Article

Bargaining in the shadow of the law - using utility functions to support legal negotiation

Authors:

John Zeleznikow,

Emilia Bellucci,

Geraldine MackenzieAuthors Info & Claims

ICAIL '07: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law

Pages 237 - 246

https://doi.org/10.1145/1276318.1276365

Published: 04 June 2007 Publication History

Abstract

Most dispute resolution is settled by negotiation rather than litigation. However, such bargaining often occurs in the shadow of the law. To help support interest-based negotiation, we explore the use of utility functions to support negotiation analysis. We discuss in detail a utility function we have developed in the area of family-law mediation. This function is currently being used as the basis of an online dispute resolution system.

References

[1]

Allen, L. E. 1956. Games Bargaining: A Proposed Application of the Theory of Games to Collective Bargaining, Yale Law Journal, 65(5): 660--693

[2]

Astor, H. and Chinkin, C. M. 2002, Dispute resolution in Australia, 2nd edn, LexisNexis Butterworths, Sydney.

[3]

Baldwin, J. and McConville, M. 1977. Negotiated Justice: Pressures to plead guilty. Martin Robertson (Law in Society Series).

[4]

Bar-Gill, O. and Gazal-Ayal, O. 2006. Plea-bargaining only for the Guilty. The Journal of Law & Economics, 49:353--364.

[5]

Beardsley, K., Quinn, D., Biswas, B. and Wilkenfeld, J. 2006. Mediation Style and Crisis Outcomes. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(1): 58--86.

[6]

Bellucci, E. 2004. Developing Compensation Strategies for the construction of Negotiation Decision Support Systems. PHD thesis, La Trobe University, Bundoora 3086, Victoria, Australia

[7]

Bellucci, E. and Zeleznikow, J. 2001. Representations for decision making support in negotiation. Journal of Decision Support, volume 10(3--4): 449--479

[8]

Bellucci, E and Zeleznikow, J. 2006, Developing Negotiation Decision Support Systems that support mediators: a case study of the Family_Winner system, Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law, 13(2): 233--271.

Digital Library

[9]

Behrman, B. W. and Davey, S. L. 2001. Eyewitness Identification in Actual Criminal Cases: An Archival Analysis. Law and Human Behaviour, 25(5): 475--491.

[10]

Bentham, J. 1789. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, ch. 1 (1789) published as Bentham, J. 1988. The Principles of Morals and Legislation. Amherst: Prometheus Books.

[11]

Bibas, S. 2004. Plea bargaining outside the shadow of the trial. Harvard Law Review, 117, 2464--2547.

[12]

Black, H. C. 1990. Black's Law Dictionary, West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota.

[13]

Byrne, Z. S., and Cropanzano, R. 2001. The history of organizational justice: The founders speak. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2):. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc:3--26.

[14]

Cooter, R., Marks, S. and Mnookin, R. 1982. Bargaining in the shadow of the law: a testable model of strategic behavior. The Journal of Legal Studies, 11(2): 225--251.

[15]

Fisher, R. and Ury, W. 1981. Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Boston: Haughton Mifflin.

[16]

Fletcher, G. 1996. Basic Concepts of Legal Thought. Oxford University Press, New York

[17]

Folberg, J. and Taylor, A. 1984, Mediation: a comprehensive guide to resolving conflicts without litigation, Jossey-Bass social and behavioral science series, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

[18]

Foxall, G. 2004. WHAT JUDGES MAXIMIZE: TOWARDS AN ECONOMIC PSYCHOLOGY OF THE JUDICIAL UTILITY FUNCTION. Liverpool Law Review 25: 177--194.

[19]

Gazal-Ayal, O. 2006. Partial Ban on Plea Bargains, Cardozo Law Review, 27:2295--2349.

[20]

Gray, P., Gray, X. and Zeleznikow, J. 2007. Decision Negotiating Logic: For richer or poorer. To appear in the Proceedings of Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM Press, Palo Alto, Ca., USA.

Digital Library

[21]

Hall, M. J. J., Calabro, D., Sourdin, T., Stranieri, A. and Zeleznikow, J. 2005. Supporting discretionary decision making with information technology: a case study in the criminal sentencing jurisdiction. University of Ottawa Law and Technology Journal. 2(1): 1--36.

[22]

Hall, M. J. J., Hall, R. and Zeleznikow, J. 2003. A method for evaluating legal knowledge-based systems based upon the Context Criteria Contingency-guidelines framework. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Edinburgh, Scotland: ACM Press, 274--283.

Digital Library

[23]

Jouini, E., Schachermayer, W. and Touzi, N. 2005. Optimal risk sharing for law invariant monetary utility functions, http://www.crest.fr/pageperso/touzi/jst05a.pdf last accessed 6 April 2007.

[24]

Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47: 313--327.

