O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

#Openlaws #Bileta15

990 visualizações

Publicada em

Openlaws.eu is funded by JUST/2013/ACTION GRANTS Grant Agreement Number 4562, led by the University of Amsterdam during the period March 2014-2016. The case study is of the European institutions' provision of free access to European Union law, in terms of cases, legislation, regulatory instruments and academic-expert analysis. The analysis explains how and whether the environment (institutions, policies and the legal community) is finally developing in which open access models such as openlaws.eu can take root and flourish. The key functionalities of the existing legal publishing system are summarized and described. This activity involves a review of the existing information systems and legal databases already in use and will produce a specification of the requirements of the system on the basis of the analysis of social, legal and market requirements. The case studies represent the key socio-economic and legal aspects of the services and illustrate the main functionalities, structure and operation of the proposed services. The findings are informed by key informant interviews and form a working assumption. The interviews are supported by the literature review, and the insights of workshops (including the LASPSI workshop on 3 September 2014).
The breadth of stakeholders interviewed is broad and includes experts from: academia, Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPB), trading funds, private entrepreneurs, corporations, standards bodies, non-governmental organizations and government policy officials with both domestic and international responsibilities. Note that the case studies rely on a Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) framework in order to identify the key components of the problem and provide the key specifications for the system that is to be built, while the third activity will rely on a combination of desk research, in-depth interviews, and focus groups.
Argument (598 words):
We argue that the European legal informatics space is unique in seven respects compared to national case studies.
1. The decision to make access to documentation freely available at production and then no charge was made in the context of no developed market actors to challenge the decision to ‘super-nationalise’ the state provision of legal information and case law reportage. There was no precedent for a multilingual economic and political area such as this, with four original languages and a precedent setting ‘Supreme Court’.
2. The essential role of European law in creating the ‘acquis communitaire’ led to a political decision to make law as widely available as possible. The benefits in creating an essential knowledge of European law amongst a critical mass of advocates at national levels was considered so important from the 1950s onwards that there was no serious resistance beyond basic budgetary questions.
As a result, it may be argued that European legal data is so open to reuse and access that it is the ‘exception that proves the rule’.

