Search results

This study aims to analyze notable distribution dispute cases from Islamic law history. The authors will assess these alongside resolutions proposed by historical authorities, some of which evolved into established Islamic case law. In addition, the authors intend to apply classic fair division rules to these cases, providing alternative solutions. Using a game-theoretical approach, the authors plan to compare Islamic solutions with traditional division rules through axiomatic analysis. The goal of this study is to systematically explore the unique principles underpinning Islamic distributions.

In this study, the authors collate Islamic inheritance law disputes involving conflicting claims, unresolvable by primary Islamic law sources, from historical and modern texts. The authors formally model these as claims problems, surplus-sharing problems and adapted claims problems. Concurrently, the authors gather the proposed solutions and historical backgrounds offered by the era’s authorities and jurists. These solutions are axiomatically generalized into rules, while the axioms characterizing distribution rules are checked if they are aligned with Islamic norms and values. This approach facilitates a comparison between Islamic distributions and classic division rules.

The 'Awl and Radd doctrines, used in Islamic inheritance law, are axiomatically equivalent to the Proportional Rule, a prevalent non-Jewish division rule. These doctrines present solutions impervious to manipulation by legal heirs through rights transfer, unlike other possible distributions. Ibn 'Abbas' solution for Awliyya cases uses sequential priorities and diverges uniquely from classic fair division rules in the literature. In addition, it is established that Abu Yusuf's (b. 729) distribution for a legal dispute is axiomatically identical to Abraham ibn Ezra's (b. 1089) division rule.

There is a noticeable dearth of comprehensive studies investigating contentious disputes concerning resource claims within Islamic law. Many of these studies are lacking in-depth analyses of diverse cases, casting doubts on their reliability. As a result, a robust focus is needed on case collection prior to any analytical process. Future research should concentrate on collating instances of fair division problems throughout Islamic history, as well as separately collecting methods of Islamic sharing. This procedure may lead to the characterization of various Islamic regulations, thereby emphasizing distinct Islamic principles. In forthcoming studies, conducting an exhaustive axiomatic evaluation of the cases and proposed resolutions is imperative.

This research illuminates existing knowledge gaps, setting a course for novel research trajectories. It underlines the fair division literature’s oversight of disputes within Islamic law, despite the plentiful existence of contentious cases. The research underscores the relevance of cooperative game theory as a tool for dissecting Islamic legal disputes. By accounting for unique Islamic norms and principles, this study lays a foundation for a nuanced comprehension of the dynamics and outcomes of legal disputes. By integrating an interdisciplinary approach, this research strives to bridge the gap between game theory and Islamic law.

Beyond addressing a significant research lacuna, this study carries extensive societal implications. By shedding light on enduring debates within Islamic law, it encourages a rejuvenated understanding of the evolution and interpretation of legal disputes. The axiomatic disparities between rulers’ and jurists’ methods provide invaluable insights within the Islamic context, bolstering the understanding of sociocultural dynamics that influence legal decision-making. This research has the potential to shape legal discourse, guide policymaking and spur scholarly, juristic and societal dialogue. Consequently, it may foster a more comprehensive and enlightened approach toward the resolution of legal disputes in Islamic law.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine Islamic law’s historical legal disputes from a game-theoretical standpoint. Existing studies rarely collect distribution disputes systematically, and none scrutinize the axiomatic rationales underlying authorities’ and jurists’ distributions, opting instead to focus on historical backgrounds. While the fair division literature extensively examines disputes, it often overlooks those originating from Islamic law, which presents a rich source of disputes that can be modeled as fair division problems. This research makes a distinct contribution by incorporating disputes from Islamic law into the existing body of cooperative game theory literature.

This paper aims to build a legal intelligent auxiliary discretionary system for predicting the penalty and damage compensation values. After extensively considering current the characteristics of the current Chinese legal system, a practical legal intelligent auxiliary discretionary system based on genetic algorithm-backpropagation (GA-BP) neural network (NN) is proposed herein.

An experiment is designed to analyze cases involving mental anguish compensation in medical disputes, and a Chinese legal intelligent auxiliary discretionary adviser system is built based on a GA-BP NN. Because BP neural networks perform well for nonlinear problems and GAs can improve their ability to find optimal values, and accelerate their convergence, a combined GA–BP algorithm is used. In addition, an ontology is used to reduce the semantic ambiguities and extract the implied semantic information.

We confirm that a case-based legal intelligent auxiliary discretionary adviser system based on a GA-BP NN and ontology techniques has good performance in prediction. By predicting the mental anguish compensation values, the legal intelligent auxiliary discretionary adviser system can help judges to handle cases more quickly and ordinary people to discover the suggested compensation or penalty. In contrast to BP NN or SVM, the result seems more close to the actual compensation rate.

Recently, smart court has been developed in China; the purpose of which is to build the legal advice system for improving judicial justice and reducing differences in sentencing. A practical legal advice system is an urgent requirement for the judiciary.

This paper presents a study of a case-based legal intelligent auxiliary discretionary adviser system based on a GA-BP NN and ontology techniques. The findings offer advice to optimize legal intelligent auxiliary discretionary adviser systems for mental anguish compensation in medical disputes.

We reviewed U.S. federal and state sexual harassment court cases involving a prior workplace romance between the plaintiff and alleged harasser. Results of our content analysis show that, unlike employees’ decisions, judges’ decisions can be predicted from legal but not ethically salient extralegal case features. Hence, when compared to prior research, our study reveals the following discrepancy: judges follow a traditional legal model, whereas employees follow an ethical model when making decisions about romance‐harassment cases. Our study also reveals that the mere presence (versus absence) of a prior romance reduces the likelihood of a plaintiff’s success in a harassment case. We discuss implications for management practice and research from the perspective of legal and ethical decision making.

Present-day courts, practitioners, and scholars continue to cite to and rely upon cases involving slavery and enslaved persons to construe, interpret, and apply common-law principles of property, contract, family, tort, and other areas of the law. Often a case’s connections to slavery are not acknowledged in citations. This erasing of context causes institutional harms by both embedding slave-based legal analysis in American legal structures and condoning the detrimental impacts of slavery in society. The deleterious effects of slavery persist through citations to cases involving enslaved persons to support such prosaic present-day issues as warranties on window glass. Slavery may no longer be legal, but its long shadow persists in citations and, thereby, is embedded in the information systems informing the legal profession. The information infrastructures that categorize case law and inform legal research ingrain racism in the American legal system by perpetuating and masking case law connections to slavery and enslaved persons. The legal profession has recently been criticized for the continued citation to cases that state good law or persuasive authority but are rooted in the institution of slavery. This chapter builds on this important research and contributes a necessary element to the discussion – namely how legal information infrastructures contribute to continuing citation to slave cases and how the library and information science (LIS) field can help institute change and promote racial justice.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

This article examines the early post-World War II civil rights organizing of black women radicals affiliated with the organized left. It details the work of these women in such organizations as the Civil Rights Congress and Freedom newspaper as they fought to challenge the unjust conviction and sentencing of black defendants caught in the racial machinations of U.S. local and state criminal justice systems. These campaigns against what was provocatively called “legal lynching” formed a cornerstone of African American civil rights activism in the early postwar years. In centering the civil rights politics and organizing of these black women radicals, a more detailed picture emerges of the Communist Party-supported anti-legal lynching campaigns. Such a perspective moves beyond a view of civil rights legal activism as solely the work of lawyers, to examining the ways committed activists within the U.S. left, helped to build this legal activism and sustain an important left base in the U.S. during the Cold War.

