From Rules as Code to Mindset Strategies and Aligned Interpretive Approaches

, , , , , Slevin, Síobháine, & McGowan, Stephen (2024) From Rules as Code to Mindset Strategies and Aligned Interpretive Approaches. Cross-disciplinary Research in Computational Law (CRCL), 2(1).

Open access copy at publisher website

Description

‘Rules as Code’ is a broad heuristic that encompasses different conceptual and practical aspects regarding the presentation of legal instruments as machine executable code, especially for use in automated business systems. The presentation of law as code was historically considered a largely isomorphic exercise that could be achieved through a literal translation of law into code. Contemporary research is questioning the value of a literal approach to legal coding and is adopting different interpretive strategies that seek enhanced alignment between law and code. In this article, we report on research findings involving the coding of an Australian Commonwealth statute – the Treasury Laws Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations and Product Intervention Powers) Act 2019 (Cth) (the ‘DDO Act’), and the Act’s concomitant regulatory guidance – the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) Regulatory Guide 274 (‘RG 274’). We adapt and apply Brownsword’s mindsets to develop different interpretive approaches that were necessary to resolve the coding issues encountered. The mindset strategies enabled us to outline and delineate distinct computational, legal and regulatory interpretive approaches that highlight the different cultural contexts and rationales which are embedded in legal instruments, like legislation and regulatory guidance. In conclusion, we contend that different types of mindset strategies better highlight the interpretive choices involved in the coding of legal and regulatory instruments.

Impact and interest:

Search Google Scholar™

Citation counts are sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.

These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.

Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.

Full-text downloads:

25 since deposited on 27 Feb 2024
25 in the past twelve months

Full-text downloads displays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.

ID Code: 246544
Item Type: Contribution to Journal (Conference article)
Refereed: Yes
ORCID iD:
Burdon, Markorcid.org/0000-0001-9802-4366
Huggins, Annaorcid.org/0000-0002-1634-3505
Measurements or Duration: 21 pages
Additional URLs:
Keywords: Rules as code, design and distribution obligations, Deontic Defeasible Logic, interpretive approaches, mindsets, legal coding
ISSN: 2736-4321
Pure ID: 162933267
Divisions: Current > Research Centres > Digital Media Research Centre
Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Business & Law
Current > Schools > School of Law
Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Creative Industries, Education & Social Justice
Funding Information: The commercial research project outlined in the article was funded by Realta Logic and was entitled ‘Coding of The Design and Distribution Obligations and Product Intervention Powers (DDO) with corresponding Regulatory Guide 274’ (QUT ID: 97834808). The article is also informed by research supported by the Aus- tralian Research Council Linkage Grant ‘Optimising Digital Compliance Processes in the Financial Services Sector’ (LP210301088)
Funding:
Copyright Owner: Main text and response text copyright © 2024 Mark Burdon, Anna Huggins, Nic Godfrey, Rhyle Simcock, Josh Buckley, Siobhaine Slevin, Stephen McGowan<br/>Reply text copyright © the replier
Copyright Statement: This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the document is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au
Deposited On: 27 Feb 2024 05:11
Last Modified: 03 Mar 2024 11:16