Publicada em: Educação
  • Seja o primeiro a comentar

  • Seja a primeira pessoa a gostar disto

#Openlaws #Bileta15

  1. 1. OpenLaws.eu - access to EU law compared to UK Prof. Chris Marsden #BILETA15 9 April 2015
  2. 2. Expanding open innovation to law Introducing mass-customization to law Proposing a comprehensive European “Big Open Legal Data” (BOLD) Vision 2020  for incremental implementation,  built on top of existing EU and national systems and content  (e.g. EUR-Lex, e-Justice System, e-Codex). Chris Marsden (Sussex) 2
  3. 3. Developing BOLD ICT Platform Launch of: a. dedicated legal EU social networks. b. a hub for open access legal journals. Promote open data, open access publications, and open standards (e.g. ELI, ECLI) in the legal field.  Contribute to Open Innovation Strategy/Policy Group (OISPG) Chris Marsden (Sussex) 3
  4. 4. Stages in development of open access (Dunleavy/Margetts 2010 et seq) Government reforms  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1643850 New Public Management 1980s-1990s 1. Privatization 1. Licensing off datasets at cost-plus profit 2. Competition 1. Permitting private sector into provisioning 3. Managerialism + consultancy 1. Agencies in place of ministries  E.g. Met Office; Ordnance Survey as profit centres
  5. 5. Digital Era Governance 2001-  Mass adoption of Internet by public  1998-2002  Taxation moves to managing/filing online  HMRC achieves remarkable savings  Social security base moves online  Despite digital divide which is mythical  Mobile Internet ensures most poor connected  Government massive IT projects – disastrous  National health IT Spine + NHS Connect worst
  6. 6. DEG2.0 from 2006/10  Broadband enabled ‘consumers’  Ubiquitous by 2006, ‘superfast’ (sic) by 2014  Reviews of doctors, dentists, MPs…  Parliamentary expenses fiasco  Data.gov.uk launches January 2010  http://data.gov.uk/  Open Government Licence  DVLA moves to paperless tax discs  HMRC moves to inline-only self assessment
  7. 7. DEG3.0? Coalition owns ‘open’  Gordon Brown promises £25m to TBL in 2010 General Election – promise but no cheque  Austerity coalition jumps at open data  Francis Maude – old-time NPMer  transforms into open data evangelist  NPM is not dead?  Ministry of Justice no open access proposals  Treasury proposals to transform courts IT £350m  HMCTS open access reforms?
  8. 8. Legislation.gov.uk  Flagship programme for National Archives/OPSI  Best legislation open API in the world  Rated No.1 by OKFN open government  Designed from the start to be open  Much better than EurLEX horrible API  http://leibniz-internship-report.herokuapp.com/eu- legal-data-survey/eu  But not as good as Legifrance – case law!
  9. 9. Case Law: BAILII & ICLR  Case law released to 2 not-for-profits  ICLR founded 1865 – charity since 1971  BAILII founded 1995: c.400,000 documents  http://www.bailii.org/bailii/stats.html  CanLII and AustLII the biggest LIIs  CANLII law society funded  1,000,000+ documents  100,000,000 page views (2013)  http://www.slideshare.net/freemoth/canlii- finalslides?qid=80f6c96c-01d8-4748-abb3- 1a1c4b948e99&v=default&b=&from_search=1
  10. 10. Open Data Institute 2011 #Goodlaw  radical crowd-sourced legislative approach Open Data fashionable amongst G8 countries etc  Implementation more patchy than general BAILII and Supreme Court reforms;  Society for Computers and Law trying hard  Computers and Law is open – it can be done But we really need a pan-European approach
  11. 11. Developing big online legal data Free Access to Law movement (FALM)  online case law via BAILII in the UK  Legal Information Institutes (AustLII, Cornell etc.) #GoodLaw online statutes  expanded rapidly, crowdsourcing ideas for #goodlaw Online legal education and research  BILETA since 1985  Electronic Law Journals project at Warwick  EJLT – now Script-ed + IJoC at USC many US law journals  Journal of Open Access to Law (JOAL) est. 2014!  publishing books via Creative Commons: Marsden 2010Chris Marsden (Sussex) 11
  12. 12. Greenleaf (2011, 2012) identifies 6 historic phases to achieve FALM 1. Example set by the LII (Cornell) and LexuM in early 90s 2. AustLII’s 1995 formulation: obligations of official publishers 3. 2002 Declaration on Free Access to Law 4. ‘Guiding Principles’ for States formulated by 2008 expert meeting convened by Hague Conference on Private International Law 5. ‘Law.Gov principles’ developed by Public Resources.org in 2010; and 6. draft Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act recommended in 2011 1. US National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws Chris Marsden (Sussex) 12
  13. 13. Team – note Andres Guadamuz CC licence expertInstitution Name UVAmsterdam Prof. Radboud G.F. Winkels Prof. Mireille van Eechoud LAPSI2.0 Sussex Prof. Chris Marsden Dr Andres Guadamuz CC4.0 London School of Economics Dr. Paolo Dini Dr. Shenja van der Graaf BXL Dr. Antonella Passani ROMA ALPENITE - developers Giulio Marcon Gianluigi Alberici SUAS Prof. Thomas Heistracher DI (FH) Thomas Lampoltshammer BYWASS Dr. Clemens Wass, MBL, MBA Chris Marsden (Sussex) 13
  14. 14. Report No. D1.2.1 – EU Case Study Version 1.0 DRAFT FOR COMMENT NOT ATTRIBUTION
  15. 15. Mapping Open Law Mapping of stakeholders, processes in legal information production and consumption levels of regulatory instruments flows of content, rights, value. Chris Marsden (Sussex) 15
  16. 16. 4 Case Studies  Assessing barriers to adoption of open access to legislation, case law, commentary  Developed over 18 months  EU  Netherlands  UK  Austria  Final synthesis report on BOLD
  17. 17. EU first draft case study  European institutions' provision of free access to European Union law,  cases, legislation, regulation, academic- expert analysis.  Month 4, contingent; will be revised.  Key functionalities of existing legal publishing system are summarized and described.
  18. 18. Case studies: key socio-economic & legal aspects Illustrate main functionalities, structure & operation.  analysis of social, legal and market requirements.  informed by key informant interviews.  supported by literature review of existing information systems legal databases (M6),  workshops (including LASPSI2 workshop)
  19. 19. Stakeholders interviewed Experts from:  Academia,  Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPB), trading funds,  private entrepreneurs,  corporations,  standards bodies,  non-governmental organizations and  government policy officials with both domestic and international responsibilities.
  20. 20. Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) framework  identify the key components of the problem  provide key specifications for system to be built,  combination of  desk research,  in-depth interviews, and  focus groups.  Rich multimedia flowcharts and other illustrative material will be used in further drafts  to describe problem in context of SSM approach  to facilitate discussion between user and development communities.
  21. 21. Publication of draft case studies & final comparative report  dissemination and feedback mechanisms  both on-line  (e.g. via open access websites, promotion via social media and comment promotion)  offline (via workshops and conferences)  to create a close expert panel  constructive critique for future iterations of reports,  final version published M24 conclusion of project.
  22. 22. CAMPO Adaptation of standard socio-legal framework  Context  Environment of community/organisation/market  Actors  Publishers, official document providers, users  Methodology  Including both open and closed access  Practices  Including user experience, litigation/regulation  Outcomes  Including market, regulatory reform
  23. 23. CAMPO Description Added value Context Initial part of the case study outlines the overall context in which the community emerges/operates - type of legal informatics technology Systematic catalogue of cases/actors/issues Actors What type of community is observed (primary groups, market actors, user groups etc.) Methods Investigation method: Details of procedures to map the case study and the techniques used to perform analysis (research design details + actual methods) Catalogue of methodological approaches to investigate different communities Practices Dynamics of interaction: Illustration of dynamics observed in each case study Detailed insights on interplay Outcomes Summary of integration at EC level Conclusions, limits of analysis for member states
  24. 24. CAMPO Description Context Programme of observation with legal community and developers. Actors Office of Official Publications; EurLEX unit Various regulator websites DG Justice Multinational legal publishers (member state based –analysis in country case studies) No Legal Information Institute for EU, start-up (EuroLII) in process. Commentary provided by Brussels affiliates of international law firms + European law academics based in national universities Methods Significant methodology challenges to researching this ‘community’, if European law can be said to have created a single community, as opposed to enabling several communities at national level with European coordination or at least input. Relatively little academic empirical study of European legal informatics, until recently. Ethical implications similar problems as national legal communities. Practices Research conclusions must be provisional and transient. Outcomes Further research needed to solve methodology problems for exploring environment.
  25. 25. European legal data born open: 1958 Official Journal policy  Resources devoted to multi-lingual and multi- national publication.  development – and now redevelopment – of EUR- Lex and efforts to integrate with national databases via N-Lex and now EUCases.  boosted by the stronger political commitment to open data in Commissioner Kroes’ Digital Agenda and the European Council October 2013 conclusions which contain a strong endorsement of open data, linked to the revised Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive.  This is shared by other major legal systems and governments’ wider commitments to open data, for instance the June ’13 G8 Open Data Charter.
  26. 26.  European legal informatics space seems unique in at least seven respects  compared to our three country case studies.
  27. 27. 1. Unprecedented multilingual economic and political area  4 original languages (French, German, Dutch, Italian)  precedent setting ‘Supreme Court’ worked in French.  The decision to make access to documentation freely available at production and then no charge  context of no developed market actors  to challenge ‘super-nationalised’ state provision of legal information and case law reportage.
  28. 28. 2. The essential role of European law in creating the ‘acquis communitaire’  Political decision to make law widely available at below marginal cost  To critical mass of advocates at national levels  no serious resistance beyond budgetary questions.  comparison with bi-lingual European Court of Human Rights presentation of case law,  rather than national court systems.  Note linguistic diversity of EU and severe budgetary constraints of the ECHR system.
  29. 29. 3. European law was pushing on an open policy door  expansion occurred at the same time as a massive expansion in European institutional competences and budget.  boom-bust cycle of many national legal reporting environments  far longer and more crisis-ridden history  not an EU feature of resistance to wider access to law.
  30. 30. 4. EU law expanded rapidly concurrently with legal informatics  Throughout the 1980s and onwards,  development of EU law and legal databases has been a largely happy marriage  though with various standards-based and institutional strains  inevitable in system growing at rapid rate.
  31. 31. 5. European precedent for national law  leading to recognition of its power to influence national legislation  not only in its legal effect  salutary example of free access to the over- arching law in so many national legal fields.  European law is an example to national legislatures, courts and commentators.  The use of judgments as precedent setting has parallels with the ECHR system and also national common law systems with Supreme Courts, such as England and the United States.
  32. 32. 6. European court decisions and legislative reforms now affect 28 nations  Importance of effective communication of changes is evident (arguably more powerfully)  United States Supreme Court decisions have ‘ripple’ effects at  state, municipal and regional levels in United States.  Examples in the field of information law include the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ (sic) case of Google v. Spain (2014) , and Digital Rights Ire-land (2014) ,  which were the subjects of enormous immediate commentary at European and national levels.
  33. 33. 7. Commentary: Law firms in Brussels and Luxembourg  enormously well resourced  compared to national level in all but the largest jurisdictions.  case commentary is frequently rapidly and comprehensively supplied freely  ‘loss leader’ to attract both national and non-European clients  to use the services of these highly competent and highly marketed law firms.
  34. 34. Federal exception that proves the national rule  Is European legal data so open to reuse and access: ‘exception that proves the rule’?  national systems hampered by legacies of closed and restrictively licensed underfunded systems.  This will be a major research theme in national case studies.  European legal information not as widely reused and repurposed as US federal law,  best of breed example to emulate where possible?
  35. 35. c.marsden@sussex.ac.uk @openlaws @ChrisTMarsden www.openlaws.eu