Using Toulmin Argumentation to develop an Online Dispute Resolution Environment

Our goal is to model reasoning in discretionary legal domains. To do so, we use Knowledge Discovery from Database Techniques. However there are obstacles to this approach, including difficulties in generating explanations once conclusions have been inferred, difficulties associated with the collection of sufficient data from past cases and difficulties associated with integrating two vastly different paradigms. Toulmin’s treatise on the uses of argument can be gainfully employed to construct legal decision support systems in discretionary domains. We show how we can use Toulmin’s approach to build such systems with examples taken from the domains of eligibility for legal aid, evaluation of eyewitness evidence, family law, refugee law and sentencing. We then show how Toulmin Argument Structures can be developed to construct an Online Dispute Resolution environment that allows for determining BATNAs, exchanging opinions and providing advice about tradeoffs

Learning Strategies in Coopetitive Environments

The objective of this chapter is to explore the learning strategies that can be deployed by firms in coopetitive configurations with no other choice than deploying an “adverse learning” mechanism to reach their customers through cooperation with their competitors. After exploring the mechanisms of asymmetric learning in a first section, the chapter adopts an ecological perspective (Hawley, 1950) in drawing parallels between animal organization and groups of firms in gaining a strategic advantage through asymmetric learning.coopetition; Learning Behavior; Learning Strategy.

Knowledge Discovery for Decision Support in Law

The Split Up project applies knowledge discovery techniques (KDD) to legal domains. Theories of jurisprudence underpin a classification scheme that is used to identify tasks suited to KDD. Theoretical perspectives also guide the selection of cases appropriate for a KDD exercise. Further, jurisprudence underpins strategies for dealing with contradictory data. Argumentation theory is instrumental for representing domain expertise so that the KDD process can be constrained. Specifically, a variant of the argumentation structure proposed by Toulmin is used to decompose tasks into independent sub-tasks in the data transformation phase. This enables a complex KDD exercise to be decomposed into numerous simpler exercises that each require less data and have fewer instances of missing values. The use of the structure also facilitates the development of information systems that integrate multiple reasoning mechanisms such as first order logic, neural networks or fuzzy inferences and provides a convenient structure for the generation of explanations. The viability of this approach was tested with the development of a system that predicts property split outcomes in cases litigated in the Family Court of Australia. The system has been evaluated using a mix of strategies that derive from a framework proposed by Reich

Managing negotiation knowledge with the goal of developing negotiation decision support systems

While Information Technology has been used to support negotiation there is little research in the domain of knowledge management in legal negotiation. In this paper we discuss the nature of negotiation knowledge and how such knowledge can be utilized to construct negotiation decision support systems. We conduct an in-depth examination of the notion of a BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) and given a useful BATNA, how we can use issue and preference elicitation and compensation and trade-off strategies to provide negotiation decision support. We conclude by indicating how current negotiation support systems can be extended to support Online Dispute Resolution and haw we can extend the Family_Winner system in light of the need to more adequately manage negotiation knowledge.<br /

Must Realists Be Pessimists About Democracy? Responding to Epistemic and Oligarchic Challenges

In this paper we show how a realistic normative democratic theory can work within the constraints set by the most pessimistic empirical results about voting behaviour and elite capture of the policy process. After setting out the empirical evidence and discussing some extant responses by political theorists, we argue that the evidence produces a two-pronged challenge for democracy: an epistemic challenge concerning the quality and focus of decision-making and an oligarchic challenge concerning power concentration. To address the challenges we then put forward three main normative claims, each of which is compatible with the evidence. We start with a critique of the epistocratic position commonly thought to be supported by the evidence. We then introduce a qualified critique of referenda and other forms of plebiscite, and an outline of a tribune-based system of popular control over oligarchic influence on the policy process. Our discussion points towards a renewal of democracy in a plebeian but not plebiscitarian direction: Attention to the relative power of social classes matters more than formal dispersal of power through voting. We close with some methodological reflections about the compatibility between our normative claims and the realist program in political philosophy

The legal framework for groundwater allocation in Quebec: towards integrated water management

This paper aims at providing a model of the legal framework for groundwater allocation in the province of Quebec (Canada), identifying its potential deficiencies and suggesting possible improvements. In Quebec, groundwater is a res communis. The right to use it is tied to real estate property. This right forms the basis of the legal framework for the management of groundwater quantity. However, according to statutory law, the actual use of groundwater also depends on governmental authorisations that limit quantities used. The main statutory instrument for managing the resource is the Groundwater Catchment Regulation (GWCR), which aims at conflict prevention between first users and new users by means of governmental authorisations. In agricultural areas, an additional authorisation regime indirectly prioritises agricultural groundwater uses. Finally, legal mechanisms addressing conflicts between water users rely on the general litigation framework provided by Quebec law without establishing an order of priority for the different uses of the resource. According to Integrated Water Resources Management, four aspects of the legal framework for groundwater quantity management can be modified to increase the efficiency of the allocation regime: 1) provisions should be made to preserve a residual environmental flow; 2) an order of priority should be established between the different uses to minimise conflict; 3) the scope of the regime should be extended to all groundwater users to increase its efficiency; 4) stakeholders should participate in the management of the resource

Creating Growth by Connecting PlaceBased Development Strategies

In the past years, the European Commission launched three thematic Smart Specialisation platforms to support interregional collaborations and to support European Union regions committed to co-invest jointly in strategic growth areas. The bottom up component in this process has resulted in a wide variety of industry-scientific partnerships at regional and transnational levels. These networks include regions, which are very different in terms of innovation ecosystems, but nevertheless connected through shared thematic focus enabling transnational processes of innovation. This paper explains how interregional partnerships build on the efforts and results achieved in national and regional research and innovation strategies for Smart Specialisation and how, as a result of this, new European innovation ecosystems are emerging. With reference to existing literature and experiences so far, the paper outlines a conceptual framework of how transnational cooperation may strengthen regional place-based development strategies and improve regional innovation capabilities. Key analytical concepts are proximity, knowledge complexity, entrepreneurial discovery processes, stakeholder analysis and cluster emergence.© European Union, 2020. The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.JRC Technical report JRC12224

Intrapreneurship; Conceptualizing entrepreneurial employee behaviour

This paper discusses the similarities and differences between intrapreneurship and independent entrepreneurship. Most but not all of the activities and behavioural aspects of the latter are also typical of the former phenomenon. Key differential elements of independent entrepreneurship are the investment of personal financial means and the related financial risk taking, a higher degree of autonomy, and legal and fiscal aspects of establishing a new independent business. Based on this discussion an integral conceptual model of intrapreneurial behaviour is presented. The paper closes with conclusions.

Negotiating About Charges and Pleas: Balancing Interests and Justice

There is a worldwide movement towards alternatives to judicial decision-making for legal disputes. In the domain of criminal sentencing, in Western countries more than 95 % of cases are guilty pleas, with many being decided by negotiations over charges and pleas, rather than a decision being made after a judge or jury has heard all relevant evidence in a trial. Because decisions are being made, and people incarcerated on the basis of negotiations, it is important that such negotiations be just and fair. In this paper we discuss issues of fairness in plea-bargaining and how we can develop systems to support the process of plea and charge negotiation. We discuss how we are using Toulmin’s theory of argumentation and Lodder and Zeleznikow’s model of online dispute resolution to develop just plea bargaining systems. A specific investigation of the process of charge mentions is discussed