作为验证方法的限定交叉引用：欧盟人工智能法案的规范环境
Qualified Cross-References as a Verification Method: The Normative Environment of the EU AI Act
浏览论文内容
中文总结 AI 辅助
本文提出条款级限定交叉引用模型与构建协议，通过14份欧盟AI法案相关文书语料库开发，经协议验证发现多处引用与限定错误，为监管环境提供图谱及可复现的交叉引用知识库测试方法。
中文摘要 AI 辅助
法律交叉引用通常表示为法律文书或条款之间的链接。对于经整理的法律知识库而言，链接的存在只是主张的开端：它还必须说明交互的法律性质、确定支持它的条款、保留其条件，并且从任一文书访问时都保持一致性。本文提出了一种条款级模型和限定交叉引用的构建协议，该模型和协议通过围绕《欧盟2024/1689号条例》（即人工智能法案）的14份文书双语语料库开发而成。该模型区分了直接文本引用、有限合格推定、无文本引用的实质性交互、中介交叉和制度类比，并将适用交互和定义重叠视为独立维度。方法论贡献在于双向反转：从法案A到法案B记录的关系，需从B的角度结合两者的条款进行重构。反转并非重复表格，而是一种验证操作，在确定关系应如何从任一侧呈现之前，会测试条款、限定条件、方向和条件。在构建过程中应用该协议后，发现了6处错误的条款引用、3处不准确的法律限定，以及同一种交互的两种已发布描述之间的1处分歧。该语料库还表明了限定条件的重要性：对《欧盟2019/881号条例》的一项引用，为高风险系统赋予了人工智能法案的有限网络安全推定，而相关产品立法则通过法律上不同的机制使用相同的认证框架。因此，本研究的贡献是一张监管环境图谱，以及一种可复现的方法，用于使经整理的交叉引用知识库具备可检查性和内部可测试性。
英文摘要
Legal cross-references are commonly represented as links between instruments or provisions. In a curated legal knowledge base, a link must also identify the legal character of the interaction, its supporting provisions and conditions, and remain consistent from either instrument. This paper presents a provision-level model and a protocol for qualified cross-references, developed through a bilingual corpus of fourteen instruments surrounding Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the AI Act). The model distinguishes direct textual reference, bounded presumption of conformity, substantive interaction without textual reference, mediated intersection, and institutional analogy; applicative interaction and definitional overlap are independent dimensions. Its methodological contribution is bidirectional inversion: a relationship documented from act A towards act B is reconstructed from B's perspective against both instruments. This verification tests provisions, qualification, direction, and conditions before deciding how to render the relationship from either side. Applied during construction, the protocol surfaced six incorrect article references, three inaccurate legal qualifications, and one divergence between two published descriptions of the same interaction. A reference to Regulation (EU) 2019/881 illustrates why qualification matters: the AI Act's bounded cybersecurity presumption differs from other product legislation's uses of the same certification framework. The contribution is a map of one regulatory environment and an explicitly specified method for making curated cross-reference knowledge bases inspectable and internally testable. A later, separately scoped corpus audit is discussed among the limitations, without pooling its findings with the original measurements; limited access to historical inputs constrains independent reproduction.
发表机构
- Studio Legale Fabiano（法比亚诺律师事务所）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。
