Toward measures of complexity in legal systems
Abstract
Law can be considered as a complex dynamical system evolving from network structures. Potential interactions at various scales can generate unpredictable effects. This objective complexity based on non-linear dynamics exists in any legal system: it can be just observed. We propose here guidelines to develop two measures of complexity in legal systems related to these dynamics. The first one - a "structure-based" measure - involves the network analysis of legal text organization and quotations in a given corpus. The second one - a "content-based" measure - relies on some evaluation of the diversity of "legal outputs" generated by any legal system. Anchored in the innermost part of a legal system, its construction appeals to various fundamentals of Legal Theory. It is also shown that these two measures are representatives of larger classes of legal complexity measures. Some potential uses of these measures are then briefly discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The complexity of the law imposes real consequences for many individuals and organizations.
“The complexity of the law [12–15] imposes real consequences for many individuals and organizations [16,17].”
From GPT-4 passes the bar exam (2024) · cites this paper as [12]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 10 · Cited by 32
- Authors
- Bourcier, D., & Mazzega, P.
- Affiliations
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- LMTG, Toulouse, France
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2007-06-04
- Pages
- 211-215
- OpenAlex
- W2014693728
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 17.31
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Language and Interpretation
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Legal and Constitutional Studies
- Keywords
- legal complexity, complexity measures, legal system, complex dynamical systems, network analysis, legal theory, nonlinear dynamics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
