Logics for Legal Dynamics

  • Guido GovernatoriEmail author
  • Antonino Rotolo
Part of the Legisprudence Library book series (LEGIS, volume 2)


Legal dynamics is an important aspect of legal reasoning that inspired the area of belief revision. While formal models of belief revision have been thoroughly examined, the formalisation of legal dynamics has been mostly neglected. In this contribution we propose Temporal Defeasible Logic to model legal dynamics . We build such a logic in steps starting from basic defeasible logic , and we show how to use it to model different forms of modifications such as derogations, textual modifications, abrogation and annulment.


Norm change Legal dynamics Defeasible logic Temporal reasoning Theory revision 



NICTA is funded by the Australian Government through the Department of Communications and the Australian Research Council through the ICT Centre of Excellence Program.


  1. Alchourrón, Carlos E., and Eugenio Bulygin. 1981. The expressive conception of norms. In New studies in deontic logic, ed. Risto Hilpinen, 95–125. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  2. Alchourrón, C., and E. Bulygin. 1984. Permission and permissive norms. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  3. Alchourrón, C., and P. Gärdenfors. 1985. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50:510–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alchourrón, C., and D. Makinson. 1981. Hierarchies of regulations and their logic. In New studies in deontic logic, ed. R. Hilpinen, 125–148. Boston: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alchourrón, C., and D. Makinson. 1982. The logic of theory change: Contraction functions and their associated revision functions. Theoria 48:14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Billington, D., G. Antoniou, G. Governatori, and M. Maher. 2010. An inclusion theorem for defeasible logic. ACM Transactions in Computational Logic 12(1):6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boella, G. G. Pigozzi, and L. van der Torre. 2009. A normative framework for norm change. In 8th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2009), 169–176. Richland: IFAAMAS.Google Scholar
  8. Dung, P. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental. Artificial Intelligence 77(2):321–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gabbay, D., G. Pigozzi, J. Woods, and D. Walton. 2003. Controlled revision – An algorithmic approach for belief revision. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(1):3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gordon, T., H. Prakken. 2007. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–11):875–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Governatori, G. (2011). On the relationship between Carneades and defeasible logic. In The 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL 2011), ed. K. Ashley, 31–40. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  12. Governatori, G., and A. Rotolo. 2010. Changing legal systems: Legal abrogations and annulments in defeasible logic. The Logic Journal of IGPL 18(1):157–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Governatori, Guido, and Antonino Rotolo. 2013. Computing temporal defeasible logic. In 7th international symposium on theory, practice, and applications of rules on the web (RuleML 2013), ed. Leora Morgenstern, Petros S. Stefaneas, François Lévy, Adam Wyner, and Adrian Paschke. LNCS, vol. 8035, 114-128. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Governatori, Guido, and Giovanni Sartor. 2010. Burdens of proof in monological argumentation. In The twenty-third annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems (Jurix 2010), ed. Radboud Winkels, vol.223, 57–66. Amsterdam: IOS Press. doi:
  15. Governatori, G., M. Maher, D. Billington, and G. Antoniou. 2004. Argumentation semantics for defeasible logics. Journal of Logic and Computation 14(5):675–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Governatori, Guido, Monica Palmirani, Régis Riveret, Antonino Rotolo, and Giovanni Sartor. 2005a. Norm modifications in defeasible logic. In The eighteenth annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems (Jurix 2005), ed. Marie-Francine Moens and Peter Spyns, 13–22. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  17. Governatori, Guido, Antonino Rotolo, and Giovanni Sartor. 2005b. Temporalised normative positions in defeasible logic. In The 10th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL 2005), ed. Anne Gardner, 25–34. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  18. Governatori, G., J. Hulstijn, R. Riveret, and A. Rotolo. 2007a. Characterising deadlines in temporal modal defeasible. In 20th Australian joint conference on artificial intelligence, ed. M. Orgun, and J. Thornton, 486–496. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Governatori, Guido, Antonino Rotolo, Régis Riveret, Monica Palmirani, and Giovanni Sartor. 2007. Variants of temporal defeasible logic for modelling norm modifications. In The 11th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL 2007), ed. Radboud Winkels, 155–159. New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1276318.1276347.Google Scholar
  20. Governatori, G., F. Olivieri, A. Rotolo, and S. Scannapieco. 2013a. Computing strong and weak permissions in defeasible. Journal of Philosophical Logic 42(6):799–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Governatori, G., A. Rotolo, F. Olivieri, and S. Scannapieco. 2013b. Legal contractions: A logical analysis. In The 14th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL 2013), ed. B. Verheij, 63–72. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  22. Guastini, Riccardo. 1998. Teoria e dogmatica delle fonti. Milan: Giuffré.Google Scholar
  23. Hart, H.L.A. 1994. The concept of law. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  24. Kelsen, Hans. 1991. General theory of norms. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nute, Donald. 1994. Defeasible logic. In Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programmingI, ed. Gabbay, Dov M., Hogger, Christopher John, and John Alan Robinson, vol.3, 353-395. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rotolo, A. (2010). Retroactive legal changes and revision theory in defeasible logic. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on deontic logic in computer science (DEON 2010), ed. Governatori, G., and G. Sartor, 116–131. Berlin/New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Soeteman, A. (1989). Logic in law. Dodrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stolpe, A. (2010). Norm-system revision: Theory and application. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18(3):247–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. von Wright, Georg Henrik. 1963. Norm and action: A logical inquiry. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  30. Wheeler, G., and M. Alberti. 2011. NO revision and NO contraction. Minds and Machines 21(3):411–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NICTA and Queensland University of TechnologyQLDAustralia
  2. 2.CIRSFID and Department of Legal StudiesUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations