Advancing Legal Reasoning: The Integration of AI to Navigate Complexities and Biases in Global Jurisprudence with Semi-Automated Arbitration Processes (SAAPs)
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code
Abstract (arXiv)
This study consists of a novel approach toward the analysis of court judgments spanning five countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Rwanda, Sweden and Hong Kong. This study also explores the intersection of the latest advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and legal analysis, emphasizing the role of AI (specifically generative AI) in identifying human biases and facilitating automated, valid, and coherent multisided argumentation of court judgments with the goal of ensuring consistent application of laws in and across various jurisdictions. By incorporating Advanced Language Models (ALMs) and a newly introduced human-AI collaborative framework, this paper seeks to analyze Grounded Theory-based research design with Advanced Language Models (ALMs) in the practice of law. SHIRLEY is the name of the AI-based application (built on top of OpenAI's GPT technology), focusing on detecting logical inconsistencies and biases across various legal decisions. SHIRLEY analysis is aggregated and is accompanied by a comparison-oriented AI-based application called SAM (also an ALM) to identify relative deviations in SHIRLEY bias detections. Further, a CRITIC is generated within semi-autonomous arbitration process via the ALM, SARA. A novel approach is introduced in the utilization of an AI arbitrator to critically evaluate biases and qualitative-in-nature nuances identified by the aforementioned AI applications (SAM in concert with SHIRLEY), based on the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration. This Semi-Automated Arbitration Process (SAAP) aims to uphold the integrity and fairness of legal judgments by ensuring a nuanced debate-resultant "understanding" through a hybrid system of AI and human-based collaborative analysis.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 2 of its 12 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Feb 2024.
Builds on
2 of 12 references.
References · 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Ordinary, Reasonable Chatbots: Do AI Models Track Human Legal Judgments?
- 2025Artificial Intelligence and Legal Analysis: Implications for Legal Education and the Profession
- 2025Challenges for Generative AI in Legal Reasoning
- 2026The Measurement Gap in the Automation of EU Law: Benchmarking Doctrinal Legal Reasoning under the EU AI Act
- 2026Legal Reasoning Is Not Lawyering: Rethinking Legal Benchmarks for Pro Se Access to Justice
- 2026Can LLMs Reason in a Legally Meaningful Manner? A Small-scale Study on European Court of Human Rights Cases
- 2024A Comprehensive Framework for Reliable Legal AI: Combining Specialized Expert Systems and Adaptive Refinement
- 2026AR-BENCH: Benchmarking Legal Reasoning with Judgment Error Detection, Classification and Correction