English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Natural language processing (NLP) methods for analyzing legal text offerlegal scholars and practitioners a range of tools allowing to empiricallyanalyze law on a large scale. However, researchers seem to struggle when itcomes to identifying ethical limits to using NLP systems for acquiring genuineinsights both about the law and the systems' predictive capacity. In this paperwe set out a number of ways in which to think systematically about such issues.We place emphasis on three crucial normative parameters which have, to the bestof our knowledge, been underestimated by current debates: (a) the importance ofacademic freedom, (b) the existence of a wide diversity of legal and ethicalnorms domestically but even more so internationally and (c) the threat ofmoralism in research related to computational law. For each of these threeparameters we provide specific recommendations for the legal NLP community. Ourdiscussion is structured around the study of a real-life scenario that hasprompted recent debate in the legal NLP research community.

On the Ethical Limits of Natural Language Processing on Legal Text