Analysis of the ontology from legal topics and their respective legislation through Complex Networks
Abstract
Several efforts have been made with the aim of mitigating the effects of the increasing inherent complexity of Brazilian Judicial System. In this context, we present an approach based on Complex Networks that relates legal subjects from the Unified Procedural Table of the first level of the Federal Justice from the National Council of Justice. Based on Graph Theory concepts, we identify groups of subjects and build a bipartite network of legal subjects and legal provisions. When analyzing the one-mode projection of the bipartite network in the subset of legal subjects, we found a strong tendency for subjects in the same group to share legal provisions with each other, which results in a group assortativity coefficient r ≈ 0.62. Despite this, we verified that specific groups of legal subjects share a particular set of legal provisions among them. This result can contribute to the understanding of the existing relationships among legal subjects and to the creation and improvement of Artificial Intelligence models that would support the day to day operation of the Brazilian judicial system.
References
CNJ. Sistema de gestão de tabelas processuais unificadas: Assuntos - Última versão (excel) - versão: 23/03/2022. Disponível em: https://www.cnj.jus.br/sgt/versoes.php?tipo_tabela=A
Fowler, J. H., Johnson, T. R., Spriggs, J. F., Jeon, S., and Wahlbeck, P. J. (2007). Network analysis and the law: Measuring the legal importance of precedents at the us supreme court. Political Analysis, 15(3):324–346.
Fruchterman, T. M. and Reingold, E. M. (1991). Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Software: Practice and experience, 21(11):1129–1164.
Haapio, H. and Hagan, M. (2016). Design patterns for contracts. In Networks. Proceedings of the 19th international legal informatics symposium IRIS, pages 381–388.
Henderson, W. D. (2014). From big law to lean law. International Review of Law and Economics, 38:5–16.
Koniaris, M., Anagnostopoulos, I., and Vassiliou, Y. (2018). Network analysis in the legal domain: A complex model for european union legal sources. Journal of Complex Networks, 6(2):243–268.
Hagan, M. Law by design. Disponível em: https://lawbydesign.co/
Morais, E. A. M. and Ambrósio, A. P. L. (2008). Automatic domain classification of jurisprudence documents. In Proceedings of the 2008 Euro American Conference on Telematics and Information Systems, pages 1–6.
Newman, M. (2018). Networks. Oxford university press.
Newman, M. E. (2003). Mixing patterns in networks. Physical review E, 67(2):026126.
Pires, R. S., Oliveira, E. A., Fernandes, C. G., Neto, J. A. M., and Furtado, V. (2021). Mapping landmark cases in the us legal system.
Ruhl, J., Katz, D. M., and Bommarito, M. J. (2017). Harnessing legal complexity. Science, 355(6332):1377–1378.
Susskind, R. E. and Susskind, D. (2015). The future of the professions: How technology will transform the work of human experts. Oxford University Press, USA.
Whalen, R. (2016). Legal networks: The promises and challenges of legal network analysis. Mich. St. L. Rev., page 539.
Zhang, P. and Koppaka, L. (2007). Semantics-based legal citation network. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pages 123–130.
