AI and Law; Compliance; Digital Justice; Legal Reasoning; Human Decision Making; Value-based Argumentation
Abstract :
[en] This paper investigates the practical reasoning involved in compliance-related decisions, distinguishing between two scenarios where a state of affairs is
evaluated in the light of applicable norms: ex post compliance checking and ex
ante compliance choices. While the literature in legal reasoning representation is
exclusively focused on compliance checking scenarios, i.e., simulating a digital
judge, different factors seem to play a role in the inner deliberation of compliance
choices. In this paper we investigate how human agents are influenced in their
compliance choices by their own value ranking and risk assessment and how, in
turn, the choice affects their preference among alternative interpretations of the
law. We contend that contributions from the literature such as the value-based
argumentation framework, while focused on ex post judgments, may be able to
provide a comprehensive framework for ex ante compliance decisions. The main
goal of the research behind this work is to achieve a comprehensive representation of legal reasoning that can be used as a reference for the explanation of
automated compliance decisions.
Research center :
Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SnT) > SVV - Software Verification and Validation
Disciplines :
Computer science Law, criminology & political science: Multidisciplinary, general & others
Author, co-author :
CECI, Marcello ; University of Luxembourg > Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SNT) > SVV
BIANCULLI, Domenico ; University of Luxembourg > Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SNT) > SVV
External co-authors :
no
Language :
English
Title :
Beyond the Digital Judge: Legal Reasoning in Compliance Checking and Compliance Choices
Bahl, U., Topaz, C., Obermuller, L., Goldstein, S., Sneirson, M.: Algorithms in judges’ hands: Incarceration and inequity in Broward County, Florida. UCLA L. Rev. Disc. 71 (2023)
Bench-Capon T Before and after dung: argumentation in AI and Law Argument Comput. 2020 11 1–2 221 238 10.3233/AAC-190477
Bench-Capon T Modgil S Norms and value based reasoning: justifying compliance and violation Artif. Intell. Law 2017 25 1 29 64 10.1007/s10506-017-9194-9
van Berkel, K., Straßer, C.: Reasoning with and about norms in logical argumentation. In: Computational Models of Argument, vol. 353. IOS Press (2022)
Berman, D.H., Hafner, C.D.: Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. In: Proceedings of the 4th Int. Conf. in AI and Law, ICAIL 1993. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (1993)
Billi M et al. Argumentation and defeasible reasoning in the law J - Multidisciplinary Sci. J. 2021 4 897 914 10.3390/j4040061
Boella, G., van Der Torre, L.: A game-theoretic approach to normative multi-agent systems. Normative Multi-agent Systems (2007)
Boella G Gabbay DM van der Torre L Villata S Meta-argumentation modelling I: methodology and techniques Stud. Logica. 2009 93 2 297 2574804 10.1007/s11225-009-9213-2
Boella, G., Humphreys, L., Muthuri, R., Rossi, P., van der Torre, L.: A critical analysis of legal requirements engineering from the perspective of legal practice. In: RELAW 2014 (2014)
Bradley R Drechsler M Types of uncertainty Erkenntnis 2014 79 6 1225 1248 3274415 10.1007/s10670-013-9518-4
Breaux, T.D., Antón, A.I., Doyle, J.: Semantic parameterization: a process for modeling domain descriptions. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 18 (2), 5:1–5:27 (2008)
Christian, B.: The alignment problem: how can machines learn human values? Atlantic Books (2021)
Čyras, V., Lachmayer, F.: Situation versus case and two kinds of legal subsumption. In: Abstraction and Application. In: Proceedings of the 16th Int. Legal Informatics Symposium, IRIS (2013)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artifi. Intell. 77(2) (1995)
Esayas S Mahler T Modelling compliance risk: a structured approach Artifi. Intell. Law 2015 23 3 271 300 10.1007/s10506-015-9174-x
Francesconi E Governatori G Patterns for legal compliance checking in a decidable framework of linked open data Artifi. Intell. Law 2022 31 1 20
