Changing Legal Systems: Abrogation and Annulment Part I: Revision of Defeasible Theories

  • Guido Governatori
  • Antonino Rotolo
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5076)


In this paper we investigate how to model legal abrogation and annulment in Defeasible Logic. We examine some options that embed in this setting, and similar rule-based systems, ideas from belief and base revision. In both cases, our conclusion is negative, which suggests to adopt a different logical model.


Legal System Norm Change Belief Revision Legal Effect Strict Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 510–530 (1985)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(2), 255–287 (2001)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bassiliades, N., Antoniou, G., Vlahavas, I.: DR-DEVICE: A defeasible logic system for the Semantic Web. In: Bry, F., Henze, N., Małuszyński, J. (eds.) PPSWR 2003. LNCS, vol. 2901. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Billington, D., Antoniou, G., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Revising nonmonotonic belief sets: The case of defeasible logic. In: Burgard, W., Christaller, T., Cremers, A.B. (eds.) KI 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1701. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Di Giusto, P., Governatori, G.: A New Approach to Base Revision. In: Barahona, P., Alferes, J.J. (eds.) EPIA 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1695. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. MIT, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Billington, D., Antoniou, G.: Argumentation semantics for defeasible logics. Journal of Logic and Computation 14(5), 675–702 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Governatori, G., Palmirani, M., Riveret, R., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G.: Norm modifications in defeasible logic. In: Proc. JURIX 2005. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Governatori, G., Palmirani, M., Riveret, R., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G.: Variants of temporal defeasible logic for modelling norm modifications. In: Proc. ICAIL 2007. ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guastini, R.: Teoria e dogmatica delle fonti, Giuffré, Milan (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maher, M.J.: Propositional defeasible logic has linear complexity. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (6), 691–711 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nute, D.: Defeasible reasoning. In: Proceedings of 20th HICSS. IEEE press, Los Alamitos (1987)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prakken, H.: Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sartor, G.: Legal Reasoning. Springer, Dordrecht (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guido Governatori
    • 1
  • Antonino Rotolo
    • 2
  1. 1.School of ITEEThe University of QueenslandAustralia
  2. 2.CIRSFID/Law SchoolUniversity of BolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations