The Dual Aspects of Legal Reasoning in the Era of Artificial Intelligence - Defeasible Reasoning and Argumentation Scheme
- Authors: Li Z.1, Lei F.1, Ermakov D.N.2, Symaniuk N.V.3, Poletaev I.V.2, Aziz N.M.2, Obaid A.2, Ivanov P.I.2
-
Affiliations:
- Shanghai University of Political Science and Law
- RUDN University
- Ural Federal University
- Issue: Vol 25, No 2 (2024)
- Pages: 173-185
- Section: Articles
- URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/2312-8143/article/view/327567
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-8143-2024-25-2-173-185
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/TOKJKL
- ID: 327567
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
The age of artificial intelligence emphasises the possibility of justification and the dialectical aspects of legal reasoning. The need for validity in legal reasoning mainly stems from the existence of exceptions to rules and conflicts between rules. Formal logic may well account for exceptions to rules and thus characterise cancellable reasoning. The presented article focuses on legal issues related to Artificial Intelligence (AI) that are being discussed in the scientific community because of their importance for understanding the mechanisms of law realisation. Some of the most pressing issues in the application of artificial intelligence include: transparency of algorithms, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, unfairness, bias and discrimination, lack of adversariality, legal personality issues, intellectual property issues, adverse effects on employees, privacy and data protection issues, liability for damages and lack of liability. Recognising the importance of artificial intelligence in the field of law, and acknowledging that the field requires constant reassessment and flexibility, this article develops a discussion that is important given the seriousness of the impact of artificial intelligence technologies on legal actors. on legal issues related to Artificial Intelligence (AI) that are being discussed in the scientific community because of their importance for understanding the mechanisms of law realisation. Some of the most pressing issues in the application of artificial intelligence include: transparency of algorithms, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, unfairness, bias and discrimination, lack of adversariality, legal personality issues, intellectual property issues, adverse effects on employees, privacy and data protection issues, liability for damages and lack of liability. Recognising the importance of artificial intelligence in the field of law, and acknowledging that the field requires constant reassessment and flexibility, this article develops a discussion that is important given the seriousness of the impact of artificial intelligence technologies on legal actors.
About the authors
Ze Li
Shanghai University of Political Science and Law
Email: strawberry7576@hotmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0815-8537
Doctor of Law, Associate Professor of the School of Law
Shanghai, ChinaFeiping Lei
Shanghai University of Political Science and Law
Email: leifeiping1997@163.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0005-3934-0605
PhD student
Shanghai, ChinaDmitry N. Ermakov
RUDN University
Author for correspondence.
Email: ermakov-dn@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0811-0058
SPIN-code: 6835-3155
Doctor of Economics, Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor of the Department of Innovation Management in Industries, Engineering Academy
Moscow, RussiaNina V. Symaniuk
Ural Federal University
Email: n.v.symaniuk@urfu.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8446-857X
SPIN-code: 6130-5695
Associate Professor, Department of Public Law, Graduate School of Economics and Management
Ekaterinburg, RussiaIlya V. Poletaev
RUDN University
Email: 1142220172@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3767-6659
SPIN-code: 1110-4456
PhD student of the Department of Innovation Management and Foreign Economic Activity in Industry, Graduate School of Industrial Policy and Entrepreneurship
Moscow, RussiaNaofal M.H. Aziz
RUDN University
Email: 1042208064@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0004-5014-6195
PhD student of the Department of Innovation Management in Industries of the Engineering Academy
Moscow, RussiaAhmed Obaid
RUDN University
Email: 1042218171@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0001-1556-6985
PhD student of the Department of Innovation Management in Industries of the Engineering Academy
Moscow, RussiaPavel I. Ivanov
RUDN University
Email: 1142220389@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0002-5456-6934
PhD student of the Department of Innovation Management in Industries of the Engineering Academy
Moscow, RussiaReferences
- Buchanan BG, Headrick TE. Some Speculation about Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning. Stanford Law Review; 1970.
- Lodder AR. Dialaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publ.; 1999.
- Reiter R. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence. 1980;13(1-2):81-132.
- Prakken H, Sartor G. Modeling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game. Artificial Intelligence and Law. 1998;6(2). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:10082783 09945
- Gardner A. von der L. An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. MIT Press; 1987. Available from: https://archive.org/details/artificialintell00vond (accessed: 14.09.2023).
- Taruffo M. Judicial Decisions and Artificial Intelligence. Artificial Intelligence and Law. 2004;6:311-324 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008230426783
- Hage J. Studies in legal logic. Springer; 2005.
- Pollock JL. Knowledge and Justification. Princeton University Press; 1972.
- Pollock JL. Knowledge and Justification. Princeton University Press; 1974.
- Alchourron С, Gardenfors P, Makinsn D. On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic. 1985;50(2): 510-530. https://doi.org/10.2307/2274239
- Alexy R. Book Review of Logical Tools for Modelling legal Argument. Argumentation. 2000;14:66-72.
- Sartor G. Defeasibility in Legal Reasoning. In: Bankowski Z, White I, Hahn U (eds.) Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning. Law and Philosophy Library, (vol. 21). Dordrecht: Springer. 1995. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8531-6_4
- Swet AS. The judicial construction of Europe. Oxford University Press; 2004.
- De Mat E, Winkels R, Van Engers T. Automated detection of reference structures in law. IOS Press; 2006.
- Katzav J, Reed C. A Classification System for Arguments. University of Dundee, Scotland UK, 2010.
- Prakken H, AI & Law. Logic and Argument Schemes. Argumentation. 2005;19:303-320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-4418-7
- Sartor G. Legal Reasoning: A Cognitive Approach to the Law. Heidelberg: Springer; 2005.
- Walton D, Sartor G. Teleological Justification of Argumentation Schemes. Argumentation. 2003;27:111-142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-012-9262-y
- Pinto RC. Evaluating Inferences: The Nature and Role of Warrants. Arguing on the Toulmin Model. Hitchcock D., Verheij B. (eds.) Dordrech: Springer Publ.; 2006;10:115-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4938-5_9
- Garcia A.J., Simari G.R. Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory and practice of logic programming. 2004. p. 95-136.
- Sovrano F, Sapienza S, Palmirani M, Vitali F. Metrics, Explainability and the European AI Act Proposal. J - Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal. 2022;5(1):126-138. https://doi.org/10.3390/j5010010
- Pagallo U, Durante M. The Good, the Bad, and the Invisible with Its Opportunity Costs: Introduction to the ‘J’ Special Issue on “the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Law”. J - Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal. 2022;5(1):139-149. https://doi.org/10.3390/j5010011
- Casanovas P, de Koker L, Hashmi M. Law, SocioLegal Governance, the Internet of Things, and Industry 4.0: A Middle-Out/Inside-Out Approach. J - Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal. 2022;5(1):64-91. https://doi.org/10.3390/j5010005
- Bentzen B, Liao B, Liga D, Markovich R, Wei B, Xiong M, Xu T (eds.) Logics for AI and Law. Joint Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Logics for New-Generation Artifi cial Intelligence and the International Workshop on Logic, AI and Law. September 8-9 and 11-12, 2023. Hangzhou: College Publications Publ.; 2023.
Supplementary files
