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 /

Decision support in interest based negotiation support systems: the AssetDivider system

Negotiation Support Systems (NSS) model the process of negotiation from basic template support to more sophisticated decision making support. The authors attempt to develop systems capable of decision support by suggesting possible solutions for the given dispute. Current Negotiation Support Systems primarily rely upon mathematical optimisation techniques and often ignore heuristics and other methods derived from practice. This chapter discusses the technology of several negotiation support systems in family law developed in their laboratory based on data collected and methods derived from practise. The chapter explores similarities and differences between systems the authors have created and demonstrates their latest development, AssetDivider.<br /

Using BATNAs and WATNAs in online dispute resolution

When contracting through software agents, disputes will inevitably arise. Thus there is an urgent need to find alternatives to litigation for resolving conflicts. Methods of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) need to be considered to resolve such disputes. Having agents understanding what the dispute is about, managing all interaction between the parties and even formulating proposed solutions is an important innovation. Hence it is of the utmost relevance that the agents may be able to recognise and evaluate the facts, the position of the parties and understand all the relevant data. In many circumstances, risk management and avoidance will be a crucial point to be considered. In this sense we analyze the usefulness of a parallel concept to BATNA – Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement, that of a WATNA – Worst Alternative to Negotiated Agreement, allowing the software agents to consider the space between BATNA and WATNA as a useful element to be taken into account when making or accepting a proposal. These software agents embodied with intelligent techniques are integrated in an architecture designed to provide support to the ODR in a system we have developed for the resolution of labour disputes - UMCourt. In this context software agents are used to compute and provide the parties with the best and worst alternative to a negotiated agreement.TIARAC - Telematics and Artificial Intelligence in Alternative Conflict Resolution Project (PTDC/JUR/71354/2006)Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT

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

Incorporating Fairness into Development of an Integrated Multi-agent Online Dispute Resolution Environment

The paper describes the development of an integrated multi-agent online dispute resolution environment called IMODRE that was designed to assist parties involved in Australian family law disputes achieve legally fairer negotiated outcomes. The system extends our previouswork in developing negotiation support systems Family_ Winner and AssetDivider. In this environment one agent uses a Bayesian Belief Network expertly modeled with knowledge of the Australian Family Law domain to advise disputants of their Best Alternatives to Negotiated Agreements. Another agent incorporates the percentage split of marital property into an integrative bargaining process and applies heuristics and game theory to equitably distribute marital property assets and facilitate further trade-offs. We use this system to add greater fairness to Family property law negotiations

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

A co-original approach towards law-making in the internet age

There is an increasing interest in incorporating significant citizen participation into the law-making process by developing the use of the internet in the public sphere. However, no well-accepted e-participation model has prevailed. This article points out that, to be successful, we need critical reflection of legal theory and we also need further institutional construction based on the theoretical reflection. Contemporary dominant legal theories demonstrate too strong an internal legal point of view to empower the informal, social normative development on the internet. Regardless of whether we see the law as a body of rules or principles, the social aspect is always part of people’s background and attracts little attention. In this article, it is advocated that the procedural legal paradigm advanced by Jürgen Habermas represents an important breakthrough in this regard. Further, Habermas’s co-originality thesis reveals a neglected internal relationship between public autonomy and private autonomy. I believe the co-originality theory provides the essential basis on which a connecting infrastructure between the legal and the social could be developed. In terms of the development of the internet to include the public sphere, co-originality can also help us direct the emphasis on the formation of public opinion away from the national legislative level towards the local level; that is, the network of governance.1 This article is divided into two sections. The focus of Part One is to reconstruct the co-originality thesis (section 2, 3). This paper uses the application of discourse in the adjudication theory of Habermas as an example. It argues that Habermas would be more coherent, in terms of his insistence on real communication in his discourse theory, if he allowed his judges to initiate improved interaction with the society. This change is essential if the internal connection between public autonomy and private autonomy in the sense of court adjudication is to be truly enabled. In order to demonstrate such improved co-original relationships, the empowering character of the state-made law is instrumental in initiating the mobilization of legal intermediaries, both individual and institutional. A mutually enhanced relationship is thus formed; between the formal, official organization and its governance counterpart aided by its associated ‘local’ public sphere. Referring to Susan Sturm, the Harris v Forklift Systems Inc. (1930) decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the field of sexual harassment is used as an example. Using only one institutional example to illustrate how the co-originality thesis can be improved is not sufficient to rebuild the thesis but this is as much as can be achieved in this article. In Part Two, the paper examines, still at the institutional level, how Sturm develops an overlooked sense of impartiality, especially in the derivation of social norms; i.e. multi-partiality instead of neutral detachment (section 4). These two ideas should be combined as the criterion for impartiality to evaluate the legitimacy of the joint decision-making processes of both the formal official organization and ‘local’ public sphere. Sturm’s emphasis on the deployment of intermediaries, both institutional and individual, can also enlighten the discourse theory. Intermediaries are essential for connecting the disassociated social networks, especially when a breakdown of communication occurs due to a lack of data, information, knowledge, or disparity of value orientation, all of which can affect social networks. If intermediaries are used, further communication will not be blocked as a result of the lack of critical data, information, knowledge or misunderstandings due to disparity of value orientation or other causes. The institutional impact of the newly constructed co-originality thesis is also discussed in Part Two. Landwehr’s work on institutional design and assessment for deliberative interaction is first discussed. This article concludes with an indication of how the ‘local’ public sphere, through e-rulemaking or online dispute resolution, for example, can be constructed in light of the discussion of this article

AssetDivider : a new mediation tool in Australian family law

This article describes research in a new theory of decision support in negotiation in family law mediation. AssetDivider was based on the principles of Family_Winner. As a Negotiation Decision Support System Family_Winner takes ratings assigned to items by the parties involved and develops a list of allocations to each party; based on trade-offs inherently present in the dispute. Given advice provided from our industry partners Relationships Australia (Queensland) - RAQ, AssetDivider uses an ideal &ldquo;percentage split&rdquo; to guide the development of an allocation list for parties. The system has been tested informally by our contacts at RAQ, and we now look forward to extensive testing and evaluation by mediators at RAQ in the near future. We hope to report on a comprehensive evaluation which will report on the effectiveness of this program in practice.<br /