[25]

Kahneman, D, Wakker, P. and Sarin, R. 1997 Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12(2): 375.

[26]

Kennedy, G., McMillan, J. and Benson, J. 1984, Managing negotiations, 2nd ed. edn, Hutchinson Business, London

[27]

Kersten, G. E. 2001. Modeling Distributive and Integrative Negotiations. Review and Revised Characterization. Group Decision and Negotiation. 10(6):493--514.

[28]

Lax, D. A. and Sebenius, J. 1986. The Manager as Negotiator. New York, The Free Press.

[29]

Lodder, A. R. and Zeleznikow, J. 2005. Developing an Online Dispute Resolution Environment: Dialogue Tools and Negotiation Systems in a Three Step Model, The Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 10:287--338.

[30]

Mnookin, R., Peppet, S. R. and Tulumello, A. S. 2000. Beyond Winning: Negotiating to Create Value in Deals and Disputes, The Belnap Press of Harvard University Press.

[31]

Mnookin, R. H. and Kornhauser, L.1979, Bargaining in the shadow of the law: The case of divorce. Yale Law Journal 88: 950--997.

[32]

Nash, J. F. 1950. The Bargaining Problem, Econometrica, 18: 155--162

[33]

von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. 1944. The theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

[34]

Posner, R A. 1973. An Economic Approach to Legal Procedure and Judicial Administration, Journal of Legal Studies, 2: 399--458.

[35]

Posner, R A. 1993. What do Judges and Justices Maximize, Supreme Court Ecoomic Review, 3: 1--41.

[36]

Posner, R. A., 1995. Economic Analysis of Law, Aspen Law & Business, New York, NY.

[37]

Posner, R. A., 1998. OVERCOMING LAW, Harvard University Press

[38]

Pratt, J. W., Raiffa, H., Schlaifer, R., 1964. The foundations of decision under uncertainty: an elementary exposition. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 59: 353--375.

[39]

Pruitt, D. G, 1981 NEGOTIATION BEHAVIOR, New York, NY: Academic Press

[40]

Raiffa, H., 1968. Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices under Uncertainty. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

[41]

Raiffa, H. 1982. The Art and Science of Negotiation: How to Resolve Conflicts and Get the Best Out of Bargaining, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press.

[42]

Raiffa, H., Richardson, J. and Metcalfe, D. 2002. Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Sander, F. 1976, Varieties of dispute processing. Federal Rules Decisions, 70: 111.

[43]

Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,. Cambridge, MA

[44]

Ross, H. 1980. Settled Out of Court, Aldine.

[45]

Saaty, T. 1980. The Analytical Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority, Allocation., Mac-Graw Hill, New York.

[46]

Stranieri, A, Zeleznikow, J, Gawler, M, & Lewis, B, 1999. A Hybrid rule- neural approach for the automation of legal reasoning in the discretionary domain of family law in Australia. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 7 (2--3): 153--183

[47]

Sycara, K. 1993. Machine Learning for Intelligent Support of Conflict Resolution, Decision Support Systems, 10:121--136.

Digital Library

[48]

Thiessen, E. M. and McMahon, J. P. 2000. Beyond Win-Win in Cyberspace. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 15: 643.

[49]

Toulmin, S. E., 1958. The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

[50]

Van Velthoven, B. C. J. and Ter Voert, M. J. 2004, Geschilbeslechtingsdelta 2003 The Hague: WODC/Boom.

[51]

Walton, R. E. and Mckersie, R. B 1965. A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations, McGraw - Hill, New York.

[52]

Williams, G 1983 Legal Negotiation and Settlement, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota.

[53]

von Wright, G. H. 1972. The logic of preference reconsidered. Theory and Decision, 3(2): 140--169.

[54]

Wright, R. W. 1999. PRINCIPLED ADJUDICATION: TORT LAW AND BEYOND Canterbury Law Review 7:265--296.

[55]

Zeleznikow, J. and Bellucci, E. 2003. Family_Winner: integrating game theory and heuristics to provide negotiation support. Proceedings of Sixteenth International Conference on Legal Knowledge Based System. IOS Publications, Amsterdam, Netherlands: 21--30.

[56]

Zeleznikow, J. and Bellucci, E. 2006. Family_Mediator - adding notions of fairness to those of interests. Proceedings of Nineteenth International Conference on Legal Knowledge Based System. IOS Publications, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Digital Library

[57]

Zeleznikow, J., Bellucci, E., Vincent, A. and Mackenzie, G., 2007. Bargaining in the shadow of a trial: adding notions of fairness to interest-based negotiation in legal domains, to appear in the Proceedings of Group Decision and Negotiation Meeting, Mt. Tremblant (Montreal), Canada.