Galoob, S.R., Hill, A.: Norms, attitudes and compliance. Tulsa Law Rev. 50(2) (2015)
Gervais DJ Nay JJ Artificial intelligence and interspecific law Science 2023 382 6669 376 378 1:CAS:528:DC%2BB3sXit1ekurbP 10.1126/science.adi8678 37883566
Ghanavati, S., Amyot, D., Rifaut, A.: Legal goal-oriented requirement language (legal GRL) for modeling regulations. In:, pp. MiSE 20141–6 (2014)
Governatori G Maher MJ Antoniou G Billington D Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic J. Log. Comput. 2004 14 5 675 702 2093046 10.1093/logcom/14.5.675
Hawkins, K.: Enforcing regulation: working theories of compliance and punishment. In: Proc. of the Conference on the Enforcement of Regulation; Indecopi: Lima, Peru (2016)
Hellmeier S et al. State of the world 2020: autocratization turns viral Democratization 2021 28 6 1053 1074 10.1080/13510347.2021.1922390
Ingolfo, S., Siena, A., Susi, A., Perini, A., Mylopoulos, J.: Modeling laws with nomos 2. In: RELAW 2013, pp. 69–71 (2013)
Kant, I.: The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press (1797)
Kosenkov, O., Unterkalmsteiner, M., Méndez, D., Fucci, D., Gorschek, T., Fischbach, J.: On developing an artifact-based approach to regulatory requirements engineering. In: MoDRE 2024, pp. 262–271 (2024)
Leith P Logic, formal models and legal reasoning Jurimetrics J. 1983 24 334
Longo, L.: Argumentation for knowledge representation, conflict resolution, defeasible inference and its integration with machine learning. ML Health Inform. (2016)
Luger, E., Moran, S., Rodden, T.: Consent for all: revealing the hidden complexity of terms and conditions. In: Proc. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2013, pp. 2687–2696. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2013)
Makinson D Van Der Torre L Constraints for input/output logics J. Philos. Log. 2001 30 155 185 1831037 10.1023/A:1017599526096
de Mattos LA Rocha R de Castro F Human error and violation of rules in industrial safety: a systematic literature review Work 2024 79 3 1237 1253 38820041 11613077
Modgil S Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks Artif. Intell. 2009 173 9–10 901 934 2528946 10.1016/j.artint.2009.02.001
Modgil S Bench-Capon T Integrating object and meta-level value based argumentation COMMA 2008 172 240 251
Modgil S Prakken H A general account of argumentation with preferences Artif. Intell. 2013 195 361 397 3024208 10.1016/j.artint.2012.10.008
Muthuri, R., Capecchi, S., Sulis, E., Amantea, I.A., Boella, G.: Integrating value modeling and legal risk management: an IT case study. Inform. Syst. e-Business Manag., 1–29 (2022)
Nay JJ Law informs code: a legal informatics approach to aligning artificial intelligence with humans Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 2022 20 309
O’Hara I Feedback loops: Algorithmic authority, emergent biases, and implications for information literacy Pennsylvania Libraries: Res. Pract. 2021 9 1 8 15 10.5195/palrap.2021.231
Peeters M Denkers A Huisman W Rule violations by SMEs: the influence of conduct within the industry, company culture and personal motives Eur. J. Criminol. 2020 17 1 50 69 10.1177/1477370819874447
Raz, J. (ed.): Practical Reasoning. Oxford University Press, New York (1978)
Rotolo, A.: Norm compliance of rule-based cognitive agents. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on AI, IJCAI 2011, vol. 3. AAAI Press (2011)
Schwartz SH Roccas S Sagiv L The refined theory of basic values Values and Behavior 2017 Cham Springer 51 72 10.1007/978-3-319-56352-7_3
Searle, J.R.: Rationality in action. MIT press (2003)
Sleimi A Sannier N Sabetzadeh M Briand L Ceci M Dann J An automated framework for the extraction of semantic legal metadata from legal texts Empir. Softw. Eng. 2021 26 3 1 50 10.1007/s10664-020-09933-5
Steinfeld, N.: “I agree to the terms and conditions”: (How) do users read privacy policies online? An eye-tracking experiment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 55, 992–1000 (2016)
Verheij B Formalizing value-guided argumentation for ethical systems design Artif. Intell. Law 2016 24 4 387 407 10.1007/s10506-016-9189-y
