bulygin. 1971. Normative systems. Vienna: Springer.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, L. E. 1957. Symbolic logic: A razor-edged tool for drafting and interpreting legal documents. Yale Law Journal 66: 833–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, L. E., and C. S. Saxon. 1991. A-Hohfeld: A language for robust structural representation of knowledge in the legal domain to build interpretation-assistance expert systems. In Proceedings of the first international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, 52–71, ed. J. J. C. Meyer and R. J. Wieringa. Amsterdam: Vrjie Universiteit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artikis, A., M. J. Sergot, and J. Pitt. 2002. Animated specifications of computational societies. In Proceeding AAMAS-2002, 1053–1061. New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artikis, A., M. J. Sergot, and J. Pitt. 2003. An executable specification of an argumentation protocol. In Proceedings of the ninth international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL), 1–11. New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. D. 1990. Modeling legal argument: Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. Cambridge MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. D., and E. L. Rissland. 1988. A case-based approach to modelling legal expertise. IEEE Expert 3: 70–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M. 1993. Neural networks and open texture. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, 292–297. New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M., and H. Prakken. 2006. Justifying actions by accruing arguments. In Computational models of argument. Proceedings of COMMA-06, 247–258, ed. P. E. Dunne and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Amsterdam: IOS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M., and G. Sartor. 2000. Using values and theories to resolve disagreement in law. In Proceedings of the thirteenth annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX), 73–84, ed. J. Breuker, L. Ronald, and R. Winkels. Amsterdam: IOS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M., and G. Sartor. 2001. A quantitative approach to theory coherence. In Proceedings of the fourteenth annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX), 53–62. Amsterdam: IOS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T., and G. Sartor. 2003. A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence 150: 97–143. doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(03)00108-5. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=964763.964767.

