There is an increasing need for norms to be embedded in technology as the widespread deployment of applications such as autonomous driving, warfare and big data analysis for crime fighting and counter-terrorism becomes ever closer. Current approaches to norms in multi-agent systems tend either to simply make prohibited actions unavailable, or to provide a set of rules which the agent is obliged to follow, either as part of its design or to avoid sanctions and punishments. In this paper we argue (...) for the position that agents should be equipped with the ability to reason about a system’s norms, by reasoning about the social and moral values that norms are designed to serve; that is, perform the sort of moral reasoning we expect of humans. In particular we highlight the need for such reasoning when circumstances are such that the rules should arguably be broken, so that the reasoning can guide agents in deciding whether to comply with the norms and, if violation is desirable, how best to violate them. One approach to enabling this is to make use of an argumentation scheme based on values and designed for practical reasoning: arguments for and against actions are generated using this scheme and agents choose between actions based on their preferences over these values. Moral reasoning then requires that agents have an acceptable set of values and an acceptable ordering on their values. We first discuss how this approach can be used to think about and justify norms in general, and then discuss how this reasoning can be used to think about when norms should be violated, and the form this violation should take. We illustrate how value based reasoning can be used to decide when and how to violate a norm using a road traffic example. We also briefly consider what makes an ordering on values acceptable, and how such an ordering might be determined. (shrink)

The design and analysis of norms is a somewhat neglected topic in AI and Law, but this is not so in other areas of Computer Science. In recent years powerful techniques to model and analyse norms have been developed in the Multi-Agent Systems community, driven both by the practical need to regulate electronic institutions and open agent systems, and by a theoretical interest in mechanism design and normative systems. Agent based techniques often rely heavily on enforcing norms using the software (...) to prevent violation, but I will also discuss the use of sanctions and rewards, and the conditions under which compliance by autonomous agents (including humans) can be expected or encouraged without sanctions or rewards. In the course of the paper a suggested framework for the exploration of these issues is developed. (shrink)

Diagnosis theory reasons about incomplete knowledge and only considers the past. It distinguishes between violations and non-violations. Qualitative decision theory reasons about decision variables and considers the future. It distinguishes between fulfilled goals and unfulfilled goals. In this paper we formalize normative diagnoses and decisions in the special purpose formalism DIO(DE)2 as well as in extensions of the preference-based deontic logic PDL. The DIagnostic and DEcision-theoretic framework for DEontic reasoning DIO(DE)2 formalizes reasoning about violations and fulfillments, and is used to (...) characterize the distinction between normative diagnosis theory and (qualitative) decision theory. The extension of the preference-based deontic logic PDL shows how normative diagnostic and decision-theoretic reasoning — i.e. reasoning about violations and fulfillments — can be formalized as an extension of deontic reasoning. (shrink)

The paper outlines ongoing research on logic-based tools for the analysis and representation of legal contracts, of the kind frequently encountered in large-scale engineering projects and complex, long-term trading agreements. We consider both contract formation and contract performance, in each case identifying the representational issues and the prospects for providing automated support tools.

The first issue of _Artificial Intelligence and Law_ journal was published in 1992. This paper provides commentaries on landmark papers from the first decade of that journal. The topics discussed include reasoning with cases, argumentation, normative reasoning, dialogue, representing legal knowledge and neural networks.

This paper discusses the semiotic dimension of patent interpretation. Patent documents are at the same time disclosure of information and a granting of rights. The claim section expresses the granted rights. In this paper, we view the claims as signs that express the granted rights. The semantics to interpret the signs is given by the all-elements rule, as pragmatics. The description and drawings sections of the patent document provide metapragmatics in the form of lexicon and syntax to help the understanding (...) the claims as signs that express the granted rights. This semiotic approach for patent interpretation has important practical consequences to the correct structuring of a patent document. We highlight this contribution through an instance of a patent application in which a claim includes examples of use. Examples are not allowed in the claim text, as examples do not describe the invention, but consist of metapragmatics to better understand the invention. In this way, examples consist of metapragmatics and belong to the description section of the patent, which has the goal to facilitate the understanding of claims. In the patent application used to highlight our semiotics approach for patent interpretation, the examples initially presented in the claims were rephrased in the final granted patent, significantly reducing the scope of the claim. (shrink)

The first issue of _Artificial Intelligence and Law_ journal was published in 1992. This special issue marks the 30th anniversary of the journal by reviewing the progress of the field through thirty commentaries on landmark papers and groups of papers from that journal.

