Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T15:24:42.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emerging Legal Informatics Towards Legal Innovation: Current Status and Future Challenges and Opportunities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2022

Sugam Sharma ,
Samia Gamoura ,
Deva Prasad  and
Arti Aneja
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years, the legal informatics area has slowly begun to develop as artificial intelligence and its related techniques and technologies expand their reach in the field of law. The legal, computational and data science communities are collaborating to build computational and data-driven innovative legal models to improve and advance all aspects of the existing legal system with the effective use of modern computer technologies such as machine learning, deep learning and natural language processing. In this research paper, the authors - Sugam Sharma, Samia Gamoura, Deva Prasad and Arti Aneja - explore these important factors with the potential to transform the existing approach to jurisprudence into a smart and intelligent legal system utilising automation. Such a justice system could be envisioned, in the near future which would be faster, fairer and economically more feasible, even for the highly marginalized, underprivileged and poor societies in the world.

Keywords

machine learningdeep learningnatural language processingartificial intelligencelegal informaticslegal systemsIndia
Type
Legal Informatics
Information
Legal Information Management , Volume 21 , Issue 3-4 , December 2021 , pp. 218 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by British and Irish Association of Law Librarians

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Footnotes

1 Evans, M, McIntosh, W, Lin, J & Cates, C, ‘Recounting the Courts? Applying Automated Content Analysis to Enhance Empirical Legal Research’ (2007) Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4(4), 1007–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Ashley, K D, Artificial intelligence and legal analytics: new tools for law practice in the digital age (Cambridge University Press, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Talley, E L, ‘Is the Future of Law a Driverless Car? Assessing How the Data Analytics Revolution Will Transform Legal Practice’ (2017) Journal of Institutional & Theoretical Economics 174(1), 183–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Alarie, B, Niblett, A & Yoon, A H, ‘How Artificial Intelligence will Affect the Practice of Law’ (2018) University of Toronto Law Journal 68(supplement 1), 106–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Tung, K, ‘AI, the Internet of Legal Things, and Lawyers’ (2019) Journal of Management Analytics 6(4), 390–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Slonim, N B-H, ‘An Autonomous Debating System Nature’ (2021) The International Journal of Science 591(7850), 379–384Google Scholar.

7 Steponenaite, V K & Valcke, P, ‘Judicial Analytics on Trial: An Assessment of Legal Analytics in Judicial Systems in Light of the Right to a Fair Trial’ (2020) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 27(6), 759–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 n 2.

9 n 1.

10 n 3.

11 n 7.

12 Hildebrandt, M, ‘Law as Computation in the Era of Artificial Legal Intelligence: Speaking Law to the Power of Statistics’ (2018) University of Toronto Law Journal 68(supplement 1), 12–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Scherer, M, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open?’ (2019) Journal of International Arbitration 36(5), 539Google Scholar.

14 n 4.

15 Lopes, S A, Duarte, M E & Lopes, J A, ‘Can Artificial Neural Networks Predict Lawyers’ Performance Rankings?’ (2018) International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 68, 1940CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 n 4.

17 n 7.

18 K Ashley, J Savelka & M Grabmair, ‘A Law School Course in Applied Legal Analytics and AI. Law in Context’ (2020) Socio-legal Journal 37(1), 1–41.

19 E D Elliott, ‘Holmes and Evolution: Legal Process as Artificial Intelligence’ (1984) The Journal of Legal Studies 13(1), 113–146.

20 R A Berk, S B Sorenson & G Barnes, ‘Forecasting Domestic Violence: A Machine Learning Approach to Help Inform Arraignment Decisions’ (2016) Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 13(1), 94–115.

21 n 19.

22 L T McCarty, ‘Reflections on TAXMAN: An Experiment in Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning’ (1977) Harvard Law Review 90, 837.

23 S M McJohn, ‘Review of Artificial Legal Intelligence’ (1998) Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 12, 241.

24 F Pasquale & G Cashwell, ‘Prediction, Persuasion, and the Jurisprudence of Behaviourism’ (2018) University of Toronto Law Journal 68(supplement 1), 63–81.

25 V M Naik & S Lokhanday, ‘Building a Legal Expert System for Legal Reasoning in Specific Domain-A Survey’ (2012) International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology 4(5), 175.

26 E L Rissland, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Law: Stepping Stones to a Model of Legal Reasoning’ (1990) Yale Law Journal 99(8), 1957–1981.

27 N B-H Slonim, ‘An Autonomous Debating System’ (2021) Nature 591(7850), 379–384.

28 n 2.

29 n 21.

30 N Coghlan, D Archard, P Sipanoun, T Hayes & B Baharlo, ‘COVID-19: Legal Implications for Critical Care’ (2020) Anaesthesia 75(11), 1517–1528.

31 S Sharma and R Sony AL, ‘eLegalls: Enriching Legal Justice System in Emerging Legal Informatics and Legal Tech Era’ (2021) International Journal of Legal Information 49(1), 16–31.

32 n 31.

33 J B Ruhl, D M Katz & M J Bommarito, ‘Harnessing Legal Complexity’ (2017) Science 355(6332), 1377–1378.

34 W Allwood, Book Review of Richard E Susskind, Expert Systems in Law. A Jurisprudential Inquiry. (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1977) (1988) Cambridge Law Journal 47(3), 497–499.

35 B Waltl and R Vogl, ‘Explainable Artificial Intelligence the New Frontier in Legal Informatics’ (2018) Jusletter IT 4, 1–10.

36 N Lettieri & D Malandrino, ‘Cartographies of the Legal World. Rise and Challenges of Visual Legal Analytics.’ (22nd International Conference Information Visualisation) IV 241–246, IEEE.

37 N Lettieri, A Altamura & D Malandrino, ‘The Legal Macroscope: Experimenting with Visual Legal Analytics’ (2017) Information Visualization 16(4), 332–345.

38 N Lettieri, A Altamura, A Faggiano & D Malandrino, ‘A Computational Approach for the Experimental Study of EU Case Law: Analysis and Implementation’ (2016) Social Network Analysis and Mining 6(1), 56.

39 N Lettieri, D Malandrino & L Vicidomini, ‘By investigation, I Mean Computation’ (2017) Trends in Organized Crime 20(1–2), 31–54.

40 A Rossi, R Ducato, H Haapio, S Passera & M Palmirani, ‘Legal Design Patterns: Towards A New Language for Legal Information Design’ (In Internet of Things) Proceedings of the 22nd International Legal Infomatics Symposium IRIS. Editions Weblaw, 2019, 517–526.

41 S Sanchez-Gordon, M Sánchez-Gordón, M Yilmaz & R V O'Connor, ‘Integration of Accessibility Design Patterns with the Software Implementation Process of ISO/IEC 29110’ (2019) Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 31(1), e1987.

42 n 10.

43 D C Steelman, J Goerdt & J E McMillan, Caseflow Management: The Heart of Court Management in the New Millennium. (Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2000) 137–143.

44 CEPEJ, Working Group on Quality of Justice, Toolkit for supporting the implementation of the Guidelines on how to drive change towards Cyberjustice (CEPEJ, 2019). https://rm.coe.int/cepej-toolkit-cyberjustice-en-cepej-2019-7/168094ef3e

45 CEPEJ, ‘European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and their Environment’, https://rm.coe.int/ethical-charter-en-for-publication-4-december-2018/16808f699c.

46 F Jamila, M Rompegading & W Hidayat, ‘The Effectiveness of Virtual Trials for Criminal Proceeding as an Effort to Mitigate the Spread of Corona Virus During the Covid-19 Pandemic’ (1st International Conference on Law and Human Rights 2020) (Atlantis Press, 2020) 191–199.

47 T Sourdin, B Li & D M McNamara, ‘Court Innovations and Access to Justice in Times of Crisis’ (2020) Health Policy and Technology 9(4), 447–453.

48 S Niombo, ‘Use of ICTs to Improve Access to Justice and Health for Women and Children Victims of Sexual and Domestic Violence in the Republic of Congo’ https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/ATTI%20SurveyReport_FINAL_0_0.pdf.

49 Pablo Cortés, ‘Developing Online Dispute Resolution for Consumers in the EU: A Proposal for the Regulation of Accredited Providers’ (2011) International Journal of Law and Information Technology 19(1) 1–28.

50 S Kapoor, ‘Mediation and Consumer Protection’ https://clap.nls.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/MEDIATION-AND-CONSUMER-PROTECTION1.pdf.

51 M H Conley Tyler & M W McPherson, ‘Online Dispute Resolution and Family Disputes’ (2006) Journal of family studies 12(2), 165–183.

52 Z U O Weimin & W A N G Chanyuan, ‘Judicial Big Data and Big-Data-Based Legal Research in China’ (2020) Asian Journal of Law and Society 7(3), 495–514.

53 PRS Legislative Research is a Civil Society Initiative Which Attempts to Make Legislative Documents Accessible in India https://www.prsindia.org.

54 A Christin, A Rosenblat and D Boyd, ‘Courts and Predictive Algorithms’ (2015) Primer for the Big Data and Civil Rights Conference: A New Era of Policing and Justice https://datasociety.net/output/data-civil-rights-courts-and-predictive-algorithms/

55 K Medianik, ‘Artificially Intelligent Lawyers: Updating the Model Rules of Professional Conduct in Accordance with the New Technological Era’ (2017) Cardozo Law Review 39, 1497.

56 Hetan Shah, ‘Algorithmic Accountability’ (2018) Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 376, 2128, 20170362.

57 M Ananny & K Crawford, ‘Seeing Without Knowing: Limitations of the Transparency Ideal and its Application to Algorithmic Accountability’ (2018) New Media & Society 20(3), 973–989.

58 Daniel L Chen, ‘Judicial Analytics and the Great Transformation of American Law’ (2019) Artificial Intelligence and Law 27(1), 15–42.

59 B Geluvaraj, P M Satwik and T A Ashok Kumar, ‘The Future of Cybersecurity: Major Role of Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning in Cyberspace.’ (International Conference on Computer Networks and Communication Technologies) (Singapore: Springer, 2019) 739–747.

60 Sandeep Bhupatiraju, Daniel L Chen and Shareen Joshi, ‘The Promise of Machine Learning for the Courts of India’ (2020). http://users.nber.org/~dlchen/papers/The_Promise_of_Machine_Learning_for_the_Courts_of_India.pdf.

61 J J Goswami, ‘Legal Informatics’ (Doctoral dissertation), (Dhirubhai Ambani Institute of Information and Communication Technology, 2018).

62 https://indiankanoon.org.

63 http://www.manupatrafast.com.

64 n 63.

65 n 62.

66 Nicola Lettieri et al, ‘Ex Machina: Analytical Platforms, Law and the Challenges of Computational Legal Science’ (2018) Future Internet 10.5, 37.

67 n 55.

68 V Čyras, ‘Distinguishing Between Knowledge Visualization and Knowledge Representation in Legal Informatics’ (Semantic Web and Social Networks in Legal Informatics, Proceedings of the 12th International Legal Informatics Symposium IRIS, 2009).

69 R Schönhof, A Tenschert & A Cheptsov, ‘Towards Legal Knowledge Representation System Leveraging RDF’ (The Eighth International Conference on Advances in Semantic Processing 2014) 13–16.

70 Anatoly P Getman and V Karasiuk Volodymyr, ‘A Crowdsourcing Approach to Building a Legal Ontology from Text’ (2014) Artificial Intelligence and Law 22(3), 313–335.

71 Flora Amato, Antonino Mazzeo, Antonio Penta and Antonio Picariello, ‘Knowledge Representation and Management for e-Government Documents’ E-Government Ict Professionalism and Competences Service Science (Boston MA: Springer, 2008) 31–40.