  • Bochereau, L., D. Bourcier, and P. Bourgine. 1999. Extracting legal knowledge by means of a multilayered neural network: Application to municipal jurisprudence. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL), 288–296. New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branting, L. K. 1994. A computational model of ratio decidendi. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2: 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breuker, J., A. Valente, and R. Winkels. 1997. Legal ontologes: A functional view. In Proceedings of first international workshop on legal ontologies (LEGONT’97), 23–36, ed. P. R. S. Visser and R. G. F. Winkels. University of Melbourne, Law School, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chorley, A., and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. 2003. Reasoning with legal cases as theory construction: Some experimental results. In Proceedings of the seventeenth annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX), 173–182, ed. D. Bourcier. Amsterdam: IOS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dung, P. M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n–person games. Artificial Intelligence 77: 321–357.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dung, P. M., and Thang, P. M. 2008. Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract. In Proceedings of JURIX 2008, 108–117, ed. E. Francesconi, G. Sartor, and D. Tiscornia. Amsterdam: IOS (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangemi, A., M. T. Sagri, and D. Tiscornia. 2005. A constructive framework for legal ontologies. In Law and the semantic web, 97–124, ed. V. R. Benjamins, P. Casanovas, J. Breuker, and A. Gangemi. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, A. v. d. L. 1987. An artificial intelligence approach to legal reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelati, J., A. Rotolo, G. Sartor, and G. Governatori. 2004. Normative autonomy and normative co-ordination: Declarative power, representation, and mandate. Artificial Intelligence and Law 12(1–2): 53–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T. F. 1995. The pleadings game. An artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T. F., and D. N. Walton. 2009. Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes. In Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL 2009). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T. F., H. Prakken, and D. N. Walton. 2007. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171: 875–896 (Forthcoming.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T. F., G. Governatori, and A. Rotolo. 2009. Rules and norms: Requirements for rule interchange languages in the legal domain. In Rule Representation, Interchange and Reasoning on the Web, LNCS, vol. 5858, 282–296, ed. G. Governatori, J. Hall, and A. Paschke. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J. C. 1997. Reasoning with rules: An essay on legal reasoning and its underlying logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J. C. 2011. A model of juridical acts: Part 2: The operation of juridical acts. Artificial Intelligence and Law 19: 49–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrestad, H., and C. Krogh. 1995. Obligations directed from bearers to counterparties. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL’95), 210–218. New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohfeld, W. N. 1911. Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. Yale Law Journal 23(16): 16–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horty, J. F. 1999. Precedent, deontic logic and inheritance. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL), 23–72. New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horty, J. F. 2001. Agency and deontic logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. J. I., and M. Sergot. 1996. A formal characterization of institutionalised power. Journal of the IGPL 3: 427–443.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lodder, A. R. 1999. DiaLaw: On legal justification and dialogical models of argumentation. Law and Philosophy Library. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R. P., and J. Norman. 1995. Rationales and argument moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 3: 159–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R. P., J. Norman, J. Olson, and A. Merrill. 1993. A design for reasoning with policies, precedents, and rationales. In ICAIL, 202–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L. T. 1986. Permissions and obligations: An informal introduction. In Automated analysis of legal texts, ed. A. A. Martino and F. Socci, 307–337. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L. T. 1988a. Clausal intuitionistic logic. i. fixed-point semantics. Journal of Logic Programming 5: 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L. T. 1988b. Clausal intuitionistic logic ii – tableau proof procedures. Journal of Logic Programming 5: 93–132.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Philipps, L., and G. Sartor (eds.). 1999. Neural networks and fuzzy reasoning in the law. Special issue. Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J. 1995a. Cognitive carpentry. Cambridge MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J. L. 1995b. Cognitive carpentry: A blueprint for how to build a person. New York: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. 2001. Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese 127: 187–219.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. 2010. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation 1: 93–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H., and G. Sartor. 1996. Rules about rules: Assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 331–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H., and G. Sartor. 1998a. Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6: 231–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H., and G. Sartor. 1998b. Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6(2–4): 231–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C., and G. Rowe. 2007. A pluralist approach to argument diagramming. Law, Probability and Risk 6: 59–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E. L., and D. Skalak. 1993. Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1: 3–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riveret, R., N. Rotolo, G. Sartor, H. Prakken, and B. Roth. 2007. Success chances in argument games: A probabilistic approach to legal disputes. In Proceeding of legal knowledge and information systems – JURIX 2007, ed. A. R. Lodder, 99–108. Amsterdam: IOS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartor, G. 2002. Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10: 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sartor, G. 2006. Fundamental legal concepts: A formal and teleological characterisation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 21: 101–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sergot, M. J., F. Sadri, R. A. Kowalski, F. Kriwaczek, P. Hammond, and H. Cory. 1986. The British Nationality Act as a logic program. Communications of the ACM 29, 370–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sartor, G., M. Rudnianski, A. Rotolo, R. Riveret, and E. Mayor. 2009. Why lawyers are nice (or nasty): A game-theoretical argumentation exercise. In Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, 108–119. New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartor, G., P. Casanovas, M. Biasiotti, and M. Fernández-Barrera (eds.). 2011. Approaches to legal ontologies. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheij, B. 2003. Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 150, 291–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N. 2005. Argumentation methods for artificial intelligence in law. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N., and E. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yoshino, H. 1978. Über die notwendigkeit einer besonderen normenlogik als methode der juristischen logik. In Gesetzgebungstheorie, juristische Logik, Zivil, und Prozeßrecht. Gedächtnisschrift für Jürgen Rödig, ed. U. Klug, T. Ramm, F. Rittner, and B. Schmiedel, 140–161. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeleznikow, J., and A. Stranieri. 1995. The split-up system: Integrating neural networks and rule based reasoning in the legal domain. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL), 185–194. New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EUI, Florence, Italy

    Giovanni Sartor

  2. CIRSFID – Faculty of Law, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Giovanni Sartor & Antonino Rotolo

Authors
  1. Giovanni Sartor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonino Rotolo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanni Sartor .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Room DI-241, University Rey Juan, Calle Tulipan s/n, Madrid/Mostoles, 28933, Spain

    Sascha Ossowski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sartor, G., Rotolo, A. (2013). AI and Law. In: Ossowski, S. (eds) Agreement Technologies. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5583-3_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5583-3_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5582-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5583-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation