Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 14, Issue 1–2, pp 101–142 | Cite as

Fundamental legal concepts: A formal and teleological characterisation*

Article

Abstract

We shall introduce a set of fundamental legal concepts, providing a definition of each of them. This set will include, besides the usual deontic modalities (obligation, prohibition and permission), the following notions: obligative rights (rights related to other’s obligations), permissive rights, erga-omnes rights, normative conditionals, liability rights, different kinds of legal powers, potestative rights (rights to produce legal results), result-declarations (acts intended to produce legal determinations), and sources of the law.

Keywords

normative positions teleological reasoning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alchourrón C E. (1969) Logic of Norms and Logic of Normative Propositions. Logique et analyse 12:242–68MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Alchourrón C. E., Bulygin E. (1971). Normative Systems. Springer, ViennaMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexy R. (1985). Theorie der Grundrechte. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen L. E., Saxon C. S. (1991). A-Hohfeld: A Language for Robust Structural Representation of Knowledge in the Legal Domain to Build Interpretation-Assistance Expert Systems. In: Meyer J.-J. C., Wieringa R. J. (eds) Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Vrjie Universiteit, Amsterdam, pp. 52–71Google Scholar
  5. Artikis, A., Sergot, M. J., and Pitt, J. (2002). Specifying Electronic Societies with the Causal Calculator. In AOSE 2002, 1–15Google Scholar
  6. Artikis, A., Sergot, M. J., and Pitt, J. (2003). An Executable Specification of an Argumentation Protocol. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL), 1–11. ACM: New York, N.YGoogle Scholar
  7. Azzoni, G. (1997). Regola tecnica. In Digesto, Vol. 14, 470–475, Turin: UtetGoogle Scholar
  8. Bentham, J. (1970). Of Laws in General. In H. L. A. Hart (ed.). Athlone: London (1st ed. 1872)Google Scholar
  9. Brinz A. (1873). Lehrbuch der Pandekten. Deichert, ErlangenGoogle Scholar
  10. Calabresi G., Malamed A. D. (1972). Property Rules, Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral. Harvard Law Journal 85:1089–128Google Scholar
  11. Conte A. G. (1985). Materiali per una tipologia delle regole. Materiali per una storia della cultura giuridica 15:345–368Google Scholar
  12. Engisch K. (1968). Die Idee der Konkretisierung in Recht und Rechtswissenshaft unserer Zeit. Winter, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  13. Esteva, M., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J. A., Sierra, C., Garcia, P., and Arcos, J. L. (2001). On the Formal Specification of Electronic Institutions. In Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce, The European AgentLink Perspective, 126–147. Springer: BerlinGoogle Scholar
  14. Gelati, J., Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., and Sartor, G. (2002). Declarative Power, Representation, and Mandate: A Formal Analysis. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX), 41–52. IOS: AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  15. Giunchiglia E., Lee J., Lifschitz V., McCain N., Turner H. (2004). Non-monotonic Causal Theories. Artificial Intelligence 153:49–104CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Gordon T. F. (1988). The Importance of Non-monotonicity for Legal Reasoning. In: Fiedler H., Haft F., Traunmüller R. (eds) Expert Systems in Law: Impacts on Legal Theory and Computer Law. Attempto: Tübingen, pp. 111–126Google Scholar
  17. Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., and Sartor, G. (2005). Normative Positions in Defeasible Logic. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL), 25–34. ACM: New York, N.YGoogle Scholar
  18. Grice P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  19. Hage J. C. (1997). Reasoning with Rules: An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  20. Hage J. C. (2005). Studies in Legal Logics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  21. Haggard T. R. (1996). Legal Drafting. West Publishing, St. Paul, MinnGoogle Scholar
  22. Hart H. L.A. (1951). The Ascription of Responsibility and Rights. In: Flew A. (ed) Logic and Language. Blackwell: Oxford, pp. 145–166Google Scholar
  23. Hart H. L. A. (1961). The Concept of Law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Hart H. L. A. (1982). Essays on Bentham. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Herrestad H. (1995). Formal Theories of Rights. Juristforbundets, OsloGoogle Scholar
  26. Herrestad, H., and Krogh, C. (1995). Obligations Directed from Bearers to Counterparties. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL), 210–218. ACM: New York, N.YGoogle Scholar
  27. Hohfeld W. N. (1913). Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning. I. Yale Law Journal 23: 16–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hohfeld W. N. (1917). Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning. II. Yale Law Journal 26:710–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Horwich P. (1998). Truth. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones, A. J., and Parent, X. (2003). Conventional Signalling Acts and Conversation. In Dignum, F. (ed.), Advances in Agent Communication, International Workshop on Agent Communication Languages, ACL 2003, Melbourne, Australia, July 14, 2003. Springer: BerlinGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones A. J., Pörn I. (1985). Ideality, Subideality and Deontic Logic. Synthese 65:275–290CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. Jones A. J., and M. J. Sergot. (1992). Formal Specification of Security Requirements Using the Theory of Normative Positions. In: Deswarte Y. (ed) Proceeding of Computer Security – ESORICS 92, Second European Symposium on Research in Computer Security, Toulouse, France, November 23–25. Springer, Berlin, pp. 103–121Google Scholar
  33. Jones A. J., Sergot M. J. (1996). A Formal Characterisation of Institutionalised Power. Journal of the IGPL 4:429–45MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Kanger S. (1971). New Foundations for Ethical Theory. In: Hilpinen R. (ed) Deontic Logic. Reidel: Dordrecht, pp. 36–58Google Scholar
  35. Kanger S. (1972). Law and Logic. Theoria 38:105–132MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kelsen H. (1960). Reine Rechtslehre. Franz Deuticke, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  37. Kelsen, H. (1967). The Pure Theory of Law. Trans. M. Knight. University of California Press: Berkeley, Cal. (1st ed. in German 1960)Google Scholar
  38. Kowalski R. A., Sergot M. J. (1986) A Logic-based Calculus of Events. New Generation Computing 4:67–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krogh C., Herrestad H. (1996). Getting Personal: Some Notes on the Relationship between Personal and Impersonal Obligation. In: Brown M, Carmo J. (ed) Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems. Springer: Berlin, pp. 134–153Google Scholar
  40. Krogh K. (1997). Normative Structures in Natural and Artificial Systems. Tano, OsloGoogle Scholar
  41. Lindahl L. (1977). Position and Change: A Study in Law and Logic. Dordrecht, ReidelGoogle Scholar
  42. MacCormick D. N. (1995). Defeasibility in Law and Logic. In: Bankowski Z., White I., Hahn U. (ed) Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp. 99–117Google Scholar
  43. MacCormick N. (1976). Children’s Rights: A Test-Case for Theories of Rights. Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 32:305–317Google Scholar
  44. Makinson D. (1986). On the Formal Representation of Rights Relations. Journal of Philosophical Logic 15:403–425CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. McCarty L. T. (1986). Permissions and Obligations: An Informal Introduction. In: Martino A. A., Socci F. (ed) Automated Analysis of Legal Texts. North Holland: Amsterdam, pp. 307–337Google Scholar
  46. McCarty, L. T. (1989). A Language for Legal Discourse: I Basic Features. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL), 180–189. ACM: New York, N.YGoogle Scholar
  47. Meyer J.-J. C. (1988). A Different Approach to Deontic Logic: Deontic Logic Viewed as a Variant of Dynamic Logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 29:109–136CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Pettit P. (1997). Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Pörn I. (1977). Action Theory and Social Science: Some Formal Models. Reidel, DordrechtMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. Prakken H., Sartor G. (1996). Rules about Rules: Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4:331–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Prakken H., Vreeswijk G. A. W. (2002). Logical Systems for Defeasible Argumentation. In: Gabbay D., Günthner F. (ed) Handbook of Philosophical Logic. Kluwer: Dordrecht, pp. 218–319Google Scholar
  52. Raz J. (1984). On the Nature of Rights. Mind 93:194–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ross A. (1968). Directives and Norms. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  54. Santos, F. A. A., Jones, A. J., and Carmo, J. (1997). Action Concepts for Describing Organised Interaction. In Thirtieth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer SocietyGoogle Scholar
  55. Sartor G. (2005). Legal Reasoning: A Cognitive Approach to the Law. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  56. Searle J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  57. Searle J. R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. Free, New York, N.YGoogle Scholar
  58. Sen A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Random House, New York, N.YGoogle Scholar
  59. Sergot M. J. (1999). Normative Positions. In: McNamara P., Prakken H. (ed) Norms, Logics and Information Systems. IOS: Amsterdam, pp. 289–308Google Scholar
  60. Sergot M. J. (2001). A Computational Theory of Normative Positions. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2:581–662CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  61. Sergot M. J., Richards R. C. M. (2001). On the Representation of Action and Agency in the Theory of Normative Positions. Fundamenta Informaticae 48: 273–293MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  62. Strawson P. F. (1964). Intentions and Conventions in Speech Acts. Philosophical Review 73:439–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. von Jhering R. (1924). Geist des römischen Rechts auf den verschiedenen Stufen seiner Entwicklung. Breitköpf und Härtel, Leipzig (1st ed. 1852–1865)Google Scholar
  64. von Wright G. H. (1951). Deontic Logic. Mind 60:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. von Wright G. H. (1963). Norm and Action: A Logical Inquiry. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  66. von Wright G. H. (1983). Norms, Truth and Logic. In: Practical Reason, 130–209. Blackwell: LondonGoogle Scholar
  67. Windscheid B. (1887). Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 6th ed. Rütten und Loening, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  68. Zitelmann E. (1879). Irrtum und Rechtsgeschäft: Eine psychologisch-juristische Untersuchung. Duncker and Humblot, LeipzigGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Marie-Curie Professor of Legal informatics and Legal TheoryEuropean University InstituteFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.CIRSFID, University of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations