Digitalised Legal Information: Towards a New Publication Model
2019, Digital Ethics Lab Yearbook
Abstract
This chapter outlines some of the key developments regarding publication and communication of legal rules and standards (i.e. legal information) to show that dissemination of legal information is reliant on how we design the entire model of its publication. In doing so, it analyses paradigmatic models of publication as they appeared in the prehistorical, historical, and hyperhistorical stages of human evolution. These models demonstrate how legal information was delivered to its intended addressees, i.e. to those who were expected to obey the published laws. It also demonstrates that the progress regarding these publication models was driven by efficiency and sustainability considerations. The currently prevailing model of publication is, however, inefficient and unsustainable due to an unnecessary multiplication of intermediaries facilitating communication of legal information. This problem is even more apparent in the context of increasing digitalisation of legal information and emerging information and communication technologies (ICTs). The chapter argues that, in this light, it is appropriate to consider revising the entire publication model and not only some aspects of it. An addressee-centric publication model is outlined as a potential solution to the problem. The proposed model requires active delivery of a relevant subset of digitalised legal information to its intended addressee in a similar way as targeted online advertising. Unlike the existing research that promotes personalisation of law (personalised legal information), this chapter advocates personalisation of the publication model.
FAQs
AI
What implications arise from the digital challenge for legal information publication?
The digital challenge necessitates a reconsideration of how legal information is recorded, transmitted, and processed, potentially reshaping existing publication models. For example, advancements in AI may enable direct embedding of legal norms into technology, revolutionizing accessibility and compliance.
How has the rise of hyperlaw affected traditional legal publication methods?
Hyperlaw has transformed legal publication into a format responsive to continuous updates driven by ICT advancements, enabling more real-time access to legal information. This shift means legal publication methods must adapt to handle the increasing volume of regulations and amendments while ensuring comprehensibility.
What historical shifts reflect the evolution of legal information publication?
The transition from oral traditions of legal information in prehistory to written codes like the Code of Hammurabi represents a crucial historical shift, marking the move towards systematic dissemination. Subsequent innovations, such as the printing press, drastically increased access to legal texts and altered publication dynamics in the 19th century.
In what ways might personalised legal information publication enhance access?
Personalised legal information could tailor regulatory notifications to individuals, ensuring timely awareness of relevant laws based on specific circumstances. This method mirrors targeted advertising strategies, suggesting that legal data can be disseminated more effectively by catering to individual needs.
How does the current model of legal information publication primarily serve professionals?
The existing model caters predominantly to legal specialists, as most citizens rely on indirect channels, such as media or enforcement encounters, to learn about legal obligations. This systematic disengagement reduces overall legal literacy among the public, necessitating reform in publication approaches to include broader accessibility.
References (20)
- Bench-Capon, T., et al. (2012). A history of AI and Law in 50 papers: 25 years of the international conference on AI and Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20(3), 215-319. doi:10.1007/s10506- 012-9131-x.
- Ben-Shahar, O., & Porat, A. (2016). Personalizing negligence law. New York University Law Review, 91(3),627-688.
- Biasiotti, M.A., & Faro, S. (2011). From Information to Knowledge: Online Access to Legal Information-Methodologies, Trends and Perspectives. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
- Buringh, E., & Van Zanden, J.L. (2009). Charting the "Rise of the West": Manuscripts and Printed Books in Europe, a Long-Term Perspective from the Sixth through Eighteenth Centuries. The Journal of Economic History, 69(2), 409-445. doi:10.1017/S0022050709000837.
- Casey, A.J., & Niblett, A. (2016). Self-Driving Laws. University of Toronto Law Journal, 66(4), 429-442. doi:10.3138/UTLJ.4006.
- Charpin, D. (2010). Writing, Law, and Kingship in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia (trans: Todd, J.M.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Cuccuru, P. (2017). Beyond bitcoin: an early overview on smart contracts. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 25(3), 179-195. doi:10.1093/ijlit/eax003.
- Eisenstein, E.L. (2012). The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- EUR-Lex (2018). Online statistics. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/statistics/legislative-acts- statistics.html [https://perma.cc/WF8Q-QSN6].
- Eurostat (2018). Population as of 1 January. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tps00001&plu gin=1 [https://perma.cc/NN7P-F4CS].
- Floridi, L. (2012). Hyperhistory and the Philosophy of Information Policies. Philosophy & Technology, 25(2), 129-131. doi:10.1007/s13347-012-0077-4.
- Janeček, V. (2018). Ownership of personal data in the Internet of Things. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(5), 1039-1052. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2018.04.007
- Janeček, V. (2017). Kritika právní odpovědnosti. Prague: Wolters Kluwer.
- Kramer, S.N. (1958). History begins at Sumer. London: Thames & Hudson.
- Leith, P. (2016). The rise and fall of the legal expert system. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 30(3), 94-106. doi:10.1080/13600869.2016.1232465.
- Lepri, B., et al., (2017). Fair, Transparent, and Accountable Algorithmic Decision-making Processes. Philosophy & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0279-x.
- Porat, A., & Strahilevitz, L.J. (2014). Personalizing Default Rules and Disclosure with Big Data. Michigan Law Review, 112, 1417-1478.
- Ruhl, J.B. (2018). Expanding the AI & Law Matrix. In: Law 2050. https://law2050.com/2018/02/19/expanding-the-ai-law-matrix/ [https://perma.cc/S32P-RT4F].
- Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., Floridi, L. (2017). Transparent, Explainable, and Accountable AI for Robotics. Science Robotics, 2(6), 1-2. doi:10.1126/scirobotics.aan6080.
- Yang, G.-Z., et al., (2018). The Grand Challenges of Science Robotics. Science Robotics, 3(14), 1-14. doi:10.1126/scirobotics.aar7650.