Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - JURIX 2017: The Thirtieth Annual Conference

The proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems – JURIX 2017. For three decades, the JURIX conferences have been held under the auspices of the Dutch Foundation for Legal Knowledge Based Systems (www.jurix.nl). In the time, it has become a European conference in terms of the diverse venues throughout Europe and the nationalities of participants

A methodology for designing systems to reason with legal cases using Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

This paper presents a methodology to design and implement programs intended to decide cases, described as sets of factors, according to a theory of a particular domain based on a set of precedent cases relating to that domain. We use Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (ADFs), a recent development in AI knowledge representation, as the central feature of our design method. ADFs will play a role akin to that played by Entity–Relationship models in the design of database systems. First, we explain how the factor hierarchy of the well-known legal reasoning system CATO can be used to instantiate an ADF for the domain of US Trade Secrets. This is intended to demonstrate the suitability of ADFs for expressing the design of legal cased based systems. The method is then applied to two other legal domains often used in the literature of AI and Law. In each domain, the design is provided by the domain analyst expressing the cases in terms of factors organised into an ADF from which an executable program can be implemented in a straightforward way by taking advantage of the closeness of the acceptance conditions of the ADF to components of an executable program. We evaluate the ease of implementation, the performance and efficacy of the resulting program, ease of refinement of the program and the transparency of the reasoning. This evaluation suggests ways in which factor based systems, which are limited by taking as their starting point the representation of cases as sets of factors and so abstracting away the particular facts, can be extended to address open issues in AI and Law by incorporating the case facts to improve the decision, and by considering justification and reasoning using portion of precedents

JURI SAYS:An Automatic Judgement Prediction System for the European Court of Human Rights

In this paper we present the web platform JURI SAYS that automatically predicts decisions of the European Court of Human Rights based on communicated cases, which are published by the court early in the proceedings and are often available many years before the final decision is made. Our system therefore predicts future judgements of the court. The platform is available at jurisays.com and shows the predictions compared to the actual decisions of the court. It is automatically updated every month by including the prediction for the new cases. Additionally, the system highlights the sentences and paragraphs that are most important for the prediction (i.e. violation vs. no violation of human rights)

Trust, Accountability, and Autonomy in Knowledge Graph-Based AI for Self-Determination

Knowledge Graphs (KGs) have emerged as fundamental platforms for powering intelligent decision-making and a wide range of Artificial Intelligence (AI) services across major corporations such as Google, Walmart, and AirBnb. KGs complement Machine Learning (ML) algorithms by providing data context and semantics, thereby enabling further inference and question-answering capabilities. The integration of KGs with neuronal learning (e.g., Large Language Models (LLMs)) is currently a topic of active research, commonly named neuro-symbolic AI. Despite the numerous benefits that can be accomplished with KG-based AI, its growing ubiquity within online services may result in the loss of self-determination for citizens as a fundamental societal issue. The more we rely on these technologies, which are often centralised, the less citizens will be able to determine their own destinies. To counter this threat, AI regulation, such as the European Union (EU) AI Act, is being proposed in certain regions. The regulation sets what technologists need to do, leading to questions concerning How the output of AI systems can be trusted? What is needed to ensure that the data fuelling and the inner workings of these artefacts are transparent? How can AI be made accountable for its decision-making? This paper conceptualises the foundational topics and research pillars to support KG-based AI for self-determination. Drawing upon this conceptual framework, challenges and opportunities for citizen self-determination are illustrated and analysed in a real-world scenario. As a result, we propose a research agenda aimed at accomplishing the recommended objectives

