International Journal of Computer Science & Network Security

International Journal of Computer Science & Network Security (국제컴퓨터통신보호논문지학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Methodology of Automated Analysis and Qualitative Assessment of Legislation and Court Decisions

  • Received : 2022.11.05
  • Published : 2022.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to substantiate an interdisciplinary methodology for automated analysis and qualitative assessment of legislation and court decisions. The development of this kind of methodology will make it possible to fill a number of methodological gaps in various research areas, including law effectiveness assessment and legal monitoring. We have defined a methodology based on the interdisciplinary principles and tools. In general, it should be noted that even at the level of qualitative assessment made with the use of the methodology described above, the accumulation of knowledge about the relationship between legal objectives, indicators and computer methods of their identification can reduce the role of expert knowledge and subjective factor in the process of assessment, planning, forecasting and control over the state of legislation and law enforcement. Automation of intellectual processes becomes inevitable in a digital society, but, releasing experts from routine work, simultaneously reorients it to development of interdisciplinary methods and control over their application.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 20-011-00837.

References

  1. Venkatesh, V., Chan, F.K.Y., Thong, J.Y.L.: Designing egovernment services: Key service attributes and citizens' preference structures. Journal of Operations Management, 30 (43862), 116-133 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2011.10.001
  2. Hochtl, J., Parycek, P., Schollhammer, R.: Big data in the policy cycle: Policy decision making in the digital era. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 26 (1-2), 147-169 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2015.1125187
  3. Bertot, J.C., Gorham, U., Jaeger, P.T., Sarin, L.C., Choi, H.: Big data, open government and e-government: Issues, policies and recommendations. Information Polity, 19 (1-2), 5-16 (2014) https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-140328
  4. Housley, W., Dicks, B., Henwood, K., Smith, R.: Qualitative methods and data in digital societies. Qualitative Research, 17 (6), 607-609 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794117730936
  5. Schmiele, A.: Intellectual property infringements due to R&D abroad? A comparative analysis between firms with international and domestic innovation activities. Research Policy, 42 (8), 1482-1495 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.06.002
  6. Rissland, E.L., Skalak, D.B., Friedman, M.T.: BankXX: Supporting legal arguments through heuristic retrieval. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4, 1-71 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00123994
  7. Giord, M.: LexrideLaw: An argument based legal search engine. In: ICAIL'17: Proceedings of the 16th of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 271-272 (2017)
  8. Libal, T., Steen, A.: NAI: The normative reasoner. In: ICAIL'19: Proceedings of the 17th of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 262-263 (2019)
  9. Stranieri, A., Zeleznikow, J., Gawler, M., Lewis, B.: Hybrid rule-neural approach for the automation of legal reasoning in the discretionary domain of family law in Australia. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 7 (2), 153-183 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008325826599
  10. Ashley, K.D., Bruninghaus, S.: Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 17, 125-165 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-009-9077-9
  11. Grabmair, M.: Predicting trade secret case outcomes using argument schemes and learned quantitative value effect tradeoffs. In: ICAIL'17: Proceedings of the 16th of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 89-98 (2017)
  12. Gelbart, D., Smith, J. C.: FLEXICON: An evaluation of a statistical ranking model adapted to intelligent legal text management. In: ICAIL'93: Proceedings of the 4th edition of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 142-151 (1993)
  13. Schweighofer, E., Winiwarter, W.: Legal expert system KONTERM - Automatic representation of document structure and contents. In: DEXA'93: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference for Database and Expert Systems Applications, 486-497 (1993)
  14. Casanovas, P., Binefa i Valls, X., Gracia, C., Teodoro, E., Galera, N., Blazquez, M., Poblet, M., Carrabina, J., Monton, M., Montero, C., Serrano, J., Lopez-Cobo, J.M.: The eSentencias prototype: A procedural ontology for legal multimedia applications in the Spanish civil courts. In: Breuker, J., Casanovas, P., Klein, M.C.A., Francesconi, E. (eds.). Law, Ontologies and the Semantic Web: Channelling the Legal Information Flood, pp. 199-219 Amsterdam, IOS Press (2009)
  15. Boella, G., Di Caro, L., Leone, V.: Semi-automatic knowledge population in a legal document management system. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 27 (2), 227-251 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-018-9239-8
  16. Garcia-Constantino, M., Atkinson, K., Bollegala, D., Chapman, K., Coenen, F., Roberts, C., Robson, K.: CLIEL: Context-based information extraction from commercial law documents. In: ICAIL'17: Proceedings of the 16th of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 79-87 (2017)
  17. Agnoloni, T., Bacci, L., Francesconi, E., Spinosa, P., Tiscornia, D., Montemagni, S., Venturi, G.: Building an ontological support for multilingual legislative drafting. In: JURIX'2007: Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, 9-18 (2007)
  18. Nanda, R., Siragusa, G., Caro, L.D., Boella, G., Grossio, L., Gerbaudo, M., Costamagna, F.: Unsupervised and supervised text similarity systems for automated identification of national implementing measures of European directives. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 27 (2), 199-225 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-018-9236-y
  19. Hachey, B., Grover, C.: Automatic legal text summarisation: experiments with summary structuring. In: ICAIL'05: Proceedings of the 10th of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 75-84 (2005)
  20. Mozina, M., Zabkar, J., Bench-Capon, T., Bratko, I.: Argument based machine learning applied to law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 13 (1), 53-73 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-006-9002-4
  21. Ashley, K.D., Walker, V.R.: Toward constructing evidencebased legal arguments using legal decision documents and machine learning. In: ICAIL'13: Proceedings of the 14th of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 176-180 (2013)
