Asia's Leading Law & Technology Review

Tag: Alexis Chun

Computational Law: Past, Present, and Future

Reading time: 5 minutes

Written by: Alexis Sudrajat and Alexis N. Chun

The inaugural Computational Law Conference (“CLAWCON“) ran from 12 to 14 July 2023. Hosted in the Singapore Management University (“SMU“), the event saw speakers and attendees from private, public, regulatory, and academic organisations, some of whom had flown in from all over the world. They had come together to discuss the issues surrounding computational law from a multi- and interdisciplinary perspective. It was organised by SMU’s Centre for Computational Law (“CCLAW“), Singapore’s first and only research centre focused on applied research in the intersection between law and technology.[1]

Two distinguished speakers, Professor Lee Pey Woan, Dean of Yong Pung How School of Law (“YPHSL“), and Mr Yeong Zee Kin, Chief Executive of Singapore Academy of Law (“SAL“), delivered the opening keynote addresses of CLAWCON 2023. This article summarises both of these keynote speeches.

Alexis Chun: What a computational law future might look like (Part 2 of 3)

Reading time: 5 minutes

Written by Alexis N. Chun

Last week we spoke about the status quo in law and how we at Legalese and the Computational Law Centre (CCLAW) at Singapore Management University are working together to make Computational Law a reality. This is part 2 of this 3-part series. 

If you recall, we discussed the (natural) language problem of law and how perhaps a domain-specific language (DSL) for law might be the foundational technological innovation to fix it. Because a DSL gives “Law” (which term we use to collectively refer to statutes, regulations, contracts, guidelines, business process logic, rules, quasi-legal documentation, you name it) a common denominator, the disparate bits can now “talk” to each other. This is what makes “Law” computable and computational. And in our vision, this foundational technology gets us from pseudocode to real code. That’s what we suspect a contract wants to be when it grows up:  a program. And the marvellous thing about programs is that Law can graduate from simply expressing syntax (i.e. words on a page, legalistic expressions) that are essentially pseudocode to semantics (i.e. what does it mean in an objective or clearly defined fashion), to pragmatics (i.e. what does it mean for me). Semantics and pragmatics are the traditional demesnes of lawyers; these are things you’d pay and ask for a lawyer’s advice on. But lawyers’ service of semantics and pragmatics may be too much like a priesthood (and too expensive) for most end users: go forth with this blessed document, but don’t break your back carving out the laundry list of assumptions, professional indemnities, and deciphering what exactly it means for you. Take faith. This just might not cut it anymore for the increasingly tech-savvy and knowledge-driven common man on the Clapham omnibus who reviews and background checks everything including their drivers, romantic dates, and restaurants.    

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén