ICT adoption in the judiciary: classifying of judicial information

Abstract

The article discusses one of the practical problems of information communication technology (ICT) use in the judiciary—classifying and categorization of legal information. This problem that plagues the judiciary in Lithuania is very important to solve in order to minimize the digital divide of the courts, increase transparency of judicial decisions, and increase uniformity of judicial practice and interpretations of the law. The problem is usually approached by applying standard ontological legal classification schemes from legal philosophy. However, such an approach is extremely demanding in terms of human time and labor. The practice of Lithuania is studied as an example of practical manifestation of the target problem. Suggestions are made that Artificial Intelligence‐ (AI‐) based XML or Resource Description Framework (RDF) tools may be employed in order to facilitate such classification.

Notes

Correspondence: Dr Mindaugas Kiškis; E‐mail: [email protected] and Professor Dr Rimantas Petrauskas; E‐mail: [email protected], Department of Legal Informatics, Law University of Lithuania.

R Petrauskas Informaciniu technologiju taikymas viešajame administravime LTU, Vilnius, 2001, p 65.

H Sundstrom and G Johnssen ‘Shaping the future public administration: the legal perspective’ Law and Information Technology. Swedish View: An anthology produced by the IT Law Observatory of the Swedish ICT Commission. Stockholm, SOU 2002: 112, pp 78–87.

E Ciulla Kamarck and J S Nye, Jr (eds) Governance.com: Democracy in the Information Age Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, 2002, p 24.

Report on the Development of the Judiciary in Lithuania, 2003, http://politika.osf.lt/Kiti/dokumentai/TNL_final.pdf.

R E Susskind The Future of Law: Facing the Challenges of Information Technology Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998, pp 68–92.

United Nations Department of Public Information Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary United Nations, New York, 1988, pp 17–19.

B Larsson ‘Courts of the future’ Law and Information Technology. Swedish View: An anthology produced by the IT Law Observatory of the Swedish ICT Commission. Stockholm, SOU 2002: 112, pp 225–238.

M Lips Designing Electronic Government Around the World. Policy developments in the USA, Singapore and Australia in Designing E‐Government on the Crossroads of Technological Innovation and Institutional Change Kluwer, The Hague, 2001, pp 77–85.

Larsson, op cit, note 7.

A Dashwood and A Johnston (eds) The Future of the Judicial System of the European Union Hart, Oxford, 2001.

Susskind, op cit, note 5, pp 45–53.

P Wahlgren The Quest for Law: Law Libraries and Legal Information Management of the Future Jure, Stockholm, 1999, pp 117–125.

Larsson, op cit, note 7.

Ibid.

M Kiškis and R Petrauskas ‘E‐Governance: two views on legal environment’ in Electronic Government, Proceedings of Second International Conference, EGOV 2003, DEXA Springer, Berlin, 2003, pp 575–581.

V Nekrošius Teismu sprendimu teisetumo ir pagristumo kontrole civiliniame procese: klasikine sistema ir reforma Lietuvos Respublikoje Justicija, Vilnius, 1999.

V Mikelenas ‘Unification and harmonization of law at the turn of the millennium: the Lithuanian experience’ Uniform Law Review, Vol 5, No 2, pp 243–261, 2000.

http://www.lat.litlex.lt/Nutartys/cnut/2000/3k-3-619.doc.

C M Sjoberg ‘The melting pot paradox of structured documents’ Law and Information Technology. Swedish View: An anthology produced by the IT Law Observatory of the Swedish ICT Commission. Stockholm, SOU 2002: 112, pp 195–206.

Wahlgren, op cit, note 12.

Kiškis and Petrauskas, op cit, note 15.

L Boguslaw et al Ustroj prawa polskiego Justycija, Warsaw, 2001, pp 48–50.

Kiškis and Petrauskas, op cit, note 15.

D R Koepsell The Ontology of Cyberspace: Philosophy, Law, and the Future of Intellectual Property Open Court, Chicago, IL, 2000.

Sjoberg, op cit, note 19.

A Hamfelt Classification of Legal Norms: Some Principles for Classifying Legal Norms and their Logical Implication: a Study of Law and Artificial Intelligence Institute of Legal Informatics, Stockholm, 1987.

J Zeleznikow and D Hunter Building Intelligent Legal Information Systems: Representation and Reasoning in Law Kluwer, Deventer, 1994.

D Dzemydiene, E Kazemikaitiene and R Petrauskas ‘Knowledge Representation in Advisory Information System of Crime Investigation Domain’ in H‐M Haav and A Kalja (eds) Databases and Information Systems II Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2002, pp 135–147.

R W van Kralingen ‘A conceptual frame‐based ontology for law’ in First International Workshop on Legal Ontologies, Melbourne, Australia, 1997, pp 214–216.

Zeleznikow and Hunter, op cit, note 27, pp 112–154.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Mindaugas Kiškis

Correspondence: Dr Mindaugas Kiškis; E‐mail: [email protected] and Professor Dr Rimantas Petrauskas; E‐mail: [email protected], Department of Legal Informatics, Law University of Lithuania.