[58]

Zeleznikow, J. and Vincent, A. 2007. Providing Decision Support for Negotiation: the need for adding notions of fairness to those of interests. To appear in University of Toledo Law Review.

Cited By

Alarcón García S(2020)Análisis de tecnologías digitales para beneficiar el ejercicio profesional de los mediadores familiares de ChileRevista de Derecho Privado10.18601/01234366.n39.03(33-60)Online publication date: 28-Jun-2020
https://doi.org/10.18601/01234366.n39.03
Han QZhu YKe GLin H(2019)A Two-Stage Decision Framework for Resolving Brownfield ConflictsInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health10.3390/ijerph1606103916:6(1039)Online publication date: 22-Mar-2019
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16061039
Sourdin TCornes R(2018)Do Judges Need to Be Human? The Implications of Technology for Responsive JudgingThe Responsive Judge10.1007/978-981-13-1023-2_4(87-119)Online publication date: 7-Jul-2018
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1023-2_4
Show More Cited By

Bargaining in the shadow of the law - using utility functions to support legal negotiation

Recommendations

Genetic-aided multi-issue bilateral bargaining for complex utility functions
AAMAS '10: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: volume 1 - Volume 1

In this paper, a non-mediated multi-issue bilateral bargaining model for complex utility functions is presented. Before the negotiation process, a genetic algorithm (GA) is used to sample one's own utility function. During the negotiation process, ...
Affective negotiation support systems

Negotiation is a process in which two or more parties aim to reach a joint agreement. As such negotiation involves rational decision making about options and issues. However, negotiation also involves social interaction and dilemmas as well as personal ...
Multiparty Negotiation Support: The Role of Visualization's Influence on the Development of Shared Mental Models

The study examines a method for supporting multiparty negotiations by means of a Negotiation Support System (NSS). More specifically, this study investigated the effect of visualization support on the development of shared mental models among ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

ICAIL '07: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law

June 2007

302 pages

ISBN:9781595936806

DOI:10.1145/1276318

Conference Chair:
Anne Gardner
Atherton, California
,
Program Chair:
Radboud Winkels
Leibniz Center for Law, Universiteit van Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Copyright © 2007 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

International Association for Artificial Intelligence and Law

In-Cooperation

SIGAI: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 04 June 2007

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Conference

ICAIL07

Sponsor:

ICAIL07: 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

June 4 - 8, 2007

California, Stanford

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 69 of 169 submissions, 41%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

10
Total Citations
View Citations
667
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)5
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 18 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Alarcón García S(2020)Análisis de tecnologías digitales para beneficiar el ejercicio profesional de los mediadores familiares de ChileRevista de Derecho Privado10.18601/01234366.n39.03(33-60)Online publication date: 28-Jun-2020
https://doi.org/10.18601/01234366.n39.03
Han QZhu YKe GLin H(2019)A Two-Stage Decision Framework for Resolving Brownfield ConflictsInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health10.3390/ijerph1606103916:6(1039)Online publication date: 22-Mar-2019
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16061039
Sourdin TCornes R(2018)Do Judges Need to Be Human? The Implications of Technology for Responsive JudgingThe Responsive Judge10.1007/978-981-13-1023-2_4(87-119)Online publication date: 7-Jul-2018
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1023-2_4
Hoffmann A(2017)Beyond distributions and primary goodsJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology10.1002/asi.2374768:7(1601-1618)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1002/asi.23747
Carneiro DNovais PNeves JCarneiro DNovais PNeves J(2014)Information RetrievalConflict Resolution and its Context10.1007/978-3-319-06239-6_7(141-162)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2014
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06239-6_7
Carneiro DNovais PAndrade FZeleznikow JNeves J(2013)Using Case-Based Reasoning and Principled Negotiation to provide decision support for dispute resolutionKnowledge and Information Systems10.1007/s10115-012-0563-036:3(789-826)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10115-012-0563-0
Lauritsen MAshley Kvan Engers T(2011)Intelligent tools for managing legal choicesProceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law10.1145/2018358.2018373(106-110)Online publication date: 6-Jun-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2018358.2018373
Yousefi SHipel KHegazy T(2010)Attitude-Based Negotiation Methodology for the Management of Construction DisputesJournal of Management in Engineering10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.000001326:3(114-122)Online publication date: Jul-2010
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000013
Abrahams BZeleznikow J(2008)Asset negotiation and trade-off support within a multi-agent environmentProceedings of the 1st International Working Conference on Human Factors and Computational Models in Negotiation10.1145/1609170.1609171(4-10)Online publication date: 8-Dec-2008
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1609170.1609171
Sourdin TBrown TBatagol B(undefined)Family Support Program Literature Review, Research into the Family Support Program: Family Law ServicesSSRN Electronic Journal10.2139/ssrn.2707380
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2707380

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents