Boundary Work between Computational ‘Law’ and ‘Law-as-We-Know-it’
Abstract This chapter enquires into the use of big data analytics and prediction of judgment to inform both law and legal decision-making. The main argument is that the use of data-driven ‘legal technologies’ may transform the ‘mode of existence’ of law as-we-know-it, whose characteristics depend on its text-based nature. To explain why and how computational ‘law’ would be different, the author deciphers the mathematical assumptions of machine learning and natural language processing, opening the black box of algorithmic ‘insights’ at the level of its underlying research design. This allows her to compare the force of such computational ‘law’ with the force of law as-we-know-it. She then identifies some of the challenges as to legal protection, demonstrating the need for ‘by design’ approaches to anchor rule of law safeguards in the architecture of computational ‘law’, clarifying how and why ‘legal protection by design’ is not equivalent with ‘legal by design’ or ‘techno-regulation’.
Abstract This chapter enquires into the use of big data analytics and prediction of judgment to inform both law and legal decision-making. The main argument is that the use of data-driven ‘legal technologies’ may transform the ‘mode of existence’ of law as-we-know-it, whose characteristics depend on its text-based nature. To explain why and how computational ‘law’ would be different, the author deciphers the mathematical assumptions of machine learning and natural language processing, opening the black box of algorithmic ‘insights’ at the level of its underlying research design. This allows her to compare the force of such computational ‘law’ with the force of law as-we-know-it. She then identifies some of the challenges as to legal protection, demonstrating the need for ‘by design’ approaches to anchor rule of law safeguards in the architecture of computational ‘law’, clarifying how and why ‘legal protection by design’ is not equivalent with ‘legal by design’ or ‘techno-regulation’.
Executive Summary
The article 'Boundary Work between Computational ‘Law’ and ‘Law-as-We-Know-it’' explores the transformative potential of big data analytics and predictive technologies on traditional, text-based legal systems. The author argues that computational 'law' operates under different mathematical assumptions and research designs compared to conventional law, which could fundamentally alter the nature of legal decision-making. The study highlights the need for 'legal protection by design' to ensure that rule of law safeguards are embedded within the architecture of these emerging technologies, distinguishing this approach from 'legal by design' or 'techno-regulation'. The analysis delves into the underlying assumptions of machine learning and natural language processing to compare the efficacy and implications of computational 'law' versus traditional legal frameworks.
Key Points
- ▸ The use of big data analytics and predictive technologies may transform the 'mode of existence' of law.
- ▸ Computational 'law' operates under different mathematical assumptions compared to traditional law.
- ▸ The need for 'legal protection by design' to anchor rule of law safeguards in computational 'law'.
- ▸ Distinction between 'legal protection by design', 'legal by design', and 'techno-regulation'.
Merits
Comprehensive Analysis
The article provides a thorough examination of the mathematical and technical underpinnings of computational 'law', offering a detailed comparison with traditional legal frameworks.
Practical Insights
The study offers practical insights into the challenges and potential solutions for integrating computational 'law' into existing legal systems.
Innovative Approach
The concept of 'legal protection by design' is innovative and addresses the need for safeguarding rule of law principles in the digital age.
Demerits
Complexity
The technical depth of the article may make it less accessible to readers without a strong background in both law and computational technologies.
Scope Limitations
The article focuses primarily on the theoretical aspects of computational 'law' and may benefit from more empirical evidence or case studies.
Generalizability
The findings and recommendations may not be universally applicable, as legal systems and technological advancements vary across jurisdictions.
Expert Commentary
The article makes a significant contribution to the discourse on the intersection of law and technology by critically examining the transformative potential of computational 'law'. The author's detailed analysis of the mathematical assumptions underlying machine learning and natural language processing provides a robust foundation for understanding the differences between computational 'law' and traditional legal frameworks. The emphasis on 'legal protection by design' is particularly noteworthy, as it underscores the need for proactive measures to ensure that emerging technologies align with fundamental legal principles. However, the article's complexity may limit its accessibility to a broader audience, and further empirical research could strengthen its findings. Overall, the study offers valuable insights for legal scholars, practitioners, and policymakers navigating the complexities of the digital legal landscape.
Recommendations
- ✓ Encourage interdisciplinary collaboration between legal scholars, technologists, and policymakers to develop robust frameworks for the ethical use of computational 'law'.
- ✓ Conduct empirical studies to validate the theoretical insights presented in the article and explore real-world applications of computational 'law'.
