Abstract
The exchange of goods and services between individuals is often formalised by a contract in which the parties establish norms to define what is expected of each one. Norms use deontic statements of obligation, prohibition, and permission, which may be in conflict. The task of manually detecting norm conflicts can be time–consuming and error-prone since contracts can be vast and complex. To automate such tasks, we develop an approach to identify potential conflicts between norms. We show the effectiveness of our approach and its individual components empirically using two publicly available corpora, and contribute with a new annotated test corpus for norm conflict identification.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aires JP, Pinheiro D, Meneguzzi F (2017) Norm dataset: dataset with norms and norm conflicts. doi:10.5281/zenodo.345411
Athan T, Boley H, Governatori G, Palmirani M, Paschke A, Wyner A (2013) Oasis legalruleml. In: Proceedings of ICAIL, pp 3–12
Axelrod R (1986) An evolutionary approach to norms. Am Polit Sci Rev 80(4):1095–1111
Azzopardi S, Gatt A, Pace GJ (2016) Integrating natural language and formal analysis for legal documents. In: Language technologies & digital humanities
Azzopardi S, Gatt A, Pace GJ (2016) Reasoning about partial contracts. In: Legal knowledge and information systems—JURIX 2016: the twenty-ninth annual conference, pp 23–32. doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-726-9-23
Bird S (2006) NLTK: the natural language toolkit. In: ACL 2006, 21st international conference on computational linguistics and 44th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, proceedings of the conference, Sydney, Australia, 17–21 July 2006. http://aclweb.org/anthology/P06-4018
Carmo J, Jones AJI (2002) Deontic logic and contrary-to-duties. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 265–343. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0387-2_4
Curtotti M, Mccreath E (2010) Corpus based classification of text in Australian contracts. In: Proceedings of the Australasian language technology association workshop, Melbourne, Australia, pp 18–26
Curtotti M, McCreath EC (2011) A corpus of Australian contract language: description, profiling and analysis. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, New York, NY, USA, ICAIL ’11, pp 199–208, doi:10.1145/2018358.2018387
Fenech S, Pace GJ, Schneider G (2009a) Automatic conflict detection on contracts. In: International colloquium on theoretical aspects of computing. Springer, pp 200–214
Fenech S, Pace GJ, Schneider G (2009b) CLAN: a tool for contract analysis and conflict discovery. In: Liu Z, Ravn AP (eds) Automated technology for verification and analysis, 7th international symposium, ATVA 2009, Macao, China, October 14–16, 2009. Proceedings, Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5799, pp 90–96. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04761-9_8
Figueiredo KS, da Silva VT (2013) An algorithm to identify conflicts between norms and values. Coordination. Organisations, Institutions and Norms in Multi-Agent Systems, pp 259–274
Gabbard J, Sukkarieh JZ, Silva F (2015) Writing and reviewing contracts: don’t you wish to save time, effort, and money? In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, New York, NY, USA, ICAIL ’15, pp 229–230. doi:10.1145/2746090.2746534
Gao X, Singh MP (2013) Mining contracts for business events and temporal constraints in service engagements. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 99:1–1. doi:10.1109/TSC.2013.21
Gao X, Singh MP (2014) Extracting normative relationships from business contracts. In: Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, international foundation for autonomous agents and multiagent systems, Richland, SC, AAMAS ’14, pp 101–108
Gao X, Singh MP, Mehra P (2012) Mining business contracts for service exceptions. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 5(3):333–344
Gorín D, Mera S, Schapachnik F (2011) A software tool for legal drafting. In: Proceedings fifth workshop on formal languages and analysis of contract-oriented software, FLACOS 2011, Málaga, Spain, 22nd and 23rd September 2011., pp 71–86. doi:10.4204/EPTCS.68.7
Governatori G (2005) Representing business contracts in RuleML. Int J Coop Inf Syst 14(2–3):181–216
Jenks CW (1953) The conflict of law-making treaties. BYIL 30:401
Jiang JJ, Conrath DW (1997) Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy. CoRR http://arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/9709008
Jones AJI, Sergot MJ (1992) Deontic logic in the representation of law: towards a methodology. Artif Intell Law 1(1):45–64
Kollingbaum MJ, Norman TJ, Preece A, Sleeman D (2007) Norm conflicts and inconsistencies in virtual organisations. In: Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems II. Springer, pp 245–258
Leacock C, Chodorow M (1998) Combining local context and wordnet similarity for word sense identification. WordNet Electron Lex Database 49(2):265–283
Li Y, McLean D, Bandar Z, O’Shea J, Crockett KA (2006) Sentence similarity based on semantic nets and corpus statistics. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 18(8):1138–1150. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2006.130
Lin D (1998) An information-theoretic definition of similarity. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth international conference on machine learning (ICML 1998), Madison, WI, USA, July 24–27, 1998, pp 296–304
Pace GJ, Schapachnik F (2012) Contracts for interacting two-party systems. In: Proceedings sixth workshop on formal languages and analysis of contract-oriented software, FLACOS 2012, Bertinoro, Italy, 19 September 2012, pp 21–30. doi:10.4204/EPTCS.94.3
Palmer FR (2001) Mood and modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Peters W, Wyner AZ (2016) Legal text interpretation: identifying hohfeldian relations from text. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on language resources and evaluation LREC 2016, Portorož, Slovenia, May 23–28, 2016., http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2016/summaries/253.html