Institutional theorists treat law and regulations as external factors that is part of the organization’s environment. While institutional theory has been criticized for its inability to recognize the role of agents and to theorize agency, the growing literature on institutional work and institutional entrepreneurship, partially informed by and co-produced with practice theory, advances a more dynamic view of processes of institutionalization. In order to cope with legal and regulatory frameworks, constituting the legal environment of the organization, there are evidence of organizational responses in the form of bargaining, political negotiations, and decoupling of organizational units and processes. The purpose of this paper is to report how legal and regulatory frameworks both shape clinical practices while at the same time they are also informed by the activities and interests of professional communities and commercial clinics.

This paper reports an empirical study of the Swedish-assisted conception industry and is based on a case study methodology including the use of interviews and formal documents and reports issues by governmental agencies.

The empirical material demonstrates how scientists in reproductive medicine and clinicians regard the legal and regulatory framework as what ensures and reinforces the quality of the therapies. At the same time, they actively engage to modify the legal and regulatory framework in the case when they believe it would benefit the patients. The data reported presents one successful case of how PGD/PGS can be used to develop the efficacy of the therapy, and one unsuccessful case of regulatory change in the case of patient interest groups advocating a legalization of commercial gestational surrogacy. In the former case, scientific know-how and medicinal benefits served to “push” the new clinical practice, while in the latter case, the “demand-pull” of patient interest groups fails to get recognition in regulatory and policy-making quarters.

The study contributes to the literature on agency in institutional theory (e.g. the emerging literature on institutional work) by emphasizing how legal and regulatory frameworks are in a constant process of being modified and negotiated in the face of novel technoscientific practices and social demands. More specifically, this process include many scientific, technological, economic, political and social relations and resources, making the legal environment of organizations what is the outcome from joint negotiations and agreements across organizational and professional boundaries.

This study aims to adopt a systematic review approach to examine the existing literature on law and LLMs.It involves analyzing and synthesizing relevant research papers, reports and scholarly articles that discuss the use of LLMs in the legal domain. The review encompasses various aspects, including an analysis of LLMs, legal natural language processing (NLP), model tuning techniques, data processing strategies and frameworks for addressing the challenges associated with legal question-and-answer (Q&A) systems. Additionally, the study explores potential applications and services that can benefit from the integration of LLMs in the field of intelligent justice.

This paper surveys the state-of-the-art research on law LLMs and their application in the field of intelligent justice. The study aims to identify the challenges associated with developing Q&A systems based on LLMs and explores potential directions for future research and development. The ultimate goal is to contribute to the advancement of intelligent justice by effectively leveraging LLMs.

To effectively apply a law LLM, systematic research on LLM, legal NLP and model adjustment technology is required.

This study contributes to the field of intelligent justice by providing a comprehensive review of the current state of research on law LLMs.

The traditional and most common conception of cause lawyers has viewed them as necessarily oppositional to the state, leftist, and, at best, transgressive. This conception is significant to our analysis because of its tendency to treat “the state” as a rather singular arena of power – an “it” – rather than a multi-dimensional entity made up of competing institutions and personnel. Following work on the disaggregated and embedded state, we suggest that conflict and competition among state institutions and state personnel allow cause lawyers and state actors to engage in mutually-beneficial action in service of their agendas. Litigation has important benefits for both cause lawyers and state actors: within the arena of law, processes that usually require the backing of large constituencies in the context of majoritarian institutions require, instead, convincing legal arguments. We briefly present evidence from two highly disparate cases of similar processes of interaction among cause lawyers and state actors in Vermont and Israel, which we believe indicates that this type of interaction is far from idiosyncratic.

Introducing the concept of intra-social movement backlash this chapter explores the “legacy phase” of legal action focusing on conflicts and debates within a social movement that has mobilized. Using a legal mobilization framework attuned to the recursive relationship between rights, rights-claiming activities, and collective identity, the chapter analyzes the mixed legacies of movement strategic litigation. Empirically, the chapter offers two illustrative case studies of intra-movement backlash in the women's and the disability rights movements in Canada. The findings suggest that while this form of backlash can have negative, disempowering effects, it also offers opportunities to challenge hegemonic structures within a social movement and re-imagine collective identities.