72 V Thakur, M N Doja, Y K Dwivedi, T Ahmad and G Khadanga, ‘Land Records on Blockchain for Implementation of Land Titling in India’ (2020) International Journal of Information Management 52, p.101940.

73 D A Larson, ‘Designing and Implementing a State Court ODR System: From Disappointment to Celebration’ (2019) Journal of Disrupt Resolution 77.

74 Mark Giancaspro, ‘Is a ‘Smart Contract Really a Smart Idea? Insights from a Legal Perspective’ (2017) Computer Law & Security Review 33(6), 825–835.

75 Maciej Hulicki, ‘The Legal Framework and Challenges of Smart Contract applications’ (2017) Conference on System Sciences 3–4.

76 Aaron Wright and Primavera De Filippi, ‘Decentralized Blockchain Technology and the Rise of Lex Cryptographia’ (2015) SSRN 2580664.

77 P Leith, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Legal Expert System’ (2016) International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 30(3), 94–106.

78 S Fabian, ‘Artificial Intelligence and the Law: Will Judges Run on Punch Cards’ (2020) Common Law Review 16, 4.

79 A Ronkainen, ‘From Spelling Checkers to Robot Judges? Some Implications of Normativity in Language Technology and AI & Law’ (2011) (Proceedings of the ICAIL 2011 Workshop Applying Human Language Technology to Law) 48–53.

80 J Ulenaers, ‘The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Right to a Fair Trial: Towards a Robot Judge?’ (2020) Asian Journal of Law and Economics 11(2).

81 n 80.

82 Jeremy Barnett and Philip Treleaven, ‘Algorithmic Dispute Resolution—The Automation of Professional Dispute Resolution Using AI and Blockchain Technologies’ (2018) The Computer Journal 61(3), 399–408.

83 D Thompson, ‘Creating New Pathways to Justice Using Simple Artificial Intelligence and Online Dispute Resolution’ (2015) IJODR 2, 4.

84 D Carneiro, P Novais, F Andrade, J Zeleznikow & J Neves, ‘Online Dispute Resolution: an Artificial Intelligence Perspective’ (2014) Artificial Intelligence Review 41(2), 211–240.

85 A Sela, ‘Can Computers Be Fair: How Automated and Human-Powered Online Dispute Resolution Affect Procedural Justice in Mediation and Arbitration’ (2018) Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 33, 91.

86 David Freeman Engstrom and Jonah B Gelbach, ‘Legal Tech, Civil Procedure, and the Future of Adversarialism’ (2021) University of Pennsylvania Law Review 169, 1001–1099.

87 A Fitch, ‘Would You Trust A Lawyer Bot with Your Legal Needs?’ (2020) Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/articles/would-you-trust-a-lawyer-bot-with-your-legal-needs-11597068042. Gary Marchant, and J Covey, ‘Robo-Lawyers: Your New Best Friend or Your Worst Nightmare’ (2018) Litigation Journal 45(1) 27–31; M Markovic, ‘Rise of the Robot Lawyers’ (2019) Arizona Law Review 61, 325–350.

88 C Markou, ‘Are We Ready for Robot Judges?’ (2017) Discover Magazine https://www.discovermagazine.com/technology/are-we-ready-for-robot-judges; E Volokh, ‘Chief Justice Robots’ (2019) Duke Law Journal 68, 1135.

89 gavelytics.com.

90 legalzoom.com.

91 rocketlawyer.com.

92 exterro.com.

93 ebrevia.com.

94 home.ravellaw.com.

95 case-crunch.com.

96 judicata.com.

97 fastcase.com.

98 nolo.com.

99 legalmation.com.

100 everlaw.com.

101 lawgeex.com.

102 clio.com/?cta=lexicata.

103 lexmachina.com.

104 casetext.com.

105 urbanlogic.org.

106 tylertech.com/products/Modria.

107 https://github.com/JSv4/GremlinServer.

108 unitedlex.com.

109 atticus.com.

110 juspredict.com.br.

111 docketscience.com.

112 https://symbium.com/.

113 https://avvoka.com/.

114 alil-latam.com.

115 imanage.com/product/artificial-intelligence.

116 avvo.com.

117 skoposlabs.com.

118 https://home.ravellaw.com/.

119 https://bryter.com/.

120 https://www.trydefine.com/.

121 https://www.choiceboxer.com/.

122 https://law.stanford.edu/projects/statistical-scotus-decision-prediction/.

123 https://lamden.io/en/.

124 In some states, the legislative branch may be limited by state constitutional separation-of-power provisions that the state supreme courts may interpret to preclude legislation that directly regulates the practice of law.

125 S L Pardau, ‘Alternative Litigation Financing: Perils and Opportunities’ (2011) UC Davis Business Law Journal 12, 65.

126 As discussed, regulatory innovation may be a precursor to partial (or other systemwide) innovation.

127 H E Leland, ‘Quacks, Lemons, and Licensing: A Theory of Minimum Quality Standards’ (1979) Journal of Political Economy 87(6), 1328–1346.

128 This discussion raises an interesting question: Are there some legal services whose dimensions are sufficiently straightforward that only minimal licensing is required? This, for example, was the view taken about conveyancing in England and Wales when licensed conveyancers were allowed to compete with fully qualified lawyers in this market in 1988. There is some evidence that the price of conveyancing services dropped as a result (See: F H Stephen, J H Love, D D Gillanders & A A Paterson, ‘Deregulation and price discrimination in the conveyancing market’ (1993) Managerial and Decision Economics 14(4), 365–375).

129 Between 1985 and 2000, the practice of law in Arizona was not regulated by statute or court rule. (See Rose, 2002).

130 D L Rhode, Access to Justice (Oxford University Press, 2004), 87.

131 S Turner, Liberal Democracy 3.0: Civil Society in an Age of Experts (Sage, 2003), 131.

132 The ABA ultimately adopted a resolution that left the precise definition up to the states, but urged each state to include “the basic premise that the practice of law is the application of legal principles and judgment to the circumstances or objectives of another person or entity” (American Bar Association, 2003).

133 C L Fountaine, ‘When is a Computer a Lawyer: Interactive Legal Software, Unauthorized Practice of Law, and the First Amendment’ (2002) University of Cincinnati Law Review 71, 147.

134 See In Re NOLO Press/Folk Law, Inc, 991 S.W.2d 768 (1999) (Texas Bar Association opened unauthorized practice of law proceedings against publisher of self-help legal books); Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. Parsons Technology Inc., 1999 WL 47235 (N.D. Tex. 1999) (granting Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee summary judgment to enjoin the sale of legal assistance software); and Fountaine, 2002.

135 D C Weiss, ‘Suit Claims LegalZoom's Document Prep Is Unauthorized Practice’ (2010) ABA Journal https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/suit_claims_legalzooms_document_prep_is_unauthorized_practice

136 D L Rhode, Access to justice (Oxford University Press, 2004), 88.

137 G K Hadfield, ‘Legal Barriers to Innovation’ (2008) Regulation 31, 14.

138 For example see: D L Rhode, ‘Policing the Professional Monopoly: a Constitutional and Empirical Analysis of Unauthorized Practice Prohibitions’ (1981) Stanford Law Review 1–112; Rhode, 2004 n 136; R L Abel, ‘A Critique of Torts’ (1989) UCLA Law Review 37, 785; Jerold S Auerbach, Unequal Justice: Lawyers and Social Change in Modern America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976); W H Simon, ‘The Ideology of Advocacy: Procedural Justice and Professional Ethics’ (1978) Wisconsin Law Review 29; R W Gordon, ‘The Ethical World of Large-Firm Litigators: Preliminary observations’ (1978) Fordham Law Review 67, 709.