Problem setting. New complex challenges of the present, including transformation and complication of heterogeneity and entropy of the Internet space, intensive development of robotics, technologies of artificial intelligence, can not but affect the state and development of the entire legal system of the state and legislation in various spheres of public relations. It is necessary to formulate criteria for a typology of legal problems that can be solved by digital formalization, and which require the use of the potential of "personal (...) knowledge" to which intuition and practical experience are involved, etc. Recent research and publications analysis. The results of studies of these problems make it possible to point out that, as a whole, a systematic scientific understanding of the complex, voluminous and multidimensional problem of clarifying the perspectives and limits of the technological approach in professional legal practice, legal expert activity, influence on the transformation of legal norms, jurisprudence and legal education and the like need further careful study. The rapid development of new technologies, in particular artificial intelligence technologies, the Internet of Things, cloud technologies, etc., is contributing to changes in current legislation. Today, advanced economies are already pondering the question of regulating the status and use of AI technologies. While these are only the first bold steps, in the future, all of these can affect global changes in the legal system - perhaps full-fledged comprehensive institutions of law and institutions of law, even the branches and branches of law. Paper objectiv. The purpose of this article is to consideration of certain aspects of digitization of law and the limits of possible and admissible in the technological approach to legal knowledge on the basis of the results of understanding of this problem by different representatives of the humanities and interdisciplinary researchers. Paper main body. The article substantiates the importance and methodology of the technological approach in law, the limits of the use of this approach. It is shown that since the intensive development of innovative technologies, their widespread adoption in various spheres of public life is a significant factor in the development of modern society, this gradually leads to the formation of a new "digital" reality. It is disclosed that innovative technologies are not only potentially applicable, but have long been effectively used in the legal sphere, due to which, in particular, the correct and quick solution of various tasks is ensured, which contributes to more efficient provision of legal services, ensuring professional legal practice, etc. It is revealed that in the new reality, law becomes not only a means, a tool that provides digitalization of the economy, management and other segments of society, but also the object of digitalization, as a result of which it experiences changes in its form, content, system, structure, mechanism of action and demonstrates tendencies to strengthen these transformations. Conclusions of the research. In the face of new reality, law becomes not only a means, a tool that ensures the digitization of the economy, governance and other segments of social life, but also the object of digitalization, in which it changes its form, content, system, structure, mechanism of action and demonstrates a tendency to enhance these transformations. The following are legally and in fact possible and relevant directions and forms of the use of artificial intelligence technologies in legal practice, in particular in the judiciary: information and documentary support of legal practice, which includes automated intellectual classification of legal documents, formation and documentation of cases, elaboration through the use of artificial intelligence technologies of projects of solutions to various legal problems by means of using and analyzing databases; intellectual expert-analytical support of legal practice by comparison of technologies of artificial intelligence of norms of law, comparison of normative legal acts in order to determine their hierarchy, establishment of norms and acts of higher legal force from among those that are compared; generating and issuing expert assessments within the framework of forensic expertise or specialist opinion, automated systems for supporting legal decisions based on artificial intelligence); facilitating decision-making on large volumes of heterogeneous tasks in difficult uncertainty conditions, based on inaccurate, insufficient or poorly structured information. (shrink)

The first issue of Artificial Intelligence and Law journal was published in 1992. This paper offers some commentaries on papers drawn from the Journal’s third decade. They indicate a major shift within Artificial Intelligence, both generally and in AI and Law: away from symbolic techniques to those based on Machine Learning approaches, especially those based on Natural Language texts rather than feature sets. Eight papers are discussed: two concern the management and use of documents available on the World Wide Web, (...) and six apply machine learning techniques to a variety of legal applications. (shrink)

The first issue of Artificial Intelligence and Law journal was published in 1992. This paper provides commentaries on nine significant papers drawn from the Journal’s second decade. Four of the papers relate to reasoning with legal cases, introducing contextual considerations, predicting outcomes on the basis of natural language descriptions of the cases, comparing different ways of representing cases, and formalising precedential reasoning. One introduces a method of analysing arguments that was to become very widely used in AI and Law, namely (...) argumentation schemes. Two relate to ontologies for the representation of legal concepts and two take advantage of the increasing availability of legal corpora in this decade, to automate document summarisation and for the mining of arguments. (shrink)

Over the course of more than two millennia the philosophical school of Mīmāṃsā has thoroughly analyzed normative statements. In this paper we approach a formalization of the deontic system which is applied but never explicitly discussed in Mīmāṃsā to resolve conflicts between deontic statements by giving preference to the more specific ones. We first extend with prohibitions and recommendations the non-normal deontic logic extracted in Ciabattoni et al. from Mīmāṃsā texts, obtaining a multimodal dyadic version of the deontic logic \. (...) Sequent calculus is then used to close a set of prima-facie injunctions under a restricted form of monotonicity, using specificity to avoid conflicts. We establish decidability and complexity results, and investigate the potential use of the resulting system for Mīmāṃsā philosophy and, more generally, for the formal interpretation of normative statements. (shrink)