初探目的解釋在法律人工智慧系統之運用可能

本文說明法律推理的計算機模型在設計上的可能困境。文章指出，在目的被給定的條件下，雖然可能運用CMLRs進行目的推論，但仍舊無法消除規範性的質疑，因為有限範圍之目的推論是對於未來可能結果之預測，因此，可能世界如何與目的之規範事態相符合是一個關鍵問題。此外，本文直視「目的如何具有規範性」的議題，並指出法律推理的不確定性。在實踐層面，則透過「目的」之概念分析為CMLRs提供哲學反省，釐清其運用界線以及邊界問題。

關鍵字

人工智慧與法律；目的解釋；法律推理的電腦模型；規範性；工具理性

並列摘要

Legal purposes not only contribute to the meaning of legal norms but also help lawyers arrive at legal conclusions, and even provide justificatory force. Engineers in Artificial Intelligence and Law also recognize the importance of teleological reasoning in law and aim at building a computational model capable of teleological interpretation, no matter in models of statutory reasoning or case-based reasoning. This paper investigates the problem of teleological interpretation in CMLRs. It points out that CMLRs are capable of operating teleological reasoning within a limited scope but incompetent to deal with normative issues such as why certain values shall be realized through a teleological interpretation. This is because CMLRs in a purposive interpretation function to predict future possible outcomes, but it is another (fundamental) question regarding how this presupposed possible world fits into the normative state of affairs of a legal purpose. This article makes two contributions. First, it directly focuses on the form and structure of purposive interpretation providing analysis and reflections on its applicative problem in CMLRs. Second, it clarifies the relationship between a legal purpose and meaning of a legal norm. This clarification helps CMLRs to understand to what extent a model design of teleological interpretation is acceptable.

並列關鍵字

artificial intelligence and law ； teleological interpretation ； computational models of legal reasoning ； normativity ； instrumental rationality

參考文獻

王鵬翔、張永健 (2019)。〈論經濟分析在法學方法之運用〉，《臺大法學論叢》，48, 3: 791-871。(Wang, P. H., & Chang, Y. C. [2019]. On the use of economic analysis in legal methodology. National Taiwan University Law Journal, 48, 3: 791-871.) https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ. 201909_48(3).0001

陳顯武、陳世昌 (2004)。〈法資訊學上法本體論研究的興起與發展之分析：一個基本哲學概念意義之轉換〉，《臺大法學論叢》，33, 5: 1-49。(Chen, H. W., & Chen, S. C. [2004]. The analysis of oringinal rise and development of legal ontology reaserch in legal informat-ics—The meaning transformation of a philosophical basic concept. National Taiwan University Law Journal, 33, 5: 1-49.) https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.2004.33.05.01

Ashley, K. (2017). Artificial intelligence and legal analytics—New tools for law practice in the digital age. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ashley, K. D. (2002). An AI model of case-based legal argument from a jurisprudential viewpoint. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10, 1/2/3: 163-218. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019513821567

Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2018). Eveline T. Feteris: Fundamentals of legal argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 26, 3: 307-314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-018-9226-0

國際替代計量

初探目的解釋在法律人工智慧系統之運用可能

全文下載

主題瀏覽