Representation Of Case Law For Argumentative Reasoning

Modelling argumentation based on legal cases has been a central topic of AI and Law since its very beginnings. The current established view is that facts must be determined on the basis of evidence. Next, these facts must be used to ascribe legally significant predicates (factors and issues) to the case, on the basis of which the outcome can be established. This thesis aims to provide a method to encapsulate the knowledge of bodies of case law from various legal domains using a recent development in AI knowledge representation, Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (ADFs), as the central feature of the design method. Three legal domains in the US Courts are used throughout the thesis: The domain of the Automobile Exception to the Fourth Amendment, which has been freshly analysed in terms of factors in this thesis; the US Trade Secrets domain analysed from well-known legal case-based reasoning systems (CATO and IBP); and the Wild Animals domain analysed extensively in AI and Law. In this work, ADFs play a role akin to that of Entity-Relationship models in the design of database systems to design and implement programs intended to decide cases, described as sets of factors, according to a theory of a particular domain based on a set of precedent cases relating to that domain. The ADFs in this thesis are instantiated from different starting points: factor-based representation of oral dialogues and factor-based analysis of legal opinions. A legal dialogue representation model is defined for the US Supreme Court Oral Hearing dialogues. The role of these hearings is to identify the components that can form the basis of an argument that will resolve the case. Dialogue moves used by participants have been identified as the dialogue proceeds to assert and modify argument components in term of issues, factors and facts, and to produce what are called Argument Component Trees (ACTs) for each participant in the dialogue, showing how these components relate to one another. The resulting trees can be then merged and used as input to decide the accepted components using an ADF. The model is illustrated using two landmark case studies in the Automobile Exception domain: Carney v. California and US v. Chadwick. A legal justification model is defined to capture knowledge in a legal domain and to provide justification and transparency of legal decisions. First, a legal domain ADF is instantiated from the factor hierarchy of CATO and IBP, then the method is applied to the other two legal domains. In each domain, the cases are expressed in terms of factors organised into an ADF, from which an executable program can be implemented in a straightforward way by taking advantage of the closeness of the acceptance conditions of the ADF to components of an executable program. The proposed method is evaluated to test the ease of implementation, the efficacy of the resulting program, the ease of refinement, transparency of the reasoning and transferability across legal domains. This evaluation suggests ways of improving the decision by incorporating the case facts, and considering justification and reasoning using portions of precedents. The final result is ANGELIC (ADF for kNowledGe Encapsulation of Legal Information from Cases), a method for producing programs that decide the cases with a high degree of accuracy in multiple domains

Online Handbook of Argumentation for AI: Volume 4

This volume contains revised versions of the papers selected for the fourth volume of the Online Handbook of Argumentation for AI (OHAAI). Previously, formal theories of argument and argument interaction have been proposed and studied, and this has led to the more recent study of computational models of argument. Argumentation, as a field within artificial intelligence (AI), is highly relevant for researchers interested in symbolic representations of knowledge and defeasible reasoning. The purpose of this handbook is to provide an open access and curated anthology for the argumentation research community. OHAAI is designed to serve as a research hub to keep track of the latest and upcoming PhD-driven research on the theory and application of argumentation in all areas related to AI

Revenue department versus board of investment: the challenges of the tax incentive system and FDI promotion in Thailand

This thesis was submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and awarded by Brunel University.This thesis examines the use of tax incentives to promote foreign direct investment (FDI) in Thailand and the issues arising out of the way in which the Thai revenue system has chosen to implement these incentives. Thailand experiences sporadic political unrest, and has been affected by regional and global economic crises. Since FDI appears to increase economic growth and help the host country to achieve sustainable development, the Thai government has a clear policy to encourage FDI. Tax incentives have become a significant weapon in the Thai government’s arsenal for encouraging this aim. This thesis presents a detailed analysis of the tax incentives and the mechanisms used for their implantation. Analysis reveals that, unfortunately, the Thai government has also chosen to deliver the administration of tax incentives in to the hands of two separate bodies ─ the Revenue Department and the Board of Investment (BOI). This strategy is problematic because it creates unnecessary difficulties and uncertainty in the administration of incentives and promotes confusion among foreign investors. The jurisdictional problems inherent in the system of the dual allocation of tax incentive powers are highlighted in the landmark Minebea case, which involved conflicting interpretations by the Revenue Department and the BOI. In addressing these jurisdictional problems, this thesis examines norm conflict resolution principles in general and the lex specialis in particular, and argues that the Investment Promotion Act of 2001 (IPA 2001), being a special law, and so overrides the more general provisions of the Revenue Code. Two solutions are suggested in order to tackle the current problem: 1) to amend the IPA 2001 to specify methods of tax calculation and clearly define problematic terms and 2) to incorporate the tax incentive provisions provided for BOI-promoted companies into the Revenue Code. This is based on the premise that all tax matters, including tax incentives provisions, should be administered only by the revenue authority, i.e. the Revenue Department.University of the Thai Chamber of Commerc