Using law to identify, manage and prevent child maltreatment

This chapter identifies ways in which laws are capable of responding to child maltreatment, both as an immediate regulator of conduct, and as an influence on a society’s cultural development and approach to children’s welfare. Informed by practices and experiences in selected common law systems, the chapter provides examples of legal mechanisms that can inform discussion of optimal strategies to identify and manage child maltreatment in many different societies. Both positive and negative aspects of these mechanisms are noted. While controversies arise as to what kinds of laws are best in preventing and responding to child maltreatment, and even, more fundamentally, whether there is a role for law in protecting children, this chapter offers evidence that a variety of legal tools can be employed to address child abuse and neglect, for any cultural setting in which there is willingness to act to prevent and treat its various forms.

Foucault Goes to Law School : Using Foucault to Examine Australian Legal Education

This paper will consider the way that Foucault’s work has been utilised to examine Australian legal education, particularly in the context of understanding the construction of the legal identity. While remaining sensitive to the many potential ‘uses’ of Foucault’s tools, as well as his problematisation of the author as an organising feature of discourse, this paper will argue that legal education scholarship overwhelmingly utilises concepts such as ‘discourse’ and ‘power-knowledge’, which, while useful, cannot provide a nuanced understanding of the construction of the legal identity. Consequently, this paper suggests that future legal education research utilise Foucault’s concepts of ‘ethics’ and ‘governmentality’ to address these issues.

Enabling USDL by tools

Fundamental tooling is required in order to apply USDL in practical settings. This chapter discusses three fundamental types of tools for USDL. First, USDL editors have been developed for expert and casual users, respectively. Second, several USDL repositories have been built to allow editors accessing and storing USDL descriptions. Third, our generic USDL marketplace allows providers to describe their services once and potentially trade them anywhere. In addition, the iosyncrasies of service trading as opposed to the simpler case of product trading. The chapter also presents several deployment scenarios of such tools to foster individual value chains and support new business models across organizational boundaries. We close the chapter with an application of USDL in the context of service engineering.

Developing Co-operating Legal Knowledge Based Systems

In attempting to build intelligent litigation support tools, we have moved beyond first generation, production rule legal expert systems. Our work supplements rule-based reasoning with case based reasoning and intelligent information retrieval. This research, specifies an approach to the case based retrieval problem which relies heavily on an extended object-oriented / rule-based system architecture that is supplemented with causal background information. Machine learning techniques and a distributed agent architecture are used to help simulate the reasoning process of lawyers. In this paper, we outline our implementation of the hybrid IKBALS II Rule Based Reasoning / Case Based Reasoning system. It makes extensive use of an automated case representation editor and background information.

The IKBALS project: multi-modal reasoning in legal knowledge based systems

In attempting to build intelligent litigation support tools, we have moved beyond first generation, production rule legal expert systems. Our work integrates rule based and case based reasoning with intelligent information retrieval. When using the case based reasoning methodology, or in our case the specialisation of case based retrieval, we need to be aware of how to retrieve relevant experience. Our research, in the legal domain, specifies an approach to the retrieval problem which relies heavily on an extended object oriented/rule based system architecture that is supplemented with causal background information. We use a distributed agent architecture to help support the reasoning process of lawyers. Our approach to integrating rule based reasoning, case based reasoning and case based retrieval is contrasted to the CABARET and PROLEXS architectures which rely on a centralised blackboard architecture. We discuss in detail how our various cooperating agents interact, and provide examples of the system at work. The IKBALS system uses a specialised induction algorithm to induce rules from cases. These rules are then used as indices during the case based retrieval process. Because we aim to build legal support tools which can be modified to suit various domains rather than single purpose legal expert systems, we focus on principles behind developing legal knowledge based systems. The original domain chosen was theAccident Compensation Act 1989 (Victoria, Australia), which relates to the provision of benefits for employees injured at work. For various reasons, which are indicated in the paper, we changed our domain to that ofCredit Act 1984 (Victoria, Australia). This Act regulates the provision of loans by financial institutions. The rule based part of our system which provides advice on the Credit Act has been commercially developed in conjunction with a legal firm. We indicate how this work has lead to the development of a methodology for constructing rule based legal knowledge based systems. We explain the process of integrating this existing commercial rule based system with the case base reasoning and retrieval architecture.

Designing intelligent litigation support tools : The IKBALS perspective

In the legal domain, it is rare to find solutions to problems by simply applying algorithms or invoking deductive rules in some knowledge‐based program. Instead, expert practitioners often supplement domain‐specific knowledge with field experience. This type of expertise is often applied in the form of an analogy. This research proposes to combine both reasoning with precedents and reasoning with statutes and regulations in a way that will enhance the statutory interpretation task. This is being attempted through the integration of database and expert system technologies. Case‐based reasoning is being used to model legal precedents while rule‐based reasoning modules are being used to model the legislation and other types of causal knowledge. It is hoped to generalise these findings and to develop a formal methodology for integrating case‐based databases with rule‐based expert systems in the legal domain.

Perpetuating Racism: Legal Education, Race and Social Justice

By presenting the results of a content analysis of Australian undergraduate legal education, this paper examines the extent to which issues of race, ethnicity, discrimination, and multiculturalism feature within this component of the moral, ethical, and professional development of legal professionals. It will demonstrate that instead of encouraging a deep, critical and contextual understanding of such issues, legal education provides a relatively superficial one, which has important implications for the role that legal professionals play in overcoming injustices such as institutional racism, and the kinds of social reform that they are likely to undertake.