139 G K Hadfield, ‘Legal Barriers to Innovation’ (2008) Regulation.

140 J Macey, ‘The Limits of Legal Analysis: Using Externalities to Explain Legal Opinions in Structured Finance’ (2005) Texas Law Review 84, 75.

141 n 130 Rhode (2004) 89.

142 G K Hadfield, ‘Legal Barriers to Innovation’ (2008) Regulation 1695.

143 The ABA has a Standing Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service, whose mission ‘includes fostering the development of pro bono programs and activities by law firms, bar associations, corporate legal departments, law schools, government attorney offices, and others’ (American Bar Association Standing Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service and the Center for Pro Bono, 2006).

144 vidhilegalpolicy.in/research/responsible-ai-for-the-indian-justice-system-a-strategy-paper/.

145 https://theprint.in/judiciary/ai-can-improve-judicial-systems-efficiency-full-text-of-cji-bobdes-constitution-day-speech/326893/.

146 n 84.

147 https://main.sci.gov.in/pdf/Press/press%20release%20for%20law%20day%20celebratoin.pdf; https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/supreme-court-develops-software-to-make-all-its-17-benches-paperless/articleshow/75989143.cms?from=mdr;

148 n 86.

149 A Schmitz & C Rule (2019). ‘Online dispute resolution for smart contracts.’ (2019) J. Disp. Resol. 103.

150 S Salter, ‘Online Dispute Resolution and Justice System Integration: British Columbia's Civil Resolution Tribunal’ (2017) Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice / Recueil Annuel de Windsor d'Accès à la Justice 34(1), 112–129; H Habuka & C Rule, ‘The Promise and Potential of Online Dispute Resolution in Japan’ (2017) IJODR 4, 74 https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/?event=main.home2.show; I Liubin, ‘Online Dispute Resolution in Russia and Europe-Current Situation and Prospects of Development. Economic and Social Development’, Economic and Social Development: Book of Proceedings, 197–203.

151 J M Sklaroff, ‘Smart Contracts and the Cost of Inflexibility’ University of Pennsylvania Law Review 166, 263.

152 https://lp.wesearch.ai/; https://casetext.com/

153 A Blechová & P Loutocký, ‘Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Susskind, RE’ (2020) Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology 14(2), 329–341; Council of Europe, ‘Justice of the Future: Predictive Justice and Artificial Intelligence https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/justice-of-the-future-predictive-justice-and-artificial-intelligence.

154 T Wischmeyer & T Rademacher, (eds), Regulating Artificial Intelligence. (Springer, 2020). https://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/2020-legislation-related-to-artificial-intelligence.aspx; https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2020/02/20/ai-laws-are-coming/?sh=4e730d4da2b4; https://www.loc.gov/law/help/artificial-intelligence/americas.php.

155 R S Rathore, ‘India's Open Judicial Data and its Challenges’. SSRN 3756004.

156 R V de Carvalho Fernandes, D Barros, G H T Mendes & H Honda, ‘The VICTOR Project: Applying Artificial Intelligence to Brazil's Supreme Federal Court’. Research Handbook on Big Data Law 15, 304 https://sifocc.org/app/uploads/2020/06/Victor-Beauty-or-the-Beast.pdf.

157 J G Corvalan, ‘Artificial intelligence: Challenges and Opportunities-Prometea: The First Artificial Intelligence of Latin America at the Service of the Justice System’ (2018) Revista de Investigações Constitucionais 5, 295; J Corvalan, ‘Prometea: Artificial Intelligence to Transform Justice and Public Organizations’ (2020) Revue Internationale de Droit des Données et du Numérique 6, 89–102.

158 ADJD Leverages Judicial Insights to Transform the Justice Delivery Process https://www.sas.com/en_ae/customers/adjd-judicial.html.

159 C Winter, The Challenges of Artificial Judicial Decision-Making for Liberal Democracy (2021) https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5bcbd68334c4e241e07a0467/t/60084e6d668aee6485252d83/1611157101819/Challenges+of+AAJI+for+Liberal+Democracy.pdf.