mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

The Legislative Recipe: Syntax for Machine-Readable Legislation

arXiv 2108.08678 ↗First posted 19 Aug 2021cs.CLcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Legal interpretation is a linguistic venture. In judicial opinions, for example, courts are often asked to interpret the text of statutes and legislation. As time has shown, this is not always as easy as it sounds. Matters can hinge on vague or inconsistent language and, under the surface, human biases can impact the decision-making of judges. This raises an important question: what if there was a method of extracting the meaning of statutes consistently? That is, what if it were possible to use machines to encode legislation in a mathematically precise form that would permit clearer responses to legal questions? This article attempts to unpack the notion of machine-readability, providing an overview of both its historical and recent developments. The paper will reflect on logic syntax and symbolic language to assess the capacity and limits of representing legal knowledge. In doing so, the paper seeks to move beyond existing literature to discuss the implications of various approaches to machine-readable legislation. Importantly, this study hopes to highlight the challenges encountered in this burgeoning ecosystem of machine-readable legislation against existing human-readable counterparts.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 1 of its 7 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Aug 2021.

Builds on

1 of 7 references.

References · 1

  1. 2020Complex Societies and the Growth of the Lawcited by 12

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.

2 papers.