  22. Savelka, J., Ashley, K.D.: Transfer of predictive models for classification of statutory texts in multijurisdictional settings. In: ICAIL'15: Proceedings of the 15th of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 216-226 (2015)
  23. Torrisi, A., Bevan, R., Atkinson, K., Bollegala, D., Coenen, F.: Automated bundle pagination using machine learning. In: ICAIL'19: Proceedings of the 17th of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 244-248 (2019)
  24. Maurushat, A., Moses, L.B., Vaile, D.: Using "big" metadata for criminal intelligence: Understanding limitations and appropriate safeguards. In: ICAIL'15: Proceedings of the 15th of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 196-200 (2015)
  25. McGinnis, J.O., Stein, B.: Originalism, hypothesis testing and big data. In: ICAIL'15: Proceedings of the 15th of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 201-205 (2015)
  26. Aletras, N., Tsarapatsanis, D., Preotiuc-Pietro, D., Lampos, V.: Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective. PeerJ Computer Science, 2, e93 (2016) https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.93
  27. Walter, S., Pinkal, M.: Automatic extraction of definitions from german court decisions. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Extraction Beyond the Document, 20-28, Sydney, Australia: Association for Computational Linguistics (2006)
  28. Metsker, O., Trofimov, E., Sikorsky, S., Kovalchuk, S.: Text and data mining techniques in judgment open data analysis for administrative practice control. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 947, 169-180 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13283-5_13
  29. Metsker, O., Trofimov, E., Petrov, M., Butakov, N.: Russian court decisions data analysis using distributed computing and machine learning to improve lawmaking and law enforcement. Procedia Computer Science, 156, 264-273 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.08.202
  30. Stevens, C., Barot, V., Carter, J.: The next generation of legal expert systems - New dawn or false dawn? In: Research and Development in Intelligent Systems XXVII: Incorporating Applications and Innovations in Intelligent Systems XVIII: Proceedings of AI'2010, pp. 439-452, London: Springer (2011)
  31. Sminia, H.: Process research in strategy formation: Theory, methodology and relevance. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11 (1), 97-125 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00253.x
  32. Robeyns, I.: The capability approach: a theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6 (1), 93-117 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1080/146498805200034266
  33. Walker, R.F., Oskamp, A., Schrickx, J.A., Opdorp, G.J., van den Berg, P.H.: PROLEXS: Creating law and order in a heterogeneous domain. International Journal of ManMachine Studies, 35 (1), 35-68 (1991) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(07)80007-1
  34. Popple, J.: A pragmatic legal expert system. Aldershot: Dartmouth (1996)
  35. Hunt, T., Song, C., Shokri, R., Shmatikov, V., Witchel, E.: Chiron: privacy-preserving machine learning as a service. arXiv:1803.05961 [cs.CR] (2018)
  36. Giovannoni, F.: Deliberate discretion? The institutional foundations of bureaucratic autonomy. Economic Journal, 114 (493), F149-F154 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-0133.2004.191_6.x
  37. Fried, B.H.: Ex ante / ex post. Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, 13, 123-160 (2003)
  38. Schauer, F.F.: Thinking like a lawyer: a new introduction to legal reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (2009)
  39. Cuttler, M.J., Muchinsky, P.M.: Prediction of law enforcement training performance and dysfunctional job performance with general mental ability, personality, and life history variables. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33 (1), 3-25 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854805282291
  40. Zhong, H., Guo, Z., Tu, C., Xiao, C., Liu, Z., Sun, M.: Legal judgment prediction via topological learning. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 3540-3540, Brussels, Belgium: Association for Computational Linguistics (2018)
  41. Rissland, E.L., Skalak, D.B.: CABARET: Rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture. International Journal of ManMachine Studies, 34 (6), 839-887 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7373(91)90013-W
  42. Jurado, F., Redondo, M.A., Ortega, M.: Blackboard architecture to integrate components and agents in heterogeneous distributed eLearning systems: An application for learning to program. Journal of Systems and Software, 85, 1621-1636 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.02.009
  43. Maxeiner, J.: Legal certainty: a European alternative to American legal indeterminacy? Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, 15 (2), 541-608 (2007)
  44. Sonn, C.C., Fisher, A.T.: Identity and oppression: differential responses to an in-between status. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 117-128 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023030805485
  45. Friedman, L.M. The legal system: a social science perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation (1975)
  46. Cai, W.H., Deng, Y.Q.: An algorithm design for a digital rights management system. In: ASID'2007: International Workshop on Anti-Counterfeiting, Security and Identification, 275-279 (2007)
  47. Lagnado, D.A., Gerstenberg, T.: Causation in legal and moral reasoning. In: Waldmann M.R. (ed.). Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning, pp. 565-602. New York: Oxford University Press (2017)
  48. Cohn, E.S., Bucolo, D., Rebellon, C.J., van Gundy, K.: An integrated model of legal and moral reasoning and ruleviolating behavior: The role of legal attitudes. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 295-309 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9185-9
  49. Goutte, C., Gaussier, E.: A probabilistic interpretation of precision, recall and f-score, with implication for evaluation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3408, 345-359 (2005)
  50. Pakhomov, O., Kopanitsa, G., Metsker, O., Trofimov, E.: Forecasting efficiency of programs and optimization of local budgets in smart cities for a better quality of life. Conference of Open Innovations Association FRUCT, 2022-April (2), 443-449 (2022)
  51. Trofimov, E., Metsker, O.: Methodology for the qualitative assessment of the legal optimization (data mining and machine learning on judgment big data in cases of administrative offenses and criminal cases). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3983128 (2021)
  52. Davis, K.E.: Legal indicators: The power of quantitative measures of law. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 10, 37-52 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030857