Resnik P (1995) Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI 95, Montréal Québec, Canada, August 20–25 1995, vol 2, pp 448–453
Rosso P, Correa S, Buscaldi D (2011) Passage retrieval in legal texts. J Logic Algebraic Program 80(3–5):139–153. doi:10.1016/j.jlap.2011.02.001
Rousseau DM, McLean Parks J (1993) The contracts of individuals and organizations. JAI Press LTD, Greenwich
Sadat-Akhavi A (2003) Methods of resolving conflicts between treaties. Graduate Institute of International Studies (Series), vol 3. M. Nijhoff, Boston
Steedman MJ (1977) Verbs, time, and modality. Cogn Sci 1(2):216–234
Vasconcelos WW, Kollingbaum MJ, Norman TJ (2009) Normative conflict resolution in multi-agent systems. Auton Agent Multi Agent Syst 19(2):124–152. doi:10.1007/s10458-008-9070-9
Vranes E (2006) The definition of ’norm conflict’ in international law and legal theory. Eur J Int Law 17(2):395–418
Winikoff M, Padgham L, Harland J, Thangarajah J (2002) Declarative & procedural goals in intelligent agent systems. In: Proceedings of the eights international conference on principles and knowledge representation and reasoning (KR-02), Toulouse, France, April 22–25, 2002, pp 470–481
von Wright GH (1951) Deontic logic, new series. Oxford University Press on behalf of the Mind Association, Oxford
Wu Z, Palmer M (1994) Verbs semantics and lexical selection. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting on association for computational linguistics, association for computational linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, ACL ’94, pp 133–138. doi:10.3115/981732.981751
Wyner AZ, Peters W (2011) On rule extraction from regulations. In: legal knowledge and information systems - jurix 2011: the twenty-fourth annual conference, University of Vienna, Austria, 14th–16th December 2011, pp 113–122. doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-981-3-113
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank HP PROFCSI for funding our research. Felipe thanks CNPq for support within Grant Number 306864/2016-4 under the PQ fellowship project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1: Instructions used by human volunteers for conflict creation
The following text was used to guide the volunteers during the norm conflict insertion. The document consists of a description for each step of the system.
This README explains how to execute contract_data_structure.py to introduce conflicts randomly in contracts from our corpus.Footnote 4 The main goal is to create contracts containing norm conflicts independently from a conflict detection algorithm.
Execute:
-
To execute, run the following command: python -B contract_data_structure.py
-
After login, there will be two initial options:
-
(1)
Pick a random contract; and
-
(4)
Finish.
-
(1)
Options:
-
(1)
This option chooses a contract from the corpus at random. This step may return an error due to the choice of a contract without norms; if that happens, ignore the error and press (1) again. If no error occurs, the program will display information, such as the total number of norms extracted and the parties identified;
-
(4)
This option just clears the output folder and exits.
-
When the user selects a contract, the program adds a new option:
-
(1)
Pick a random contract;
-
(2)
Pick a random norm; and
-
(4)
Finish.
-
(1)
-
Option (1) restarts the process with a new contract;
-
Option (2) chooses a random norm among the extracted ones.
-
When the user selects a norm, the program adds yet another option:
-
(1)
Pick a random contract;
-
(2)
Pick a random norm;
-
(3)
Make a conflict; and
-
(4)
Finish.
-
(1)
-
Options (1,2,4) are the same as before;
-
Option (3) displays the last chosen norm and asks you to alter it in order to create a conflict.
Process:
-
In this manual conflict insertion, you are intended to follow a series of steps.
-
1.
Execute contract_data_structure.py;
-
2.
Insert your first name, and pick a contract with option (1);
-
3.
Choose a random norm using option (2);
-
4.
Choose the option to create a conflict (3).
-
1.
-
You have to create between 70 and 100 conflicts of 3 types. These types are:
-
Permission \(\times\) Obligation (33%);
-
Permission \(\times\) Prohibition (33%);
-
Obligation \(\times\) Prohibition (33%).
-
-
A regular norm has the following structure:
-
Example 1:
-
“Purchaser must pay the product taxes.”
Given a regular norm, you will choose option 3, which allows you to alter such norm. Then you have to alter it in order to generate a conflict, e.g., if you got the Example 1, you may choose to create either a Permission \(\times\) Obligation conflict or an Obligation × Prohibition conflict. In the first case (Permission \(\times\) Obligation), a possible modification can be described as follows:
-
-
Example 2:
-
“Purchaser MAY pay the product taxes.”
To ensure that you are really making a conflict, use Table 7 as a guide:
You may also modify the structure after the modal verb creating a conflict and altering the conflict structure (obviously maintaining the same meaning), as the Example 3 shows.
-
-
Example 3:
-
“Purchaser may choose to pay the taxes related to the product.”
-
-
We recommend you to use more than three contracts to create conflicts, it allows us to test our approach in different contexts.
-
At the end of the process, choose option (4) and that’s it!
Thanks in advance.
Appendix 2: Performance measures used in the paper
Below, we summarize the performance measures from the literature used in this paper.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Aires, J.P., Pinheiro, D., Lima, V.S.d. et al. Norm conflict identification in contracts. Artif Intell Law 25, 397–428 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9205-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9205-x