Building sustainable free legal advisory systems: Experiences from the history of AI & law

The enthusiasm for artificial intelligence (AI) as a source of solutions to problems is not new. In law, from the early 1980s until at least the early 2000s, considerable work was done on developing ‘legal expert systems.’ As the DataLex project, we participated in those developments, through research and publications, commercial and non-commercial systems, and teaching students application development. This paper commences with a brief account of that work to situate our perspective.The main aim of this paper is an assessment of what might be of value from the experience of the DataLex Project to contemporary use of ‘AI and law’ by free legal advice services, who must necessarily work within funding and other constraints in developing and sustaining such systems. We draw fifteen conclusions from this experience, which we consider are relevant to development of systems for free legal advice services. The desired result, we argue, is the development of integrated legal decision-support systems, not ‘expert systems’ or ‘robot lawyers’. We compare our insights with the approach of the leading recent text in the field, and with a critical review of the field over twenty-five years. We conclude that the approach taken by the DataLex Project, and now applied to free legal advice services, remains consistent with leading work in field of AI and law.The paper concludes with brief suggestions of what are the most desirable improvements to tools and platforms to enable development of free legal advice systems. The objectives of free access to legal information services have much in common with those of free legal advice services. The information resources that free access to law providers (including LIIs) can provide will often be those that free legal advice services will need to use to develop and sustain free legal advisory systems. There is therefore strong potential for valuable collaborations between these two types of services providers.     

Rationing psychosocial treatments in the United States

This paper briefly reviews the recent history of psychosocial treatment for adults with severe mental illnesses in the United States. It examines the current sources and financing of such care, revealing the planned and unplanned reclassification of entitled beneficiaries and eligible patients, appropriate treatment, acceptable outcomes, and levels and sources of payment. One illustration of this phenomenon is seen in current efforts to identify and deliver only those public services that are covered by Medicaid, so as to allocate state resources only when they can be matched by federal monies. Another is the reliance on private health insurance, tied in the U.S. almost exclusively to employment, for medical care delivered under an acute, rather than a chronic care model. These analyses conclude with a discussion of the implicit and explicit mechanisms used to ration access to psychosocial treatment in the United States. The implications for individuals with serious mental illnesses, their families, and the general public are placed in historical and current policy contexts, recognizing the economic, social, and clinical variables that can moderate outcomes.     

The Creativity of the European Court of Human Rights

This article discusses the creative role adopted by the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights in the face of situations not envisagedby the drafters of the European Convention in the late 1940s,resulting from the inevitable evolution of societies and theirchanging ethical standards. Although the Vienna Convention onthe Law of Treaties 1969 is a constant source of inspirationto the Court for the interpretation of the Convention, the articlepoints to two new techniques of interpretation adopted by theCourt, namely the ‘living instrument’ doctrine andthe ‘practical and effective’ doctrine. An attemptis made to highlight the advantages and the weaknesses of bothof these innovative interpretational approaches. Additionally,an assessment is made of how the Court has responded to present-daydemands and maintained a balance between judicial creativityand respect for the role of member States as the key policy-makersin determining the scope of rights guaranteed by the Convention.     

Linguistic Justice in International Law: An Evaluation of the Discursive Framework

Claims by minority groups to use their own languages in different social contexts are often presented as claims for “linguistic justice”, that is, justice as between speakers of different languages. This article considers how the language of international law can be used to advance such claims, by exploring how international law, as a discourse, approaches questions of language policy. This analysis reveals that international legal texts structure their engagement with “linguistic justice” around two key concepts: equality and culture. Through a close examination of the way in which these concepts function within international legal discourse, the article suggests that this conceptual framework may sometimes constrain, as well as enlarge, the possibilities for justice for minority language speakers. Thus while international law may provide a language for challenging injustices in the linguistic sphere, limitations inherent in this discourse may also restrict its emancipatory potential.     

Examining the Mediating Effect of Self-Efficacy on Approval of Aggression and Proactive Aggression

Proactive aggression (PA) is goal-directed, hostile social behavior that has been linked to detrimental outcomes. It has been theorized that adolescents who believe aggression is a normal and acceptable social response (approval of aggression) are more likely to show PA. Confidence in one’s ability to behave aggressively (self-efficacy about aggression) is understood to mediate this relationship. A mixed-gender sample of 860 Australian, 12–14 year old adolescents was used to investigate gender differences and the mediating effect of self-efficacy for aggression on the relationship between approval of aggression and PA. As hypothesized, approval of aggression, self-efficacy, and PA demonstrated significant positive relationships, with males also scoring significantly higher on these three variables than females. Furthermore, self-efficacy was found to significantly and partially mediate the relationship between approval of aggression and proactive aggression for both genders. Implications for the understanding and prevention of aggressive behavior in adolescents are discussed.