Legal analogical reasoning - the interplay between legal theory and artificial intelligence

This thesis examines and critiques attempts by researchers in the field of artificial intelligence and law to simulate legal analogical reasoning. Supported by an analysis of legal theoretical accounts of legal analogising, and an examination of approaches to simulating analogising developed in the field of artificial intelligence, it is argued that simulations of legal analogising fall far short of simulating all the is involved in human analogising. These examinations of legal theory and artificial intelligence inform a detailed critique of simulations of legal analogising. It is argued that simulations of legal analogising are limited in the kind of legal analogising they can simulate - these simulations cannot simulate the semantic flexibility that is characteristic of creative analogising. This thesis argues that one reason for current restrictions on simulations of legal analogising is that researchers in artificial intelligence and law have ignored the important role played by legal principles in legal analogising. It is argued that improvements in simulations of legal analogising will come from incorporating the influence of legal principles on legal analogising and that until researchers address this semantic flexibility and the role that legal principles play in generating it, simulations of legal analogising will be restricted and of benefit only for limited uses and in restricted areas of the law. Building on the analysis of legal theoretical accounts of legal reasoning and the examination of the processes of analogising, this thesis further argues that legal theoretical accounts of legal analogising are insufficient to account for legal analogising. This thesis argues that legal theorists have themselves ignored important aspects of legal analogising and hence that legal theoretical accounts of legal analogising are deficient. This thesis offers suggestions as to some of the modifications required in legal theory in order to better account for the processes of legal analogising

Provocateurs for Justice

Clinical legal education offers unique opportunities to inspire law students to commit to justice. Merely providing a justice experience is not enough. We must provoke a desire to do justice in our students. As provocateurs, we determine where our students are in the developmental process toward justice readiness. This article outlines those developmental stages and suggests interventions to assist students in their transition from stage to stage. Being justice ready requires sensitivity to the ways in which assumptions color all aspects of our cases. The article closes with suggestions and examples of how to critically reflect on assumptions that hinder social justice

Pictures of lesbian and gay parenthood in Italian sociology. A critical analysis of 30 years of research

The article analyses sociological research on lesbian and gay parenthood conducted in Italy over the past 30 years. By focusing on the typologies of the homosexual households of the participants in research projects, this work discusses how empirical academic and non-academic research has depicted same-sex families with children in the Italian context. An initial mainstream inattention towards lesbian and gay parents by sociological research at the beginning of the Nineties gave way to a particular interest in that experience, focusing on the newest form of homosexual parenthood defined as same-sex couples who are able to access assisted fertilisation technology and surrogacy. The new pattern can be said to have overshadowed the experience of homosexual parents whose children were conceived within heterosexual relationships. This simplification concerns to th

Regleprudence – at OIRA and Beyond

There are significant domains of legality within the administrative state that are mostly immune from judicial review and have mostly escaped the attention of legal theorists. While administrative law generally focuses on the products of agency action as they are reviewed by the judiciary, there are important aspects of regulatory activity that are legal or law-like but rarely interrogated by systematic analysis with reference to accounts about the role and nature of law. In this Article, we introduce a category of analysis we call regleprudence, a sibling of jurisprudence and legisprudence. Once we explore some regleprudential norms, we delve into one case study – the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and the legal work it undertakes through regulatory review – and gesture at how more general attention to regleprudence can improve our understanding of important corners of the Executive Branch

Regleprudence – at OIRA and Beyond

There are significant domains of legality within the administrative state that are mostly immune from judicial review and have mostly escaped the attention of legal theorists. While administrative law generally focuses on the products of agency action as they are reviewed by the judiciary, there are important aspects of regulatory activity that are legal or law-like but rarely interrogated by systematic analysis with reference to accounts about the role and nature of law. In this Article, we introduce a category of analysis we call regleprudence, a sibling of jurisprudence and legisprudence. Once we explore some regleprudential norms, we delve into one case study – the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and the legal work it undertakes through regulatory review – and gesture at how more general attention to regleprudence can improve our understanding of important corners of the Executive Branch