m. grabmair & k. d. ashley towards systematic interpretation of codified law jurix conference...
TRANSCRIPT
M. Grabmair & K. D. AshleyTowards Systematic Interpretation of Codified LawJurix Conference 2005
Towards Modeling Systematic Interpretation of
Codified LawMatthias GrabmairUniversity of Augsburg School of LawGermany
Kevin D. AshleyUniversity of Pittsburgh School of LawIntelligent Systems ProgramUSA
http://www.plainreasoning.com
M. Grabmair & K. D. AshleyTowards Systematic Interpretation of Codified LawJurix Conference 2005
2
Systematic Interpretation ... is one of the four recognized civil law interpretation
methods besides wording, legislative intent and teleology.
... analyzes a norm with respect to its position in the code’s overall structure and interconnected meaning.[Larenz, 1995; Alexy 1978]
... means interpretation of norm interaction. The norm is interpreted in light of the influence of other norms ...
... and in light of the influence the norm has on its surrounding ones ...
... in its Sphere of Influence.
M. Grabmair & K. D. AshleyTowards Systematic Interpretation of Codified LawJurix Conference 2005
3
Legal Sentences Complete Legal Sentences [Larenz, 1995]
... form a regulation by themselves because they mention all their requirements and consequences.
... can directly be translated into an IF-THEN relation.
Incomplete Legal Sentences ... need to be read in conjunction with other legal sentences in order
to construe an autonomous regulation.
... need systematic interpretation in order to be translated into an IF-THEN relation.
M. Grabmair & K. D. AshleyTowards Systematic Interpretation of Codified LawJurix Conference 2005
4
Point of DepartureHow can a piece of written law be translated into a ruleset
and, at the same time, capture the systematic interplay of its legal sentences authentically?
M. Grabmair & K. D. AshleyTowards Systematic Interpretation of Codified LawJurix Conference 2005
5
The Approach in a Nutshell
CodeCode
INRINRIF-THEN relations IF-THEN relations
with Interaction with Interaction Predicates in Predicates in
isomorphic original isomorphic original code structurecode structure
GenerationGeneration
Domain Domain Knowledge Knowledge OntologiesOntologies
RulebaseRulebasePlain final rulesPlain final rules
M. Grabmair & K. D. AshleyTowards Systematic Interpretation of Codified LawJurix Conference 2005
6
INR The Intermediate Norm Representation (INR) mirrors the code in
its original structure in an isomorphic way using IF-THEN relations. [Prakken & Schrickx, 1994]
No exterior information is used in formulating a relation from the original legal sentence.
Hooks for norm interaction and the sphere of influence are neutrally preserved through the use of Interaction Predicates.
M. Grabmair & K. D. AshleyTowards Systematic Interpretation of Codified LawJurix Conference 2005
7
Interaction Predicates ... are used in the INR in the same way as standard binary
predicates.
... symbolize standardized phenomena of norm interaction (e.g. referrals, exceptions, etc.)
... are equipped with encapsulated reasoning algorithms that are defined at the outset as the typical reasoning steps a jurist undertakes when encountering the respective norm interaction.
The algorithms use code structure and domain knowledge ontologies to generate final, unambiguous rulesets and arrange them in a tree. [Gardner, 1987]
Conflicts can be detected [van Engers et. al., 2000] and solved through authentic legal reasoning.
M. Grabmair & K. D. AshleyTowards Systematic Interpretation of Codified LawJurix Conference 2005
8
Example§1 “For c, r1, r2 and r3 need to be fulfilled.”
INR: IF (r1 AND r2 AND r3) THEN cRuleset: IF (r1 AND r2 AND r3) THEN c
§2 “In case of r4, r3 shall suffice.”
INR: IF (r4) THEN suffice(r3)
Reasoning of the suffice-Interaction Predicate: §1 is determined as referenced norm out of the structure. Domain knowledge is used to determine implicit assumptions. Most plausible interpretation(s) spread out a ruleset tree.
Ruleset (e.g.): IF (r1 AND r3 AND r4) THEN c
M. Grabmair & K. D. AshleyTowards Systematic Interpretation of Codified LawJurix Conference 2005
9
Core Concepts
Ruleset Tree
Sphere of Influence
The set of norms a certain norm influences and by which it is influenced.
Each node is a complete ruleset from the same static INR and inherits its mother
node interpretations.
§1
§§1,2
§§1,2,3
M. Grabmair & K. D. AshleyTowards Systematic Interpretation of Codified LawJurix Conference 2005
10
Further Challenges Issues
Strong dependency on the definitions of ontologies and predicates
Risk of oversensitivity, but necessary to capture subtleties
Project Aims Contribute to norm interpretation research in AI&Law
Sharpen contours of legal methodology through experiment results
Correctly visualize a norm’s sphere of influence in the code
State of the Project In the phase of conceptualization
Search for a suitable legal test field for a future experiment
M. Grabmair & K. D. AshleyTowards Systematic Interpretation of Codified LawJurix Conference 2005
11
Thank You!Slides available at:
http://www.plainreasoning.com