Law and Education

[FINAL DRAFT]

On

AI and Legal Education: Inclusion of AI tools to research as part of Law Curriculum

Under the Guidance of: Submitted by:

Dr. Shashank Shekhar Mayank Bhandari

Assistant Professor, Law and Morality Enrolment No. 190101092
DR. RMLNLU, LUCKNOW B.A.LLB. (Hons.), Xth Semester
 DECLARATION

I, Mayank Bhandari, hereby declare that the project titled “AI and Legal Education: Inclusion of AI
tools to research as part of Law Curriculum ” made under the guidance of Dr. Shashank Shekhar,
is an original work. This project has been submitted as the end-term project for the subject of Law and
Education for the Tenth semesterof B.A.LLB (Hons.) course. All the information and data that has been
analysed and used fromvarious sources has been duly accredited.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I owe a great many thanks to a great many people who helped me and supported me during the
completion of this project.
Words are inadequate in offering my deep sense of gratitude to my Professor for their precious
guidance. With their enthusiasm, inspiration and great effort to explain things clearly and in a
simple manner, they helped throughout my analysis of work with lots of encouragement, sound
advice and good innovation.
I would like to thank the Library Staff of Dr. Madhu Limaye Library who extended their
assistance to me by helping me out in consulting the relevant books.
I know that despite my sincerest efforts some discrepancies might have crept in, I hope and
believe that I would be pardoned for the same.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................................... 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... 4

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 5

• What is Artificial Intelligence? .................................................................................. 6

• What are AI Legal Research tools? .......................................................................... 8

AI Research into Legal Curriculum ........................................................................................... 9

 Law Librarian.................................................................................................................. 9

Lexis Answers+ ...................................................................................................................... 12

Criticism And Concern .................................................................................................... 16

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 18

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 20

Literature Review..................................................................................................................... 26
 INTRODUCTION

Artificial intelligence (AI) and its legal practice applications are grabbing headlines in the legal
industry. Ever since the early success stories of IBM Watson, the legal press has been buzzing with
articles that debate whether AI is a threat or hope and whether AI will transform, disrupt, revolutionize,
or even remake the legal industry. AALL Spectrum previously featured two articles about AI (“Hand
in Hand with IBM Watson” by Jean O’Grady and “Artificial Intelligence: Not Just Sci-Fi Any More”
by Mark Gediman)—both articles demonstrate the progression of AI. O’Grady’s article discusses
possible efficiencies with contract negotiations and M&A’s augmented by AI tools, while Gediman
focuses on legal analytics tools such as Lex Machina (now owned by LexisNexis) and how they are
powering improved search capabilities. As such, law -rms have embraced and implemented these AI
applications and others. Now it’s time to focus on the law librarian’s role regarding AI applications in
legal research and aiding practitioners in minimizing potential risks due to AI utilization. Challenges
Presented by AI Implementations in Legal Practice Law -rms have embraced AI applications in the
document review area. While document review processes have been targeted for automation by various
vendors in the past, AI applications enhance the process.

What is Artificial Intelligence?

Artificial intelligence (AI) is the simulation of human intelligence in machines that are programmed
to learn, problem-solve, make decisions, and understand language — all tasks typically performed by
(you guessed it) humans. In contrast to pre-programmed machines, AI utilizes techniques such as
machine learning, natural language processing, and computer vision to process and analyze vast
amounts of data, meaning these machines can learn and adapt on their own, without human
intervention.
While this may sound unnerving, AI ultimately serves as a tool to aid you in working more
efficiently. AI won't replace attorneys, but it can help legal professionals achieve new heights in their
careers. The key question, of course, is how?

Artificial Intelligence in Law

Simply stated, AI-powered legal research platforms can help you do billable work faster, allowing you
to spend more time putting that research to good use by counseling clients, negotiating with opposing
counsel, or performing other higher-level work. This is particularly important for attorneys who
provide their services on a flat-fee or contingency-fee basis, where more time spent on legal research
could lead to lower profit margins.
AI in the legal technology industry has historically been more "extractive," meaning it’s been generally
 used to crawl and pull information from a large database; however, with major recent developments
in “generative” AI, legal technology is beginning to not only pull information but also create new,
original content.
Also see AI Terms for Legal Professionals: Understanding What Powers Legal Tech.
Currently, there are several legal tech solutions that utilize extractive AI, and generative AI capabilities
are expected to become increasingly available this year. We discuss a few of these tools in detail
below.
Lexis+
Lexis+ was launched in 2020 as an AI-powered, beginning-to-end legal research solution. Featuring
natural language search, integrated data visualizations, and the industry’s leading
citator, Shepard’s Citation Service, Lexis+ is designed to help you work efficiently with the largest
collection of primary law available.*
In addition to natural language search, the platform also boasts several AI-backed features that assist
attorneys in a specific aspect of a workflow, such as:
Lexis Answers
Type a question in the Lexis+ search bar and get an accurate, succinct answer to your question at the
top of your search results, instead of digging through documents manually.1

Is there AI for legal research?

Together, AI and legal research is not only a reality, but a necessity in today’s competitive and
demanding legal market. Legal research is one of the most time-consuming and costly tasks for legal
professionals. It requires finding, analyzing, and synthesizing relevant information from various
sources, such as statutes, case law, regulations, journals, and news articles.
The right AI for legal research is equally important, especially with the rise of generative AI
technology. While using free resources may seem enticing, paid resources are much more trustworthy;
helping you avoid missing important information, comply with the relevant rules and regulations, and
uphold the integrity and reputation of the legal profession.
AI can help you:
• Find the most relevant and authoritative sources for your legal issue, by understanding the context and
meaning of your query, and ranking the results according to their relevance, recency, and citation
frequency
• Extract key facts, arguments, holdings, and precedents from the sources you find, by using natural
language processing to identify and summarize the main points of each document
• Compare and contrast different sources, by using machine learning to detect similarities and

1
https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/b/thought-leadership/posts/the-power-of-artificial-intelligence-in-legal-
research
 differences among them
• Generate insights and recommendations from your research results, by using data analytics to identify
patterns, trends, anomalies, and gaps in the legal information
Among many other benefits.
AI will allow you to:
• Save time on your research tasks
• Improve the quality and accuracy of your research outputs
• Enhance your legal reasoning and creativity by finding new perspectives and approaches to your legal
problem
• Advance your firm’s reputation and success
What else can AI-powered legal research do for you? Here are some common questions:

Can AI help me build a better legal case strategy?

AI-powered legal research technology helps you build a stronger legal case strategy by giving you
unprecedented insight into lawyers, judges, courts, and damages — just to name a few. Information
that was once gleaned primarily from anecdotes and personal experience is now based on data-driven
knowledge.
All of this means you can build an even stronger case strategy with a better understanding of previously
uncertain aspects of your case, like how often your judge grants summary judgment motions or which
court would be best for your client’s matter.
AI can help you communicate more effectively with your clients by equipping you with the best
information. The same data and insights that help you build a better case strategy also helps you give
your clients the reassurance they need.
Your clients want to know everything. They want to know how much this is going to cost them. They
want to know how long it’s going to take. They want to know their chances of a successful outcome.
By using AI to enhance your communication with your clients, you can save time, increase
engagement, and build trust. You can show your clients that you care about their needs and goals and
that you are always ready to listen and respond. You can also demonstrate your expertise and thought
leadership in your field.

Can AI improve aid due diligence?

AI-backed legal document analyzing tools go through your documents with the fine-tooth comb of
your dreams. This means you can be confident you’re turning in a memo or brief that is ironclad and
that you didn’t miss a thing.
Before this technology, you would likely be double-checking your work. Triple checking. No matter
the number, the process is the same. You drafted your memo or brief and then you reviewed it time
 and time again. It’s not the most efficient method or the most cost-effective — you likely can’t bill
your client for your perfectionism.
You’ve got the strongest authority and your citations and quotations are verified. That assurance is
second to none, but closely following is being able to check your opponent’s work product with the
same level of detail. Did they accidentally (or otherwise) misquote a case? Did they reference case law
that has since been overturned? They might not have realized this … but you did. And all of this is due
to the AI that is now the standard in legal research.

