Three Laws Blog: Law and Artificial Intelligence

Shereshevsky and Shany on Programmed to Obey: The Limits of Law and the Debate over Meaningful Human Control of Autonomous Weapons

Yahli Shereshevsky, University of Haifa Faculty of Law, and Yuval Shany, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Law and Institute of Criminology; Israel Democracy Institute, are publishing Programmed to Obey: The Limits of Law and the Debate over Meaningful Human Control of Autonomous Weapons in volume 57 of the Columbia Human Rights Law Review. Here is the abstract.

New military technologies are transforming the contemporary battlefield and raise complex ethical and legal questions previously unaddressed. This essay makes three novel contributions to the significant debate on Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) and military AI in the legal and ethical literature. First, it puts forward a normative argument against AWS—even if they outperform humans in adhering to the rules governing the conduct of hostilities. This argument is grounded in the critical importance of the human capacity to act beyond the strict letter of the law. The essay contends that this capacity is central to the regulation of warfare, which permits, rather than obligates, the use of force against legitimate targets. Second, it offers a doctrinal analysis of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL)—the two principal legal regimes that regulate armed conflicts under international law—providing a fresh perspective on how they intersect in the context of AWS. Finally, the essay explores the extent to which its normative argument is persuasive in the context of military AI beyond AWS, an area that is rapidly evolving and already extensively employed in current conflicts. It examines the similarities and differences between these emerging technologies, and reflects on the implications of those differences for the desirable regulation of both technologies.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Campagnolo, van Haernen, Ravitharan, and Murray on Artificial Intelligence's Impact on Legal Journals

Yan Campagnolo, Leonie van Haernen, Shaarini Ravitharan, and Emma Murray, all of the University of Ottawa, Common Law Section, have published Artificial Intelligence’s Impact on Legal Journals as Ottawa Faculty of Law Working Paper No. 2025-04. Here is the abstract.

This report provides an overview of the opportunities and challenges presented by the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on legal journals, including the Ottawa Law Review (OLR). Throughout the publication lifecycle of a given piece, AI tools may play a pivotal role in enhancing the editorial and publishing processes. Similarly, authors submitting to legal journals may also leverage AI tools for purposes that range from improving readability to generating content. While the potential benefits are significant, the use of such tools raises various issues pertaining to the accuracy and quality of publications, as well as broader ethical and legal issues. Journals—both legal and non-legal—have responded to these opportunities and challenges at different speeds and in different ways. Some journals in non-legal disciplines have developed extensive AI policies, while the majority of legal journals—particularly in Canada—appear to be falling behind in this regard. This report contains several recommendations that will empower the OLR to embrace the transformative potential of AI responsibly while maintaining its commitment to safeguarding privacy, intellectual property, and scholarly rigour. Central to this endeavour is the adoption of three AI policies: one covering the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in submissions, another addressing AI usage in the peer review process, and a final one relating to the editorial team. This report ultimately aspires to ensure the OLR upholds its reputation as a reliable contributor to legal scholarship by guiding the organization through this new technological revolution.

Download the report from SSRN at the link.

Campagnolo, van Haernen, Ravitharan, and Murray on Artificial Intelligence's Impact on Legal Journals

Yan Campagnolo, Leonie van Haernen, Shaarini Ravitharan, and Emma Murray, all of the University of Ottawa, Common Law Section, have published Artificial Intelligence’s Impact on Legal Journals as Ottawa Faculty of Law Working Paper No. 2025-04. Here is the abstract.

This report provides an overview of the opportunities and challenges presented by the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on legal journals, including the Ottawa Law Review (OLR). Throughout the publication lifecycle of a given piece, AI tools may play a pivotal role in enhancing the editorial and publishing processes. Similarly, authors submitting to legal journals may also leverage AI tools for purposes that range from improving readability to generating content. While the potential benefits are significant, the use of such tools raises various issues pertaining to the accuracy and quality of publications, as well as broader ethical and legal issues. Journals—both legal and non-legal—have responded to these opportunities and challenges at different speeds and in different ways. Some journals in non-legal disciplines have developed extensive AI policies, while the majority of legal journals—particularly in Canada—appear to be falling behind in this regard. This report contains several recommendations that will empower the OLR to embrace the transformative potential of AI responsibly while maintaining its commitment to safeguarding privacy, intellectual property, and scholarly rigour. Central to this endeavour is the adoption of three AI policies: one covering the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in submissions, another addressing AI usage in the peer review process, and a final one relating to the editorial team. This report ultimately aspires to ensure the OLR upholds its reputation as a reliable contributor to legal scholarship by guiding the organization through this new technological revolution.

Download the report from SSRN at the link.

Galler and Soled on AI and the Regulation of Tax Preparers

Linda Galler, Hofstra University School of Law, and Jay A. Soled, Rutgers University, are publishing AI and the Regulation of Tax Preparers as a Hofstra Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper (forthcoming). Here is the abstract.

Tax return preparers play a pivotal role for millions of taxpayers, and their number ranges in the hundreds of thousands. Despite preparers’ importance in the tax return submission process and their numerical size, they are largely unregulated. Because of this lack of oversight, a significant number of tax return preparers put their own financial interests and those of their clients ahead of the government’s financial interests. In the past, there have been calls for increased regulatory oversight to keep wayward practitioners’ actions in check. Therefore, a decade and a half ago, Congress, in conjunction with the Treasury Department, mandated that every paid tax return preparer secure a Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN) and affix it to the face of the tax returns that they prepare. Enter artificial intelligence (AI)—with its unparalleled ability to process and analyze an immense amount of data—combined with electronic tax return filings. With immediate access to PTINs and other information or characteristics associated with such returns, AI is ideally situated to identify tax return preparers who are derelict in their professional duties. Once identified, the IRS can hold these practitioners accountable for their mistakes and misdeeds. Unlike the prior academic papers that have championed regulatory oversight well beyond PTIN registration (e.g., mandatory annual education courses and exams), this analysis stands apart. Instead, it recognizes AI’s power and what it can accomplish if properly brought to bear to the problem of unregulated tax return preparers. Seizing this opportunity would most likely result in increased tax compliance, the collection of billions more in revenue without raising taxes, and a narrowing of the tax gap (i.e., the difference between what taxpayers pay in tax and what they owe). Furthermore, the foregoing may be accomplished without adding needless administrative burdens.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.