Organizations: ¹ NTT Social Informatics Laboratories, Tokyo, Japan · ² Faculty of Law, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan · ³ EY Law, Vienna, Austria
Abstract
(1)Cross-border data transfers have become a matter of daily occurrence against the backdrop of the development of cloud computing and artificial intelligence. Consequently, where a data leak gives rise to civil liability, the determination of that liability inevitably assumes an international dimension involving foreign elements. (2)As is starkly demonstrated by secret sharing technology in cloud computing, fragments of data may be presumed to be distributed across multiple jurisdictions on a global scale. This renders traditional private international law measures -- predicated on the identification of a physical location -- inadequate for the purposes of determining the applicable law, a difficulty that is particularly acute in relation to non-contractual obligations. (3)Bearing in mind the typical scenario encountered in practice -- in which a Data Subject brings a claim for damages against a SaaS (Software as a Service) provider, which in turn seeks recourse against an IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service) or PaaS (Platform as a Service) provider -- a characteristic feature of such cases is the concurrence of contractual and non-contractual obligations. Taking this feature into account, it is possible to determine the applicable law governing non-contractual obligations through party autonomy -- by aligning it with the law governing the contractual obligation as selected by the parties, an approach that may be termed private ordering. This serves to overcome the difficulties associated with the identification of a physical location and, at the same time, contributes to ensuring the foreseeability of the parties.
Multinational companies increasingly require cross-jurisdictional contract review, yet existing legal NLP datasets are largely restricted to a single jurisdiction. We introduce LAUKIN (Legal equivalence dataset of Australia, UK, and INdia), a dataset of clause pairs (AU-UK, UK-IN, IN-AU) labelled for boolean legal equivalence. We develop a novel multi-stage retrieval and reranking pipeline to construct the initial clause pair mapping, with a subset of clause pairs subsequently annotated by legal experts as Equivalent or Not Equivalent. The dataset comprises 14,727 clause pairs from 204 contracts across 8 agreement types, of which 3,000 are manually labelled: 900 train, 600 dev, and 1,500 test. We evaluate 12 models across 4 techniques, achieving a best macro-F1 of 65.11%, establishing LAUKIN as a challenging benchmark. Results reveal that, despite shared legal heritage, drafting conventions diverge significantly across jurisdictions, making cross-jurisdictional equivalence classification non-trivial. LAUKIN also includes 11,727 unlabelled training pairs to support future semi-supervised learning research in legal NLP.
Legal reasoning is inherently jurisdiction-dependent: the same facts can call for different legal rules and yield different conclusions across legal systems. Yet existing benchmarks rarely evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) can recognize such jurisdiction-specific variation, especially when identical fact patterns lead to divergent legal outcomes.We introduce CrossLex, a same-fact, legal-source-grounded benchmark for evaluating cross-jurisdictional legal reasoning in LLMs across three jurisdictions: China, California, and Germany. Built from authoritative legal sources, CrossLex aligns 55 legal issues spanning contract, consumer, criminal, family, and labor law, and constructs jurisdiction-aligned questions paired with answers and supporting citations. In total, CrossLex contains 6,149 instances organized into 385 fact groups, with all legal issues, answers, and cited authorities reviewed by legal professionals.To disentangle basic legal knowledge from cross-jurisdictional reasoning, CrossLex defines three complementary tasks: single-jurisdiction reasoning (T1), joint cross-jurisdictional comparison (T2), and fine-grained cross-jurisdictional evaluation (T3). We further propose Grounded Joint, a metric that jointly assesses answer correctness and legal-source grounding, and provide a unified evaluation for streamlined benchmarking. Extensive experiments on representative LLMs show that, although current models can often answer legal questions correctly, they struggle to provide accurate cross-jurisdictional legal citations.We hope that CrossLex will facilitate future research on source-grounded cross-jurisdictional legal reasoning.
Recent incidents involving Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents, which were reported escaping their containment `unintentionally' to gain unauthorized access, pose looming questions about who or what should be held legally responsible for resultant criminal or negligent damage. As the independent capabilities of agents expand, Promise Theory suggests a systematic method to resolve these questions, based on the Downstream Principle for causal influence. Responsibility can easily be expanded to include AI agents where tracing responsibility becomes impactical, and agents' freedoms to act can be limtied by policy choices.