Make your law firm even better

The power of AI and legal research technology gives firms the second (and third and fourth and fifth
and …) set of eyes they desperately wish they had but can’t realistically count on or build into the
workflow. It gives attorneys the extra confidence they need when they work with their clients or enter
the courtroom. 2

Enhanced document retrieval is possible with AI because an attorney now teaches a specialized
software program how to arrange documents containing certain terms or metadata. With repeated use,
the program learns more sophisticated review techniques and becomes more adept at returning relevant
documents. Similarly, AI applications are deployed by -rms in M&A work to analyze thousands of
documents in the context of due diligence. e promise of reducing repetitive work and minimizing
workloads may improve access to justice as more practitioners’ time is freed, allowing them to
represent individuals requiring legal assistance. At the same time, the efficiency leads to an impact on
a law firm’s bottom line since associates will report fewer billable hours. A recent McKinsey study
estimated that 23 percent of attorney time consists of tasks that can be automated (see the McKinsey
Interactive Infographic at bit.ly/MJ17McKinsey). If AI works well with a closed universe of document
retrieval and document analysis, how well can AI perform in the larger legal research arena? Further,
will legal research tasks become part of the 23 percent of attorney time subject to automation? Beyond
document review, AI has been used to generate legal memos. is logical extension of AI legal research
tools has been developed by IBM’s Watson project in the form of ROSS Intelligence. An artificial
intelligence program, ROSS has been pre-loaded with a corpus of bankruptcy law and trained to produce a
basic memo on issues in bankruptcy law. Implemented by BakerHostetler LLP and von Briesen & Roper, this
AI tool generates legal research citations and the explanatory language in a memo memo creation certainly
releases new associates from routine tasks. Yet, where does the ethical duty to supervise come into play when
an automated process generates the memo?

Attorneys can rate the memo as positive or negative and prompt the system to re-ne the results, but there still
needs to be a review process; ROSS developers considered the memo function to be in its early stages as of

2
https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/what-has-legal-ai-ever-done-for-you/
September 2016. Compounding the memo generation question is the issue of what knowledge base serves as
the basis for the memo. Who in the -rm knows how recently the AI corpus was updated—has it “read” the
opinion released by a bankruptcy judge in the last 48 hours? Is the AI searching a corpus that includes
bankruptcy orders as well? Will relevant federal local court rules be pulled and incorporated into the memo? is
is where the roles of the law librarian and the practitioner must overlap in AI implementations. Building the
Corpus of an AI System Legal research systems incorporating AI are built, not bought as turn-key systems.

AI legal systems are built by loading a corpus of source material. Whether in a law firm, a private enterprise, or
a law school incubator program, this involves loading -les of public domain legal authority. Ravel Law and
Harvard Law School's Caselaw Access Project reached a milestone on January 27, 2017, scanning all U.S. case
law. is data forms the basis of Ravel’s database. Librarians are trained to build collections, whether virtual or
physical, and the construction of an AI corpus can be strengthened with law librarian input. Librarians know
their constituencies’ information needs. Librarians in law -rms and in corporate special libraries have in-depth
knowledge of the sources required for successful practice in those settings.

As Gediman pointed out in his article, the legal applications of AI systems require constant feeding of current
and relevant information. Law librarians, as information professionals with a unique understanding of users’
search habits, goals, and available data, can help the institution tailor the application and maximize the bene-ts
of the AI system. Moving forward, law librarians need to ensure that administrative law is included in the corpus
of law loaded into all AI systems. Firms and incubators alike need to work with regulatory materials, including
administrative decisions, to be effective practitioners and promote compliance.

Due to licensing restrictions, secondary sources will be missing from law firms’ AI systems. Westlaw and
LexisNexis, however, now use search engines employing AI features for their intuitive retrieval systems.
Searches in these commercial research systems will pull from the entire database content, including
administrative law sources and secondary sources. Librarians acting in an instructional role, whether in firms or
academic/incubator settings, need to alert new practitioners about the need to review and understand what
content is available in their institution’s own AI system.

Currently, many associates and law students are encouraged to begin a search in secondary material to gain
background knowledge of a practice area or legal issue. Depending on where practitioners start their search,
whether in a proprietary legal research platform or a firm’s AI research system, this advice will vary. Taking on
an Instructional Role AI systems are an example of cognitive computing; these applications can read documents
for their conceptual content, and therefore go beyond the keyword/synonym matching process currently
employed in some natural language search algorithms. Cognitive computing applications demonstrate learning
capability in that repeated searches are analyzed and the search results reasoned to meet the user’s demands
more closely. Librarians, aware of what results can optimally be retrieved by a particular search, can gauge the
gaps or weaknesses in an AI system by evaluating search results. Law librarians who train/instruct law
students/new practitioners can be an integral part of the AI system construction, implementation, and evaluation
team. Librarians’ familiarity with law students’/associates’ search practices and patterns can be harnessed in
 teaching AI systems as well. In fact, two terms employing an AI system loaded with the same corpus of legal
material may retrieve different search results for similar queries over time as each system learns from varying
demands and tailors its responses. Practitioners employing poor search strategy will not teach the system as
readily, nor be rewarded with more renewed results. Watson Cognitive Solutions’ Brian Kuhn noted that
multiple trainers for AI applications are most effective since, “Cognitive tools … absorb the biases of those that
train them.” e algorithms employed by AI systems are proprietary and will not be open to law librarians or
purchasers of AI systems. us, AI system users must be even more critical of their legal research strategies and
search results. The fact that a process is automated does not mean that students or practitioners should not be
informed of how best to use the system, nor should they blindly accept results as satisfactory or complete.
Reducing Ethical Risks Related to AI Implementation Law librarians can play a role in helping lawyers to both
reduce AI-related risks and to become more information and technology literate to fulfill their ethical duties.

Rule 1.1 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct requires a lawyer to “provide competent
representation to a client.” In August 2012, the ABA’s House of Delegates voted to amend Comment to extend
the competence requirement to technology. Comment [8] states, “To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill,
a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated
with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education, and comply with all continuing legal
education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.” According to Robert Ambrogi’s LawSites blog, “by the
end of 2016, 26 states had adopted technology competence as part of a lawyer’s ethical duties.” 3For a complex
and evolving technology such as AI, what constitutes “the requisite knowledge and skill” for a lawyer has yet
to be clarified by the courts and the state bar associations. Although court decisions and ethical opinions directly
related to AI are scarce, the California State Bar has issued a Formal Opinion No. 2015-193 (the “California
Opinion”)4 providing one of the most detailed discussions on technology competence in e-discovery—a related
process where AI has been implemented.

Although the California Opinion is only advisory, it gives lawyers concrete advice on how to comply with their
ethical duty of competence while e-discovery technologies are constantly developing and becoming more
closely integrated in their legal practice. e digest of the opinion suggests, “Attorney competence related to
litigation generally requires, among other things, and at a minimum, a basic understanding of, and facility with,
issues relating to e-discovery, including the discovery of electronically stored information (ESI). On a case by-
case basis, the duty of competence may require a higher level of technical knowledge and ability, depending on
the e-discovery issues involved in a matter, and the nature of the ESI.” e opinion then speci-es a few tasks
lawyers should be able to perform, “either by themselves or in association with competent co-counsel or expert
consultants,” among which is the task to perform data searches. e California Opinion may shed some light on
how lawyers can fulfill their ethical duties when AI is involved in their legal practice. At any time of rapid
technology development and transition, law librarians have always been at the forefront to provide insights
based on their deep understanding of users’ research habits. In 1996, when users were just being captivated by
the simple and intuitive way of natural language searching, one librarian cautioned against emphasizing natural

3
(See Ambrogi’s blog post at bit.ly/MJ17LawSites.)
4
Formal Opinion No. 2015-193 (the “California Opinion”)
 language over Boolean searching in an AALL Spectrum article titled “Natural Born Killers: An Argument
Against Teaching Natural Language Searching.”

In the article, Kelly Kunsch sounded the alarm because a natural language search needs to be translated into
computer language “using an algorithm or quasi-mathematical formula” and at the time of the article the
“translation” was not done very well. is created two pitfalls for users: (1) “[a] user who does not understand
what the computer does in the translation will not choose the best word for the search” and therefore, “rarely
utilize computer research to its fullest capacity;” (2) “[a]n attorney who does not understand computer searching
language is unable to evaluate and correct the search” and, therefore, creates a “false sense of accuracy.” As
legal databases such as Westlaw and LexisNexis have continued to improve their natural5 language processing
algorithms and further adjust the “translation,” the animosity against natural language searching has diminished.
However, when more and more algorithms are partnering with ROSS or other AI systems to provide faster,
better and lower-cost legal services, the concerns expressed in this article from 20 years ago still seem to
resonate.

Similar to the power behind natural language searching, AI uses algorithms to mimic the human brain’s learning,
analytical, and decision-making processes. In light of the exponential amount of data and the complexity of
technology involved in an AI system, both the benefits that can be reaped from an optimal AI application and
the dangers that may come from a “false sense of accuracy” are amplified. Law librarians’ keen awareness of
the pitfalls in similar technology and advocacy in teaching effective and efficient searching strategies are
valuable assets in this time of rapid change. In addition to the duty to maintain technology competence under
Rule 1.1, an unchecked reliance on AI technology to reach legal conclusions may also violate a lawyer’s duty
to supervise under Rule 5.1 and 5.3, the duty to exercise independent judgment under Rule 2.1, and bring claims
under Rule 5.5 for the unauthorized practice of law.

Looking Ahead in time is ripe for law librarians to incorporate background knowledge of both database
algorithms and AI corpus contents into the legal research curriculum in both academic and algorithmic
instructional settings. Given the risks and benefits associated with AI technology, this training will prepare
attorneys to be informed ethical practitioners. Since database algorithms are well-guarded proprietary
information, the legal industry needs to call for transparency and standardization related to such technology. In
an op-ed for Bloomberg Big Law Business, Wendy Wen Yun Chang, a member of the ABA’s Standing
Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility and a partner at Hinshaw Culbertson, expressed her
opinion that it is time to regulate AI providers and require some quality standards.6 It is in line with the lawyers’
goal of fulfilling their ethical duties related to technology. As she states in her article, “Technology, especially
AI technology, can be deceptive because its inner workings are invisible to the naked eye.” Having a general
understanding of database algorithms others a glimpse into the inner workings of AI and makes it possible for
attorneys and law librarians to evaluate and correct possible mistakes created by an AI program. Law librarians
need to maintain their role in the information cycle as instructors, experts, knowledge curators, and technology

5
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/83100938.pdf
6
(Read Chang’s op-ed at bit.ly/MJ17Chang.)
consultants as AI is implemented in legal practice and education.
In 2019, the ABA Legal Technology Survey reported that only 8% of respondents were using
resources with artificial intelligence (AI). In a few short years, however, AI has become a focal point
in conversation within the legal industry and beyond. With the rise of new generative AI-powered
technologies like ChatGPT, awareness and usage of AI is increasing as well. As a result, legal
professionals are asking questions like:
• How will AI change the tools and resources I currently use?
• How can I use AI to my advantage?
• Should I feel empowered or threatened by AI?
Chances are, you're already using AI in some areas of your legal practice — whether that be for case
search, client management, document preparation, or some combination of these. For example, in
2020, LexisNexis® released Lexis+®, an AI-backed legal research solution, and users began
discovering how AI can help locate relevant information faster and more cost-effectively.
Now, generative AI – the type of AI that powers tools like ChatGPT — is on the verge of changing
the way you research again.
More than ever, the questions posed above are critical, and we're here to help you find answers. This
article details how AI can be used in the legal industry, offering examples, resources, and tips.
But first — what exactly is artificial intelligence?
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Christina Isnardi, Problems with Enforcing International AI Law on Private Actors, 58 COLUM.
J. TRANsNAT’L L. 489, 495 (2020); see Dan St. John, The Trouble with Westphalia in AI: The
State Centric Liability Regime, 40 DENV. J. INT’L L. & POL’Y 686, 686 (2012).
• Isnardi, supra note 1, at 495; see Matthew Weinzierl, AI, the Final Economic Frontier, 32 J.
ECON. PERsP. 173, 179 (2018).
• Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer
AI, Including the AI and Other Celestial Bodies, Jan. 27, 1967, 610
• U.N.T.S. 205 [hereinafter Outer AI Treaty].
• Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by AI Objects, Mar. 29, 1972, 961
U.N.T.S. 187 [hereinafter Liability Convention].
• AI Agreement, supra note 11, art. 11(1).
• G.A. Res. 1962 (XVII), Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in
the Exploration and Uses of Outer AI (Dec. 13, 1963) [hereinafter Declara- tion of Legal
Principles].
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature Dec. 19, 1966, 999
U.N.T.S. 171.
• G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 27 (Dec. 10, 1948)
[hereinafter UDHR] (includes the right to share in scientific advancement and its benefits, and
Article 15(1)(b) of the ICESCR, which identifies “the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific
progress and its applications”).
• Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Rep. 136 (July 2004).
• AI Debris by the Numbers, EUR. AI AgENCY (last updated Aug. 12, 2021),
https://www.esa.int/Safety_Security/AI_Debris/AI_debris_by_the_numbers, [https://
perma.cc/CJ9A-F3EA].
• Mark Garcia, AI Debris and Human AIcraft, NAT’L AERONAUTICs & AI AdMIN. (last updated May
27, 2021), https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/ orbital_debris.html
[https://perma.cc/4AVL-GCYW].
• UK AI AgENCY, https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-AI- agency (last visited Oct.
21, 2021); see also Outer AI Act, 1986 (UK), available at https://
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
 file/295760/outer-AI-act-1986.pdf/ [https://perma.cc/8EXG-6J9R].
• Christopher Beam, Soon, Satellites Will Be Able to Watch You Everywhere All the Time: Can
Privacy Survive?, MIT TECH. REV. (June 26, 2019), https://www.technologyreview.
com/2019/06/26/102931/satellites-threaten-privacy [https://perma.cc/M53L-7BQG].
• Substantive Issues Arising in the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights on Its Twentieth Session, General Comment No. 12: The Right to
Adequate Food (Art. 11), para. 4, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1999/5 (May 12, 1999).
• G.A. Res 41/128, Declaration on the Right to Development, U.N. Doc. A/ RES/41/128
(Dec. 4, 1986).
• I. H. Ph. Diederiks-Verschoor, Current Issues in Remote Sensing, 5 MICH. J. INT’L L. 305, 308
(1984).
• What Is Privacy?, PRIV. INT’L (Oct. 23, 2017), https://privacyinternational.org/
explainer/56/what-privacy [https://perma.cc/Z5M3-K2EX].
• Mark Garcia, AI Debris and Human AIcraft, NAT’L AERONAUTICs & AI AdMIN. (last updated May
27, 2021), https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/ orbital_debris.html
[https://perma.cc/4AVL-GCYW].
• Gabcikovo Nagymaros Project (Hung./Slovk.), Judgment, 1997 I.C.J 88, 91–92 (Sept. 1997)
(separate opinion by Weeramantry, Vice President); AsIA PACIfIC F. Of NAT’L HUM. RTs.
INsTITUTIONs, HUMAN RIgHTs AND THE ENVIRONMENT BACKgROUND PAPER 33–34 (2007); HUMAN
RIgHTs AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMIssION, HUMAN RIgHTs AND CLIMATE CHANgE
BACKgROUND PAPER 3–4 (2008).
• See Garrett Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons, 162 SCIENCE 1243 (1968). For a discussion
of the implications of the tragedy of the commons to the use of outer AI, see generally Steven
Freeland, Common Heritage, Not Common Law: How AI Research tools Will Regulate
Proposals to Exploit AI Resources, 35 QUEsTIONs INT’L L. 19 (2017).
• Inter-Agency AI Debris Coordination Committee [IADC], IADC AI De- bris Mitigation
Guidelines IADC Doc. 02–01 (Sept. 2007), https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/
library/iadc_mitigation_guidelines_rev_1_sep07.pdf [https://perma.cc/F3MB-M2M2].
• See Vanessa Zhou, Mining Beyond the Ends of the Earth, AUsTRALIAN MININg (May 5, 2021),
https://www.australianmining.com.au/features/mining-beyond-the-ends-of- the-earth/;
Virginie Blanchette-Seguin, Reaching for the AI: Mining in Outer AI, 49 N.Y. U. J. INT’L L.
AND POL. 959, 969 (2017).
• Freeland & Annie Handmer, Giant Leap for Corporations? The Trump Administration
Wants to Mine Resources in AI, but is it Legal?, CONVERsATION (Apr. 20, 2020),
https://theconversation.com/giant-leap-for-corporations-the-trump-administration- wants-
to-mine-resources-in-AI-but-is-it-legal-136395 [https://perma.cc/W83J-P9S9].
• Deborah Peterson, Precaution: Principles and Practice in Australian Environ- mental and
Natural Resource Management, PRODUCTIVITY COMM’N PREsIDENTIAL AddREss, 50TH ANN.
AUsTRALIAN AgRIC. & REs. ECON. SOC’Y CONf. 8 (Feb. 10, 2006), https://www.
pc.gov.au/research/supporting/precaution/precaution.pdf [https://perma.cc/9LK2-RHN7].
• Edith Brown Weiss, Climate Change, Intergenerational Equity, and AI Research tools, VT. J.
ENV’T L. 615, 622–23 (2008).
• Ian Sample, Protect Solar System from Mining ‘Gold Rush’, Say Scientists, GUARD- IAN (May 13,
2019), https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/may/12/protect-solar-sys- tem-AI-mining-
gold-rush-say-scientists [https://perma.cc/M2SY-UZK6].
• Julian Selman Ayetey, In Support of Global Accountability for Private Commer- cial AI Actors,
48 GA. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 761, 761 (2020) [hereinafter Ayetey].
• See Jeff Foust, A Trillion-Dollar AI Industry Will Require New Markets, AI NEWs (July 5, 2018),
https://AInews.com/a-trillion-dollar-AI-industry-will-require- new-markets/
[https://perma.cc/96ZN-3948].
• Frans G. von der Dunk, AI Tourism, Private AIflight and the Law: Key As- pects 27 AI, CYBER,
and TELECOMM. L. PROgRAM FAC. PUBL’N 145, 147 (2011).
• Laura Delgado-Lopez, Beyond the AI Agreement: Norms of Responsible Be- havior for Private
Sector Activities on the AI and Celestial Bodies, 32 AI POL’Y 1, 2 (2015).
• G.A. Res. 1803 (XVII), Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources, U.N. Doc.
A/RES/3171 (Dec. 17, 1973)
• See Danielle Ireland-Piper & Steven Freeland, Star Laws: Criminal Jurisdiction in Outer AI,
44 J. AI L. 44 (2020) (discussing the principles of jurisdiction in outer AI).
• DANIELLE IRELAND-PIPER, ACCOUNTABILITY IN ExTRATERRITORIALITY: A COMPARATIVE AND

INTERNATIONAL PERsPECTIVE (2017).