Towards a simple mathematical model for the legal concept of balancing of interests

IF 3.1 2区 社会学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Frederike Zufall, Rampei Kimura, Linyu Peng
{"title":"Towards a simple mathematical model for the legal concept of balancing of interests","authors":"Frederike Zufall,&nbsp;Rampei Kimura,&nbsp;Linyu Peng","doi":"10.1007/s10506-022-09338-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We propose simple nonlinear mathematical models for the legal concept of balancing of interests. Our aim is to bridge the gap between an abstract formalisation of a balancing decision while assuring consistency and ultimately legal certainty across cases. We focus on the conflict between the rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data in Art. 7 and Art. 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EUCh) against the right of access to information derived from Art. 11 EUCh. These competing rights are denoted by (<span>\\(i_1\\)</span>) <i>right to privacy </i> and (<span>\\(i_2\\)</span>) <i>access to information</i>; mathematically, their indices are respectively assigned by <span>\\(u_1\\in [0,1]\\)</span> and <span>\\(u_2\\in [0,1]\\)</span> subject to the constraint <span>\\(u_1+u_2=1\\)</span>. This constraint allows us to use one single index <i>u</i> to resolve the conflict through balancing. The outcome will be concluded by comparing the index <i>u</i> with a prior given threshold <span>\\(u_0\\)</span>. For simplicity, we assume that the balancing depends on only selected legal criteria such as the social status of affected person, and the sphere from which the information originated, which are represented as inputs of the models, called legal parameters. Additionally, we take “time” into consideration as a legal criterion, building on the European Court of Justice’s ruling on the right to be forgotten: by considering time as a legal parameter, we model how the outcome of the balancing changes over the passage of time. To catch the dependence of the outcome <i>u</i> by these criteria as legal parameters, data were created by a fully-qualified lawyer. By comparison to other approaches based on machine learning, especially neural networks, this approach requires significantly less data. This might come at the price of higher abstraction and simplification, but also provides for higher transparency and explainability. Two mathematical models for <i>u</i>, a time-independent model and a time-dependent model, are proposed, that are fitted by using the data.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51336,"journal":{"name":"Artificial Intelligence and Law","volume":"31 4","pages":"807 - 827"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10506-022-09338-3.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Artificial Intelligence and Law","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10506-022-09338-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We propose simple nonlinear mathematical models for the legal concept of balancing of interests. Our aim is to bridge the gap between an abstract formalisation of a balancing decision while assuring consistency and ultimately legal certainty across cases. We focus on the conflict between the rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data in Art. 7 and Art. 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EUCh) against the right of access to information derived from Art. 11 EUCh. These competing rights are denoted by (\(i_1\)) right to privacy and (\(i_2\)) access to information; mathematically, their indices are respectively assigned by \(u_1\in [0,1]\) and \(u_2\in [0,1]\) subject to the constraint \(u_1+u_2=1\). This constraint allows us to use one single index u to resolve the conflict through balancing. The outcome will be concluded by comparing the index u with a prior given threshold \(u_0\). For simplicity, we assume that the balancing depends on only selected legal criteria such as the social status of affected person, and the sphere from which the information originated, which are represented as inputs of the models, called legal parameters. Additionally, we take “time” into consideration as a legal criterion, building on the European Court of Justice’s ruling on the right to be forgotten: by considering time as a legal parameter, we model how the outcome of the balancing changes over the passage of time. To catch the dependence of the outcome u by these criteria as legal parameters, data were created by a fully-qualified lawyer. By comparison to other approaches based on machine learning, especially neural networks, this approach requires significantly less data. This might come at the price of higher abstraction and simplification, but also provides for higher transparency and explainability. Two mathematical models for u, a time-independent model and a time-dependent model, are proposed, that are fitted by using the data.

为利益平衡的法律概念建立一个简单的数学模型。
我们为利益平衡的法律概念提出了简单的非线性数学模型。我们的目标是弥合平衡决定的抽象形式化之间的差距,同时确保案件的一致性和最终的法律确定性。我们关注《欧盟基本权利宪章》(EUCh)第7条和第8条中隐私权和个人数据保护权与访问源自第11条的信息权之间的冲突。这些相互竞争的权利表示为(i1)隐私权和(i2)信息访问权;在数学上,它们的索引分别由u1∈[0,1]和u2∈[0.1]指派,受约束u1+u2=1。这种约束允许我们使用一个单独的索引u来通过平衡来解决冲突。将通过将指数u与先前给定的阈值u0进行比较来得出结果。为了简单起见,我们假设平衡只取决于选定的法律标准,如受影响人的社会地位和信息来源的领域,这些标准被表示为模型的输入,称为法律参数。此外,我们以欧洲法院关于被遗忘权的裁决为基础,将“时间”视为一项法律标准:通过将时间视为一个法律参数,我们对平衡的结果如何随着时间的推移而变化进行了建模。为了了解这些标准对结果u的依赖性作为法律参数,数据由一位完全合格的律师创建。与其他基于机器学习的方法,特别是神经网络相比,这种方法需要的数据要少得多。这可能以更高的抽象和简化为代价,但也提供了更高的透明度和可解释性。提出了u的两个数学模型,一个是时间无关模型,另一个是随时间变化模型,并利用数据进行了拟合。补充信息:在线版本包含补充材料,网址为10.1007/s10506-022-09338-3。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
26.80%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Artificial Intelligence and Law is an international forum for the dissemination of original interdisciplinary research in the following areas: Theoretical or empirical studies in artificial intelligence (AI), cognitive psychology, jurisprudence, linguistics, or philosophy which address the development of formal or computational models of legal knowledge, reasoning, and decision making. In-depth studies of innovative artificial intelligence systems that are being used in the legal domain. Studies which address the legal, ethical and social implications of the field of Artificial Intelligence and Law. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to, the following: Computational models of legal reasoning and decision making; judgmental reasoning, adversarial reasoning, case-based reasoning, deontic reasoning, and normative reasoning. Formal representation of legal knowledge: deontic notions, normative modalities, rights, factors, values, rules. Jurisprudential theories of legal reasoning. Specialized logics for law. Psychological and linguistic studies concerning legal reasoning. Legal expert systems; statutory systems, legal practice systems, predictive systems, and normative systems. AI and law support for legislative drafting, judicial decision-making, and public administration. Intelligent processing of legal documents; conceptual retrieval of cases and statutes, automatic text understanding, intelligent document assembly systems, hypertext, and semantic markup of legal documents. Intelligent processing of legal information on the World Wide Web, legal ontologies, automated intelligent legal agents, electronic legal institutions, computational models of legal texts. Ramifications for AI and Law in e-Commerce, automatic contracting and negotiation, digital rights management, and automated dispute resolution. Ramifications for AI and Law in e-governance, e-government, e-Democracy, and knowledge-based systems supporting public services, public dialogue and mediation. Intelligent computer-assisted instructional systems in law or ethics. Evaluation and auditing techniques for legal AI systems. Systemic problems in the construction and delivery of legal AI systems. Impact of AI on the law and legal institutions. Ethical issues concerning legal AI systems. In addition to original research contributions, the Journal will include a Book Review section, a series of Technology Reports describing existing and emerging products, applications and technologies, and a Research Notes section of occasional essays posing interesting and timely research challenges for the field of Artificial Intelligence and Law. Financial support for the Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law is provided by the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信